The Plame case is before a DC grand jury. The case progresses. And on the inside they're worried about this one? Just a supposition? No.
The Plame case is before a DC grand jury. The case progresses. And on the inside they're worried about this one? Just a supposition? No.
I was late to get my credentials for tonightâs debate. So I spent the second half of yesterday and the first half of today haggling with Julie at ABC media relations over whether or not I could get a seat at the filing center for the big event. She was nice enough. But she kept me hanging till the end about whether sheâd have a place for me when I got there or whether Iâd be relegated to the spin-room --- the place where everybody goes after the festivities are over to be spun in circles by the several candidatesâ handlers or the occasional candidate who doesnât have anything better to do.
In any case, I didnât want to trek out only to find I wouldnât have a place to set up and write out notes while the event was afoot. But that really wasnât the issue. There was something deeper motivating me. Covering these debates almost always involves me in an odd process of denial. The ugly truth is that I think the best place to cover a debate is probably from your hotel room. A hard to face fact; but, I believe, a reality.
Seeing it in person would certainly add something to oneâs reportage. But you never see it in person. Generally how it works is this: Youâre in a big complex and thereâs one large hall set aside for the actual debate. In that room you have the candidates, a few of their handlers, the moderator/questioners and the audience. Oftentimes youâll have a tiny handful of journalists there too --- but only ones from the highest echelon of the elect. Maybe a Koppel or a Mitchell --- folks like that.
Everyone else is in a big room somewhere nearby with a bunch of long school room tables arranged as they might be for an SAT test in high school. And space after space at those tables is occupied by journalists with laptops open, a phone at each station, perhaps some other paraphernalia nearby or a parka, watching the debate on a series of big TVs.
In other words, theyâre watching the debate on TV just like you are. Only theyâre doing it in a big room with all the other journalists.
Now, this can be kind of fun, because you get to see a lot of other people you know, and a number you havenât seen in a while. And you get a very good sense of how other reporters think everybody did. But that can be a pretty skewed view, an echo chamber in the making in ways you can probably imagine, even if you donât spend much time talking to the really egregious above-it-all conventional wisdom types.
So, like I said, sometimes it seems to me that itâs best just to watch it on TV --- since that is, after all, how the real audience, people at home, see it.
But, as I said, thatâs a hard truth to face. So what to do? I decided Iâd watch it at some public place and watch people's reactions. Since each of the campaigns chooses one restaurant or pub for their supporters to watch at I figured Iâd go to one of those, and I ended up at Kerryâs event at a place called the Black Brimmer (who knows?) on Elm Street in Manchester.
My little experiment didnât turn out to be any better really than watching the whole thing on TV. The Kerry debate watching party turned out to be â¦ well, a party, and sort of a loud one at that, with occasional calls for everyone to pipe down when Kerry got asked a question. They werenât there to see the debate, but to see Kerry, who was scheduled to show up for a victory party of sorts after the debate.
There was one thing that made it worthwhile: Carole King. Sheâs up here supporting Kerry: I think she did some sort of benefit concert for him a couple days ago. In any case, before things got under way, and against my better judgment, I went over and told her what a fan I was, to which she responded graciously. But once that was over, figuring my dignity probably couldnât withstand any more hits like that in one evening, I found a place to sit down and watch the debate.
Now, again, it was a raucous affair. So I couldnât hear perfectly. And there were the periodic turns back over my shoulder at King for the occasional swoons. But, those distractions aside, I thought everyone did more or less fine.
I didnât think anyone stole the show. Nor did I think anyone did badly. (Though wasnât that Sharpton Federal Reserve question a bit awkward?) Dean was fine. Edwards was fine. Clark seemed basically fine --- though he was thrown questions which kept him on the defensive.
Kerry, I thought, did a bit better than fine. He seemed to have down the practice of looking past the other candidates, literally and metaphorically, and throwing down the gauntlet at the president. It wasnât perfect. But he was laying claim to the status of presumptive nominee and no one else on the stage really even tried to knock him off that game.
In part I was surprised that Dean didnât do anything more than he did or try in any way to shake things up. But I think thatâs the difficulty of his position. In the last week Dean has essentially switched places with Kerry in the polls. And he seems still to be falling.
He desperately needs to shake up the dynamic of the race in time to recover some ground before Tuesday. And yet his people have decided he needs to be on his best behavior to arrest his downward slide in the minds of the stateâs voters. So itâs virtually impossible for him to do anything to shake things up. As I said before, I think heâs painted himself into a corner.
