Some Things Ever Thus
SurveyUSA did an interesting experiment, running Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama against John McCain in Alabama and California. The answers? Shockingly obvious: McCain crushes both (Hillary by 20%, Barack by 24%) Democrats in Alabama, while both crush him in California. To add another layer of symmetry, Clinton does 4 points better in losing in Alabama. And Obama does 4 points better in winning California.
--Josh Marshall
Going to the Experts
Does Obama have a patriotism problem?
The AP's Nedra Pickler asks disgraced Republican dirty-trickster Roger Stone for his opinion. Stone you'll remember is the guy who got caught making threatening phone calls to New York Gov. Spitzer's (D-NY) elderly father and last month set up an anti-Hillary group with the acronym C-U-N-T.
Surprisingly enough, Stone thinks the answer is yes.
--Josh Marshall
Standing Firm
Republicans go on the air with new telecom immunity attack ad ...
--Josh Marshall
Bush Pentagon
It would appear that we have another case where the Bush Pentagon, particularly the Office of Public Affairs is forcefully inserting itself into the civilian election process. Earlier today I referenced Barack Obama's anecdote from Thursday night's Democratic debate about an Army Captain in Afghanistan who said his unit had had to get from captured Taliban ammunition they weren't able to get quickly enough through standard Army supply channels. ABCNews' Jake Tapper talked to the soldier in question, who confirmed the story he'd told Obama. Now NBC News also appears to have confirmed the story by talking to the Army Captain in question.
But Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman is telling reporters he doesn't think it's true and that of course they can't confirm it unless the soldier -- still on active duty -- comes forward to discuss the issue with the Pentagon brass, a step that would surely do wonders for his future in the Army.
I don't know how far this is going to go. Phillip Carter, the military affairs writer who's in the reserves and did a tour in Iraq, says that from his own experience in Iraq and discussions with Afghanistan vets who report doing the same thing as the anonymous captain, he finds the story "eminently believable." But this is becoming a pattern in which political appointees at the Bush Pentagon volubly insert themselves into domestic political debate or even election campaigns.
Expect this to be a major factor in this year's election campaign.
--Josh Marshall
Not Looking Good
Maybe they'd prefer to go back to the affair story?
When John McCain went before the press on Wednesday to deny having an affair with lobbyist Vicki Iseman, he also made a series of categorical denials about the non-sex, influence peddling part of the story. Only many or most of those claims now appear to be demonstrably false.
McCain said and his office later released a statement claiming that McCain hadn't met with anyone from either Paxson Communications (the broadcaster wanting the favors) or Alcalde & Fay (the lobby shop trying to get them the favors). Today, though, Newsweek's Michael Isikoff dug up a 2002 deposition in which McCain said that he had discussed the issue directly with Lowell Paxson, the head of Paxson Communications. Now the Post has asked Paxson himself, now retired, and he says, Yep, I met with McCain and asked him to write the letters. And he thinks he remembers Iseman being in the meeting too.
--Josh Marshall
Straight Talk ... Inc.
We're sort of surprised no one flagged this till now.
Turns out John McCain is such a scourge of lobbyists everywhere that his senior advisor, GOP lobbyist Charlie Black, is now conducting most of his lobbying work by phone from the Straight Talk Express.
I have to confess that this new detail has vanquished my ability to snark.
--Josh Marshall
McCain to FEC: Blow it out your #$%
John McCain has now responded to the FEC Commissioner's letter telling him he cannot opt out of the public financing system without the FEC's approval. That just his "opinion," says McCain.
For a detailed discussion of the issues involved, see this earlier post.
--Josh Marshall
Failing the Boehner Standard?
Minority Leader Boehner is telling Rep. Rick Renzi, who's just been indicted for wire fraud, extortion, money laundering and a few other things, should resign. Meanwhile, John McCain, who has Renzi as one of his Arizona campaign co-chairs, says he doesn't "know enough of the details to make a judgment."
--Josh Marshall
Wingnut Brigade Mowed Down At Obama Ridge
In last night's debate, when Barack Obama floated that anecdote about US soldiers in Afghanistan who had an easier time getting the ammunition they needed from captured Taliban than through Army supply channels, I remember thinking -- I don't think we've heard the last of this story. Obama said he'd heard the story from an Army Captain describing his unit's experience in-country.