More broadly, everybody basically did fine and no one made any bad mistakes. And since Kerry has the momentum and is rallying support, that means the debate was a win for Kerry, perhaps a big one.
A few other observations.
Itâs certainly not a representative sample. But of the people near me watching the debate at the Kerry event, the only candidate they seemed to heckle or make snide remarks about was Clark.
Another point: what was with the line up of moderators? You had one questioner who is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, another who is the head political writer for a fiercely conservative newspaper, another who was a soft-soap local anchor man, and Peter Jennings. That tilt gave the questioning an unmistakable skew. Next time thereâs a Republican primary debate Iâm hoping theyâll take the same approach and have the questioners be, maybe, Tom Oliphant, Molly Ivins, Matt Lauer and Tom Brokaw.
After the debate ended I felt like Iâd had enough and didnât need to stick around for Kerry. So I drove back to my hotel, unloaded my stuff, watched a few minutes of chat shows until I became too disgusted to watch any more and then headed over to the Wayfarer Inn, the hotel bar which some journalistic worthies --- probably Broder or something --- decided decades ago is where reporters covering the primary go to hang out and kibbitz. Or at least it used to be the place to go. I had a late dinner there last night with a couple friends and itâs been remarkably dead this time. So tonight, finding no one I felt like talking to, I sat down at the bar with my notebook, ordered a beer, and started jotting out some notes for future posts.
A short time later Mickey Kaus walked in to the bar and came up to me and asked, âWhere were you? I was sitting next to a seat with your name on it. But you werenât there.â
Apparently Julie had come through for me after all.
Compare and contrast this piece in the Boston Globe about Senate Republican snooping into Democratic staff memos and this one in Friday's New York Times. The further decline of a great paper.
I'm too swamped with campaign coverage at the moment. But I'll try to follow up on this. For now, look closely at the discrepancy in the accounts of just what the Democrats were told.
TPM hard at work, typing away on the laptop, at the Clark event on Tuesday in Durham, New Hampshire. Pictures from the AP.
More on the debate, and where we go from here, later tonight.
ARG's latest daily tracking poll has Kerry 31%, Clark 20%, Dean 18%. That means that from January 19th to January 22nd Dean fell from 28% to 18%. In fact, from yesterday to today he fell 4 percentage points.
Remember, a tracking poll like this combines three days of calls together. So this evenings numbers are the first which don't include any calls from before caucus night in Iowa. Pulling that last batch of the pre-Iowa numbers out of mix probably accounts for that rapid four point fall.
Meanwhile, the other tracking poll out tonight from the Boston Globe and WBZ-TV has Kerry 34%, Dean 19%, Clark 14%, Edwards 11%. The big difference there is a much sharper deterioration for Clark.
Late Update: Friday morning's Zogby numbers show the same story for Kerry as ARG, but a less acute fall for Dean, a continued slide for Clark, and no movement for Edwards.
There is an extreme mood of expectation about this Democratic primary debate tonight. 'The debate' -- and there's always one post-Iowa New Hampshire debate -- is always a big deal for the campaigns and reporters up here. I was up here four years ago, when there was one between Gore and Bradley. But this is a little different. Journalists always have an incentive for saying races are wide open, even when they're not. But this one is truly wide open.
It's not just that it's wide open, whatever that might mean. But the dynamic also seems very fluid. John Kerry has rocketed into the lead here. But that support is clearly soft. It could either solidify with a solid performance or be blunted or even reversed. And the same of course applies to the other candidates.
We haven't yet seen a debate in which Kerry was even close to being the frontrunner. So it'll be interesting to see how the other candidates choose to take up the fight against him.
Early this evening I spoke to Dick Bennett of ARG, the outfit that's been running a daily tracking poll here for a few weeks) and he sees the distinct possibility, perhaps even the probability, of a deterioration for Dean in New Hampshire as bad or perhaps even worse than the one he experienced in Iowa.
Between Clark and Kerry, says Bennett, the gender breakdown (with women favoring Kerry over Clark) remains salient. And the events of the last few days have hurt Dean disproportionately among women. His big strength now, says Bennett, is with young men.
(Bennett says he'll have new numbers out late this evening.)