Often in cases like this, even if the story is completely on the up-and-up, the pol will get some fairly inconsequential detail wrong. Or even if they get it all right, they get whacked around because some pundit who's read a few John Keegan books decides it can't possibly be true. And the rightwing blogs have apparently been going nuts over it since last night.
But Jake Tapper picked up the phone, asked the Obama campaign to put him in touch with the Captain, called the Captain in question, and the story checks in every detail.
Jake's got the details.
--Josh Marshall
Fun, Fun, Fun ...
How is John McCain's attempt to back out of the public financing system getting tripped up by the failed nomination of vote-suppression guru Hans von Spakovsky? Whose evil genius was brought to light by the US Attorney scandal?
And how is it that if John McCain goes ahead and keeps spending money over the campaign finance limits he agreed to abide by back in August he could, at least in theory, do five years hard time in the slammer?
We unravel this and other mysteries of McCain's campaign finance 'Now I'm in, Now I'm not!' boogaloo in Paul Kiel's latest installment at TPMmuckraker.com.
--Josh Marshall
Oops ...
I was wondering when we'd hear from Isikoff on this McCain business. (Remember, he was one of the other reporters in the hunt, one or more of whom seems to have prompted the Times to pull the trigger.) It seems that one of McCain's sweeping denials from that presser yesterday morning is contradicted by a very good source: a deposition McCain gave back in 2002. Isikoff's got the details.
Let's step back for a moment from this particular 'misrecollection'. Watching McCain over the last couple days particularly and in general over many years, the guy really has a problem with making blanket and obviously false denials. In fact, the obviousness is often so extreme that it can't be a matter of strategy, at least not in a very thought out sense. In this case, he makes a blanket statement and there's a written record of McCain himself contradicting his statement. You'll notice also yesterday he grandly stated that he'd never spoken with the Times about the story. Then about 30 seconds later a reporter brought up the pretty obvious point that, well ... the article discusses McCain's talk with Bill Keller. And of course McCain quickly backtracks, since clearly what he had just said was completely ridiculous.
You'll also notice, though I'm not sure anyone has really made this point that clearly, that he also claimed that he and his office hadn't tried to prevent the Times from publishing the story. Well, pulling out all the stops and having all these conversations with the Times and hiring Bob Bennett to go toe to toe with them probably counts as trying to stop the story.
Then there's this video ThinkProgress came up with yesterday where McCain tells a New Hampshire townhall meeting that he says: "Everybody says that they’re against the special interests. I’m the only one the special interests don’t give any money to."
It's almost too ridiculous to even try refuting. Needless to say McCain gets tons of money and always has from pretty much all the same special interests that everyone else gets money from.
There's no way of getting around the fact that McCain routinely, almost constantly, issues categorical denials that are demonstrably false. The very volume and clarity of the bogusness of so many of these statements might even be viewed as his best defense.
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read
The Washington Post focuses on the context for yesterday's Times story: the Maverick reformer's close relationship with lobbyists.
--Paul Kiel
TPMtv: Straight Talk, Express Version
All indications are that John McCain plans to contest this fall's election on the basis of one issue: war. Iraq, his preparedness to be Commander-in-Chief, the War on Terror and more wars. So in today's episode of TPMtv we pull together a lickity split package of what the Arizona senator has been saying on the topic during the primaries ...
Watch this episode on YouTube.
--Josh Marshall
My Question
I alluded to this in my debate sum-up below. But one of my big questions about this debate was Hillary Clinton's lack of aggressiveness toward Barack Obama. I think it spoke very well of her on a number of levels -- personally, as a potential leader, etc. She made her case on her merits and policies.
But there is no mistaking the fact that by every metric and every visible trendline Barack Obama is in the process of winning the nomination. At least conventional political logic would dictate that she had no choice but to go after him just as she has been doing on the campaign trail.
But she didn't.
Some are saying that she realizes she's losing and she wants to lose gracefully or not damage the interests of the Democratic party in the fall. Others that the tack she took is actually the best one for her to take. I suspect it's a bit of both.
But that was the big silence in this debate.
--Josh Marshall
That Line
I mentioned at the end of my debate blog that the pivot of Hillary's powerful concluding remarks came from Bill Clinton's 92 campaign. Clinton had various permutations to it back then. But TPM Reader CG found one example in this November 1992 article by Anna Quindlen ...
Clinton, 92: "The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits the people of this state and this country have been taking for a long time."
Hillary Clinton, tonight: "You know, the hits I’ve taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country."
Just to be 100% clear, there's nothing in the least wrong with this. And it's a great line. But I think it shows the silliness of the 'plagiarism' charges based on a few borrowed lines. Politicians borrow good lines and catch-phrases. Happens all the time. There's nothing wrong with it.
--Josh Marshall
Sum Up
My reaction to tonight's debate is similar to last few, especially the last one. Both candidates had a good debate. The level of specificity and detail in discussions of policy questions spoke well of both of them. Hillary had a strong closing. Obama has clearly improved as a debater and seemed to embody the frontrunner mantle. All of this points basically to a tie. And in the context of where this campaign is, a tie is a win for Obama because he's winning. And Clinton needs to change the dynamic of the campaign.
Notwithstanding the inflamed partisans on both sides, I think the great majority of Democrats like both these candidates, genuinely like and admire both of them. You could feel that in the responses from the audience tonight. But that pleasant equilibrium is losing the race for her right now.
--Josh Marshall
Lone Star Debate Bloggin'
(Placeholder because nothing's happened yet.)
Let the uncomfortable moments begin!
8:09 PM ... Stage nicely set with two ponderous introductory remarks.
8:19 PM ... We get underway with some initial jousting over the hot-button issue of whether to negotiate with foreign dictators with small unnamed conditions or more extensive unnamed preconditions.
8:23 PM ... TPM Reader SH asks: "Why do they keep making the candidates sit during these debates?" Good question. I think experience shows it makes for a less confrontational debate, for better or worse.
8:27 PM ... I'm now coming out for a new federal law mandating that I get to see what the candidates are writing down on those little notepads. You too. We both can see.
8:40 PM ... The undeniable reality is that these two candidates do agree on most issues. And the disagreements tend to be ones of emphasis. But to the extent that Obama can keep saying, Yep, Sen. Clinton and I pretty much agree on this one too, let me add a few points -- that's a big win for him because she's the one that needs to shake up the race and find some differences to pivot against.
8:46 PM ... I note that we've gone forty-five minutes with well-spoken and broad-minded discussions of the issues from each candidate. The absence of Russert, Matthews and similar jollymakers is painfully evident.
8:51 PM ... Hillary gets the 'put up or shut up' question.
8:52 PM ... Hillary gives a pretty thoughtful, frank and fairminded response. Gets off a barb at the end. But still a pretty sensible answer.
8:54 PM ... Obama comes back with a response to which pretty much all the same adjectives apply. But more spark.
8:57 PM ... Obama gets the 'plagiarism' question. Does pretty well with it. I must confess, this whole 'plagiarism' debate is almost offensive in its militant silliness.
9:00 PM ... Alright, let the nastiness begin.
9:06 PM ... Okay, nastiness interlude didn't last long. Back to health care. Barack's answer was, I think, a good illustration of the bind Hillary's in at the moment. He keeps drawing back from fights and lays out policy differences which he says reasonable can disagree on, etc. Kind of like a boxer who won't let an opponent get in close or a football team ahead late in the game who won't call anything but safe ground plays that run the clock and give little opportunity to force a turnover.
9:11 PM ... Hillary yanks it back to the health care debate. But it's hard for me to see that Hillary doesn't have the better part of the policy question. If the young and healthy don't have to buy in, there's not enough money for the ailing and old to be covered -- or for the vast middle who are healthy but might suddenly not be. I don't see a way around that. And that's the rub to this whole debate. Not just this debate right now within the Democratic party, but the whole question of health care.
9:16 PM ... I don't see how Sen. Clinton can say she's been representing the United States for 15 years. I know this is a dicey topic. But she wasn't president from 1993-2001. What am i missing? Here's the quote: "For more than 15 years, I’ve been honored to represent our country in more than 80 countries, to negotiate on matters such as opening borders for refugees during the war in Kosovo, to stand up for women’s rights as human rights around the world."
9:35 PM ... This earmark issue, as it's become framed, is really silly. Earmarks are a matter of the congress stipulating some spending priorities rather than the executive. The issue is almost, not all, but almost all one of transparency. There is nothing inherently wrong with earmarks, though in practice they've caused a lot of problems and have been a playground for the corrupt. And on McCain, put me down as highly suspicious on his claims about earmarks. But that's a topic for another night.