I would not have imagined that the fall could be nearly that steep. But my own gut sense of the race right now is similar to what Bennett is getting from his numbers. I think Dean is in very bad shape. The issue isn't so much, or isn't exclusively, the loss in Iowa or the whole business with his speech. Rather, I have the sense that he's neutered himself in the final stretch. He obviously took a big punch Monday night. But after the concession speech which, rightly or wrongly, got so much attention, he came into New Hampshire presenting himself, sans red meat, as the successful governor of a small state with success in balancing budgets and expanding health care reform.
That's not a bad message. But it's also not a particularly exciting one, and not at all one that seems energizing enough to turn around the bad momentum he's had all week. They clearly felt they had to make that turn on Tuesday, giving the run of bad press they'd been getting. But I sense it's painted them into a corner.
To get away from being the exciting, offensive candidate, they've made him into the anodyne, boring candidate, just at the moment when he needs a real second wind.
(Along these lines, look at the latest data from the Iowa Electronic Future Markets, where you can invest -- or rather gamble -- on future political outcomes.)
One other thing. Last night Wes Clark had a conference call with a slew of former Gephardt staffers from Iowa, making the pitch that they should sign on to his campaign to head off to various post-New Hampshire states and start organizing for him. The campaign netted about twenty-five of them last night, or roughly a quarter of the folks that Gephardt had working for him in the state.
I had heard from some quarters that the issue might have been money. Another campaign had made a strong pitch for these folks, but simply didn't have the resources the Clark campaign was able to mobilize, and thus lost out. But after talking to various people involved in and knowledgeable the situation my sense is more that Clark's campaign -- not taken up so much with the final fury of campaigning in Iowa -- was more ready to reach out to these folks as soon as the last tears on their cheeks had dried. And that seems to have made the difference.
On Tuesday night, the leaders could be grouped closely enough together that first, second and third place finishers could each really still be viable. So lots of attention, albeit behind the scenes, will be going into shoring up organization and support in post-NH states.
This story in today's Boston Globe should <$NoAd$>knock everything else off the front page. It's an amazing story, a huge scandal. Read the lede ....
Republican staff members of the US Senate Judiciary Commitee infiltrated opposition computer files for a year, monitoring secret strategy memos and periodically passing on copies to the media, Senate officials told The Globe.
From the spring of 2002 until at least April 2003, members of the GOP committee staff exploited a computer glitch that allowed them to access restricted Democratic communications without a password. Trolling through hundreds of memos, they were able to read talking points and accounts of private meetings discussing which judicial nominees Democrats would fight -- and with what tactics.
The office of Senate Sergeant-at-Arms William Pickle has already launched an investigation into how excerpts from 15 Democratic memos showed up in the pages of the conservative-leaning newspapers and were posted to a website last November.
With the help of forensic computer experts from General Dynamics and the US Secret Service, his office has interviewed about 120 people to date and seized more than half a dozen computers -- including four Judiciary servers, one server from the office of Senate majority leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, and several desktop hard drives.
But the scope of both the intrusions and the likely disclosures is now known to have been far more extensive than the November incident, staffers and others familiar with the investigation say.
As you may have seen already, Drudge has a hit on John Edwards this morning, fresh -- no doubt -- from RNC oppo research. The claim is that Edwards now says no to putting Social Security funds in the stock market whereas in 1998 he supported the idea.
I sometimes wonder what point there is in trying to knock down this stuff from such an unreliable source. But so many in the media run with his arguments. So let me just briefly address this.
Investing any Social Security funds in the stock market looks like much less of a good idea today in the post-bubble world than it did in 1998. And any money -- even the small amount Edwards seems to have supported -- invested then probably would not have done so well over the next few years. So that's a reasonable point of criticism against Edwards.
But Republicans' point here is a charge of inconsistency or flip-flopping. They can't really be attacking the idea of putting Social Security money into the stock market, after all, since it's central to their policy.
But there's a basic point here that Drudge (or rather his liaison at the RNC or the White House or whomever) is intentionally obscuring. The debate over Social Security is about whether risk is pooled or whether it's individualized. Are there guarantees? Or do you invest your money and take your chances on your own? As one friend of mine said a while back, if it's not Social, it's not Security.
What Edwards was supporting in 1998 was taking a small portion of aggregate funds and investing them in the market, not creating individual accounts. And for those who are big Social Security policy wonks that makes all the difference in the world.
In any case, this is a detailed policy argument, over which people of course disagree. But the relevant point for the moment is that what the GOP operatives are trying to point to as a flip-flop here is really a matter of comparing apples and oranges. Not that that's stopped them before, of course, but ...