9:46 PM ... That was an interesting final moment to end on for Hillary. Candy Crowley is on CNN now saying how it was a good connect moment for HIllary, which I suspect it may have been. But we all do remember that those words were borrowed from Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign, right?
--Josh Marshall
Not That FCC Commissioner, This One!
Down in the weeds of today's McCain presser was the senator's reference to that controversy over his letters to the FCC about Paxson Communications back in 2000 and McCain's claim that "the former chairman of the FCC at the time in 2000" said there was no problem with the letters. We thought the common sense interpretation of that remark was that he was referring to William Kennard, the former FCC commissioner who the letters were addressed to. Au Contraire, the McCain camp tells Jake Tapper at ABCNews. It wasn't Bill Kennard, the former FCC Chair who was in office in 2000. It was Reed Hundt, who was the former FCC Chair back in 2000. Here's Jake. Here's Paul's response.
--Josh Marshall
783rd Debate
Just to let you know, there's another Democratic debate tonight hosted down in Texas hosted by CNN. It starts at 8 PM Eastern. And we'll be blogging it live.
--Josh Marshall
Unrelated Slimeballatry
I don't think it has anything specifically to do with the McCain-Iseman story. But when I saw Paxson Communications' name come up as the main lobbying client on behalf of whom Iseman was trying to entice McCain, I couldn't help but remember the reporting I'd done on these gamesters back in the beginning of the decade. Back in 2001 Paxson was the lead local TV station owner trying to squeeze tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars out of taxpayers based on their bogus claims to ownership of gobs of broadcast spectrum -- just the sort of high-stakes taxpayer rip-off that it pays to have a lot of lawmakers in your pocket to pull off.
Here's the article.
--Josh Marshall
No, No and No
I haven't had a chance to say much about the day's events yet. I've been trying to get over a cold which seems much more tenacious than the usual ones. Seems others have too -- I guess it's going around. We've already given you our take on the McCain story in a few posts on different TPM sites -- the consensus being that at least on the basis of what made it into print it seems a tad thin. But a few thoughts occurred to me as I was watching McCain's presser. As Paul Kiel pointed out earlier today, McCain at best misstated the facts of the FCC matter. I think I also heard him say that his office made no effort to get the Times not to run the story? Can he possibly be serious about that? Didn't he hire Bob Bennett to take this up with the Times back in December? And has he really not talked to John Weaver about this since they found out the Times was working the story? That's difficult for me to believe though it's certainly more possible than the 'no effort to kill the story' line which is demonstrably false.
--Josh Marshall
Sign of the Times
It's not all bad for John McCain, apparently.
The McCain campaign just sent out an email solicitation trying to raise money off of the NYT story.
Late Update: The RNC just sent out a fundraising email, too, claiming, "The New York Times has proven once again that the liberal mainstream media will do whatever it takes to put Senator Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the White House."
--David Kurtz
Pushback on the Pushback
A couple of things John McCain said at his press conference this morning didn't pass the smell test.
The first was when he claimed that the then-chairman of the FCC said that it was "more than an appropriate role" for McCain to have sent a letter to the Commission about a pending matter, one that involved a lobbying client of Vicki Iseman's. Paul Kiel tackles that one at TPMmuckraker.
The other comment from McCain that rang as false was when he said that he had not tried to get The Times to spike the story. He personally may not have, but his campaign staff certainly did, according to a number of reports, including the latest from The New Republic. Its exhaustive backgrounder on the story behind the story describes some of the McCain camp pushback:
From the outset, the Times reporters encountered stiff resistance from the McCain camp. After working on the story for several weeks, Thompson learned that McCain had personally retained Bill Clinton's former attorney Bob Bennett to defend himself against the Times' questioning. At the same time, two McCain campaign advisers, Mark Salter and Charlie Black, vigorously pressed the Times reporters to drop the matter. And in early December, McCain himself called Keller to deny the allegations on the record. …"There's absolutely no story there. And it'd be a mistake for you to write about a non-story that didn't run," McCain adviser Charlie Black told me last week. "Drudge shouldn't have put that up. He didn't know what the hell he was doing." …
Two members of the McCain team had contacted TNR's editor to pressure him not to investigate the story. …
Let's be clear. Pushback is normal, and there's not anything particularly unusual about the pushback that occurred here. But it certainly seems to have occurred, contrary to what McCain suggested at his press conference.
--David Kurtz
Why Now?
The New Republic is out with its story about the internal deliberations at the Times over the McCain story.
By some accounts, the fact that TNR was prepping this story is what prompted the Times to publish when it did, although the truth is somewhat more complicated than that, it appears.
However, if you were looking for a complete answer to the question, Why publish now?, TNR doesn't have it either. For instance:
In late December, according to Times sources, Keller told the reporters and the story's editor, Rebecca Corbett, that he was holding the piece in part because they could not secure documentary proof of the alleged affair beyond anecdotal evidence. Keller felt that given the on-the-record-denials by McCain and Iseman, the reporters needed more than the circumstantial evidence they had assembled to prove the case.
The story the Times published has no documentary evidence of the affair. The only circumstantial evidence that jumps out to me is that some aides were "[c]onvinced the relationship had become romantic."
So what changed?
--David Kurtz
Will Iseman Speak?
We're told that Vicki Iseman is considering issuing her own statement about the NYT story.
Meanwhile, Alcalde and Fay, her lobbying shop, has released a blistering denunciation of the Times piece.
--David Kurtz
Keller Defends Times Story
Times Executive Editor Bill Keller has released a statement, defending the paper's piece today on John McCain:
"On the substance, we think the story speaks for itself. On the timing, our policy is, we publish stories when they are ready."'Ready' means the facts have been nailed down to our satisfaction, the subjects have all been given a full and fair chance to respond, and the reporting has been written up with all the proper context and caveats.
"This story was no exception. It was a long time in the works. It reached my desk late Tuesday afternoon. After a final edit and a routine check by our lawyers, we published it."
--David Kurtz
What's the "There" There?
The Horse's Mouth says: When it comes to the question of a McCain affair, you can't help but conclude that The Times just didn't have or couldn't share the goods -- and thus shouldn't have gone there.
--David Kurtz
Mittmentum That Might Have Been
Mitt's staff laments what might have been if the Times had popped the cork sooner.
--Josh Marshall
"It's Not True"
John McCain and wife Cindy appeared at an early morning press conference to respond to the NYT story:
--David Kurtz
Open Thread
We've got a discussion going at TPMCafe about the McCain story and all its various head-scratching aspects. Feel free to join in.
--David Kurtz
Today's Must Read
As if he didn't have enough going on this morning, John McCain may not be able to drop out of public financing for the primary campaign.
It goes back to that campaign loan he secured with a promise to accept public financing.
Now that he wants to opt out, the FEC is saying, essentially, not so fast.
--David Kurtz
WaPo: McCain's Ties To Lobbyist Rattled Advisers
The Washington Post follows on the heels of the NYT piece on John McCain with its own story about McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman:
Aides to Sen. John McCain confronted a female telecommunications lobbyist in late 1999 and asked her to distance herself from the senator during the presidential campaign he was about to launch, according to one of McCain's longest-serving political strategists.John Weaver, who served as McCain's closest confidant until leaving his current campaign last year, said he met with Vicki Iseman at the Center Cafe in Union Station and urged her to stay away from McCain. Association with a lobbyist would undermine his image as an opponent of special interests, aides had concluded.
Members of the senator's small circle of advisers also confronted McCain directly, according to sources, warning him that his continued relationship with a lobbyist who had business before the powerful Commerce Committee he chaired threatened to derail his presidential ambitions.
--David Kurtz
The McCain Story
This afternoon, before the Times story came out, I was working on a post about national political reporters' tendency not to give much of any scrutiny to various McCain flipflops, contradictions and bamboozlements. Obviously, the terrain has changed a bit since I started writing that one (I'd hoped to finish it up this evening; either tonight or tomorrow early).
This is an odd story for a couple reasons. We know that the McCain Camp went to the mattresses to get this story spiked back in December. And some heavy legal muscle was apparently brought to bear. When a story has to go through that much lawyering it often comes out pretty stilted and with some obvious lacunae. And this one definitely qualifies. Reading the Times piece it struck me as a bit of a jumble. The reference to a possible affair is there in the lede. But then most of the piece is a rehash of a lot of older material about McCain's record before getting back to the relationship with Iseman.
In terms of a relationship between the two, the Times piece seems quite hedged. According to two staffers, staffers became concerned there was a romantic relationship. They took steps to protect McCain from himself. According to the Times sources, after being confronted by staffers, McCain "acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman."
The Post did a quick follow up in the wake of the Times piece. But the emphasis is significantly different -- suggesting the 'concern' on the part of the McCain staff was not so much about a potential affair but rather having McCain too close to a lobbyist while running a reformist insurgent presidential campaign, a suggestion that strikes me as rather dubious. (Note the role of John Weaver in the Post story and possibly in the Times story too. Weaver is a key figure in McCain's turn toward reformism and then turn back away from it.)
At the moment it seems to me that we have a story from the Times that reads like it's had most of the meat lawyered out of it. And a lot of miscellany and fluff has been packed in where the meat was. Still, if the Times sources are to be believed, the staff thought he was having an affair with Iseman and when confronted about it he in so many words conceded that he was (much of course hangs on 'behaving inappropriately' but then, doesn't it always?) and promised to shape up. And whatever the personal relationship it was a stem wound about a lobbying branch.
I find it very difficult to believe that the Times would have put their chin so far out on this story if they didn't know a lot more than they felt they could put in the article, at least on the first go. But in a decade of doing this, I've learned not to give any benefits of the doubt, even to the most esteemed institutions.
Equally telling, though, is the McCain camp's response and their clear unwillingness to address or deny any the key charges of the piece. (Read the statement closely. It's all bluster.) When it comes to sex stories even falsely accused politicians have some reluctance to get into nitty gritty denials. But McCain -- or rather McCain's communications office since it's in their name not his -- doesn't even address it.
That tells you something. So too does the Post's decision to jump in very quickly. Charles Kaiser, at Radar, gives some of the backstory on the other publications that were in the hunt and why the Times may have pulled the trigger when they did. Apparently some others were about to jump in too.
Reading all of this stuff I have the distinct feeling that only a few pieces of the puzzle are now on the table. Given unspoken understandings of many years' duration, a lot of reporters and DC types can probably imagine what the full picture looks like. But we're going to need a few more pieces before the rest of us can get a sense of what this is all about.
--Josh Marshall
McCain Campaign Issues Statement
Responding to the NYT story out tonight:
U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today issued the following statement by Communications Director Jill Hazelbaker:"It is a shame that the New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.
"Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career."
--David Kurtz
BREAKING: NYT Explores McCain Relationship With Female Lobbyist
Just out from the NYT:
Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, in his offices and aboard a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.
When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s clients, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.
Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.
--David Kurtz
Teflon John
(ed.note: The first draft of this post was written before the publication of the Times article on McCain and Iseman. So please set aside whatever affairs or influence peddling you think McCain might be involved with to give these other issues their proper due. Thank you. -- jmm)
As I've noted a few times before, one of the key dynamics of the coming general election race is the unwillingness of most reporters to scrutinize John McCain's claims and statements to determine whether they are either accurate, contradicted by other public statements or even if they make any sense. One example is the current tussle between McCain and Obama over a pledge to opt in to the public financing system for the general election. McCain is insisting Obama honor his 'pledge' to opt in to the public financing system if his Republican opponent (McCain) agrees to do the same. Now, Obama's going to have to deal with the pledge issue on his own. But it's impossible to report on this gambit of McCain without at least one spit take. And probably a few more.
Back in August McCain opted into the public financing system for the primaries. Then in December he needed to come up with some cash quickly. Well, no problem. He was already guaranteed over $5 million from the feds. So all he needed to do was put that guarantee down as collateral for the loan.
Only McCain didn't want to do that because once he formally made the federally-guaranteed money collateral then he gave up his right to later opt back out of the system.
But, he really, really needed the money. So McCain, along with his campaign finance lawyer Trevor Potter (whom I've met and is a very sharp guy) came up with a workaround. It went like this. McCain wouldn't make the guarantee collateral. But he promised that if his campaign tanked he would opt out of the system and then opt back in. This would mean remaining a candidate even after he knew he wasn't really in the race in order to a) get back the public money to pay his creditors and b) assure he could sign the original loan note with the de facto collateral while nonetheless maintaining his ability to once again opt out of the public financing system at any one of many possible future junctures at which his campaign might pop back from life support and it would be in his interest to go back to raising money from donors.
Of course, McCain's campaign did come off the mat. And since he now wants to raise and spend as much as possible before the end of the summer, earlier this month he did actually opt back out. The FEC, the outfit that enforces the campaign finance laws, says McCain's not allowed to opt out. But whatever, he opted out anyway.
Explain to me how this guy gets out of the gate attacking anyone else about honoring pledges tied to the campaign finance system.
McCain's other angle over the last few days has been to call Obama naive for saying he would take military action in Pakistan, even without the Pakistanis' permission if they wouldn't give it. But according to the Post, that's exactly what the administration did only a month ago when they used Hellfire missiles to kill Abu Laith al-Libi, a top al-Qaeda commander in Pakistan. Here was McCain's response ...
Asked about that account as he drove to this small town to address a snowbound crowd at Young's Jersey Dairy, known for ice cream, McCain demurred, saying he did not know the facts of the situation. But he said Obama was still wrong in speaking publicly about the option."The one thing you want to do is not embarrass them," he said. "I've known these people and I have known them for many years. I know I can work with them for the good of the security of the United States. I would not broadcast to the world that I am going to bomb a sovereign nation in order to accomplish my goal."
--Josh Marshall
Do-Over
As long as we're on the subject of Michelle Obama's much-scrutinized remarks, here she is at an appearance today, expanding on what she meant:
Late Update: At The Horse's Mouth, Greg Sargent ponders whether the Obama camp is responding forcefully enough to the right wing attacks, including the latest from Bill O'Reilly, in which he offers to delay "a lynching party against Michelle Obama" until he gets more facts.
--David Kurtz
“Stump the Chump"
Meet Kirk Watson.
He's a popular former mayor of Austin, Texas, and currently a Texas state senator.
He's considered by some to be an up-and-comer in Texas Democratic politics.
He's a Barack Obama supporter and surrogate.
He's also the guy that Chris Matthews may have mortally wounded politically last night during MSNBC's primary night coverage. You can watch the brutal exchange here.
Watson has posted a statement on his website which, I have to say, gets points for graciousness in the face of utter humiliation:
So . . . That really happened.On Tuesday night, after an important and historic victory in the Wisconsin Presidential Primary by Senator Barack Obama, I appeared on the MSNBC post-election program. “Hardball” host Chris Matthews (who is, it turns out, as ferocious as they say), began grilling me on Senator Obama’s legislative record.
And my mind went blank. I expected to be asked about the primary that night, or the big one coming up in Texas on March 4, or just about anything else in the news. When the subject changed so emphatically, I reached for information that millions of my fellow Obama supporters could recite by heart, and I couldn’t summon it.
My most unfortunate gaffe is not, in any way, a comment on Senator Obama, his substantial record, or the great opportunity we all share to elect him President of the United States. …
In the meantime, let’s not lose focus on what’s important in this election. It’s not my stunning televised defeat in “Stump the Chump.”
I guess Bill Clinton did recover from his disastrous speech at the 1988 Democratic convention.
--David Kurtz
Big Bucks
A source tells TPM Election Central that the Obama campaign expects to exceed in February fund-raising its record $36 million January haul.
--David Kurtz
Proud v. Really Proud
This is wading into treacherous waters, but here it goes.
Last night, we brought you some of the Fox News reaction to Michelle Obama's comment Monday that for the first time in her adult life she is "really proud" of her country. It's a line that the McCain campaign has already picked up and used against the Obamas, and Fox News kept a running commentary going on the issue all day yesterday.
Since then, and especially in the last few hours, we've gotten a slew of emails from readers saying that the "really" has been edited out in various clips of Michelle's remarks. So instead of this being the first time in her adult life that she's really proud, it's the first time she's proud at all. Now, I'm not sure that the inclusion of the "really" makes that big of a difference if you're inclined to see anti-American sentiment in her remarks.
But if the remarks were edited, it raises the question of why.
So we looked into it, and here's the apparent deal.
Michelle Obama made two appearances on Monday in which she made the "first time in my adult life" remark. In one appearance, she said "proud." In the later appearance, she said "really proud."
Take a look:
A number of readers have said that Fox, among others, ran the edited clip. In fairness to Fox, it appears that Bill O'Reilly, at least, referenced both remarks and ran clips of both remarks on his show.
I can't rule out that the edited version aired somewhere. In fact, I have seen some clips (here, for example) where the "really" does appear to be edited out, but it's not clear whether those clips were actually aired. The more likely explanation for the discrepancy seems to be that two different versions actually came out of Michelle Obama's own mouth.
Late Update: My ostensible defense of O'Reilly here should not be construed as a defense of this.
Later Update: TPM Reader BC points me to one Fox version where the "really" is garbled at best. But, again, why go to the trouble of editing it out if there's already legitimate video where she didn't use "really"?
--David Kurtz
Carpe Diem
If you're Hillary, maybe Chris Matthews isn't so bad after all.
Here she is this morning, seizing on the Obama surrogate trainwreck from last night:
--David Kurtz
Field of Dreams
From the pages of the Washington Post today you can see that the Obama 'speech plagiarism' meme has descended from the offensively silly to the militantly moronic. Here's the latest one dug up or perhaps passed along as the case may be by Dana Milbank ...
Still, Obama seemed to borrow anew on Tuesday at an outdoor rally in San Antonio -- this time from former foe John Edwards. Criticizing pharmaceutical companies' ads, Obama joked: "You know those ads where people are running around the fields, you know, they're smiling, you don't know what the drug is for?"Compare that with this staple of Edwards's 2004 stump speech: "I love the ads. Buy their medicine, take it, and the next day you and your spouse will be skipping through the fields."
--Josh Marshall
Huckabee Sounds Off
Here's Mike Huckabee this morning on MSNBC, hammering the GOP:
So much for going gently into that good night.
--David Kurtz
What Next?
Over at TPMCafe, a few resident Obamaniacs are discussing what to expect from the Clinton campaign in Ohio and Texas.
Reed Hundt says get ready for the Clinton attacks. Maybe, says Michael Berube, but can the Clinton gang still shoot straight?
--David Kurtz
Tell Us What You Really Think
Clinton surrogate and Machinists union President Tom Buffenbarger: "Give me a break! I've got news for all the latte-drinking, Prius- driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies crowding in to hear him speak! This guy won't last a round against the Republican attack machine. He's a poet, not a fighter."
--Josh Marshall
Viewer Discretion Advised
This was just painful to watch. Chris Matthews skewered a hapless state senator from Texas during last night's primary election coverage. I don't think we'll be seeing this guy trotted out as an Obama surrogate again any time soon:
I suspect this is a bit of a Rorschach test. Depending on your perspective, it's proof that Obama is a lightweight, just goes to show what a gasbag Matthews is, or appeals to the same voyeuristic instinct that makes you slow down and gawk at a car accident.
--David Kurtz
Today's Must Read
Latest line on the destruction of CIA torture tapes: not a cover-up, just the result of deep institutional dysfunction.
So it's all good.
--David Kurtz
TPMtv: A Tale of 3 Speeches
Tuesday night Barack Obama extended his election winning streak over Hillary Clinton to 9 with a victory in the Wisconsin primary (and then 10 with a Hawaii caucus win), while John McCain put Mike Huckabee a little further away in his rear-view mirror with wins in Wisconsin and Washington. The tone and the timing of the three post-primary speeches told the story of the night ...
Watch this episode on YouTube.
--Ben Craw
Gut Check Time
I was thinking Hillary Clinton had at least an outside chance of an upset tonight. But as we noted below, it was another blow out, and a big enough one for Obama to add real numbers to his delegate advantage. I think David hits the key point here though: less daunting than the overall margins in the races this month (which are pretty daunting) is the trend in the underlying fundamentals.
The premise of Clinton's campaign after Super Tuesday has been her trump cards of female voters and working class/lower income Democrats. But that assumption is due for a major reevaluation. In each successive contest he's cutting more into those core constituencies. Tonight in Wisconsin Obama tied Hillary among female voters and beat her by 10 points among voters making less than $50,000 per annum.
We've had four big post-Super Tuesday primaries -- in LA, MD, VA and WI. The topline numbers in each were relatively similar -- ranging from 17% in Wisconsin to 29% in Virginia. But the underlying story is that from Louisiana to the Chesapeake to Wisconsin, the underlying demographic structure of the electorate, the playing field, as it were, got better for her. But it didn't help.
Clinton's hope to even come close among pledged delegates rests on big wins in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. But the trends in support among key demographic groups give very little reason to think those outcomes are likely.
--Josh Marshall