Say What? Obama's Word Games

By Nathan L. Gonzales & Stuart Rothenberg

In at least one way, “incumbency” is like being pregnant. You can’t be “a little pregnant,” and you can’t be partially an incumbent.

But that pesky fact hasn’t gotten in the way of Sen. Barack Obama, or his campaign, and their awkward attempts to label Hillary Clinton as such.

On October 12, the Obama campaign sent out a memo entitled, “Quasi-incumbent finally gets scrutiny and stumbles,” referring to New York’s junior senator. But it’s really pretty simple: Either you are or you aren’t an incumbent.

“Quasi-incumbent” might be a cute way to describe someone who was appointed to a political office and is running for a full term for the first time. It might even be a cute way to describe someone who held an office, gave it up and was trying after a year or two to regain it again.

If a sitting Vice President were running for President, he or she might be referred to as a “quasi” or “pseudo-” incumbent, though that wouldn’t be true technically.

But applying the label to Senator Clinton is just plain wrong, since neither she nor her party has been near the White House in seven years.

Obama’s attempt to pair Clinton with the unpopular current President is nothing new. In late July, speaking about foreign policy, the Illinois senator said, “I don’t want a continuation of Bush-Cheney. I don’t want Bush-Cheney light,” referring to Clinton. At least by using the word “continuation,” Obama is apparently aware of whom the current commander-in-chief is.

Later, the October email reads, “Senator Clinton in all these states is the quasi-incumbent,” referring Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. Well, not only is Clinton not president of the United States, she never has been, and has never even been on the ballot in any of the four states mentioned. That would make it difficult for her to be an incumbent of any kind.

For a candidate who claims to be above politics, the quasi-incumbent Obama’s claim is either ridiculous or rhetorically dishonest.

It’s also ironic that in the first sentence of the October email, Obama attacks Clinton for “purely tactical posturing.” But the entire purpose of the Obama memo is to position himself as the “outsider.” Obama’s posturing and mislabeling is nothing new, since campaign manager David Plouffe’s August 6 campaign update email to supporters stated, “No longer can the quasi-incumbent candidate survive a stumble or two early.”

And finally, the October email reads, “The Clinton operation is the greatest money machine in the history of American politics.” But Plouffe’s August email boasted, “Your financial generosity has allowed us to build the best and deepest grassroots organization in history at this stage of a Presidential election,” and the Obama campaign is constantly touting how they out-raised Clinton this year in primary money. So which is it? Who has the biggest machine?

The Obama campaign ought to give the American people and those in the media, some credit. And for a campaign that claims to take the high road, Obama is stooping to the lowest common denominator of politics by playing word games.

Say What? Ken Lucas Endorses John Edwards

By Stuart Rothenberg

I've been observing recently how much supposedly big news about the Presidential race will ultimately have little or no impact on the outcome of the 2008 Presidential contest, even for the Democratic and Republican nominations.

That fact, of course, doesn't make these developments in the Presidential race any less newsworthy or fun. It just means that they are unimportant in terms of the contests for the two nominations.

This week, we all got a perfect example of how even the most meaningless development can get treated as if it were important when the John Edwards campaign sent out a press release informing all of the world that former Kentucky Congressman Ken Lucas has endorsed Edwards for President. Of course, the Edwards campaign isn't alone in doing this kind of thing. ALL campaigns do it. Edwards is just a convenient example.

The release included the required quote from the person offering the endorsement about how wonderful the person receiving the endorsement is and what a great President he will be, as well as a quote from the person receiving the endorsement thanking the person making the endorsement.

There was nothing unusual here. And more than that, there is no reason to believe the endorsement - or the press release - will have the slightest affect on the Democratic contest. In fact, it would be significantly more important if three elderly ladies in Iowa had decided to support the former North Carolina senator at next year's caucuses.

But instead, we have a campaign bragging about an endorsement from a former congressman - who, by the way, comes from a Republican district in a Republican-leaning state that will have no impact on the race for the Democratic nomination - who can't vote for Edwards in one of the key early contests and is pretty close to irrelevant in the '08 nomination process.

So why would a campaign put out a press release about an endorsement? Obviously, the campaign hopes to create a bandwagon by sending out a release or two about endorsements each and every day. And somewhere, you can bet that someone is printing the release, and maybe they are even thinking that it's significant.

It isn't. But that's what happens in campaigns - especially Presidential campaigns where people have too much time on their hands, and where molehills get turned into mountains on a daily basis.

Say What? VoteVets Ad

By Stuart Rothenberg

If supporters of President George W. Bush's policy of sending another 20,000 troops to Iraq had aired a television ad that argued that opposing the new Bush policy means "you don't support the troops," opponents of the President would have rightly gone bananas.

It's not the troops that they oppose, they would insist indignantly, it's the Bush policy, which so far has failed to accomplish its objectives and will result in additional casualties and costs with too little assurance of victory.

And yet, those same folks don't seem to mind paying for a VoteVets.org TV spot that says people who support Bush's policy "don't support the troops."

Oh well, given the high emotion on both sides and the general tendency of political activists of both liberal and conservative stripe to shun civility and reason, it's no wonder that opponents of the President's policy didn't merely cross the line; they obliterated it.

Let's be entirely clear: You can support the troops in the field and at the same time either support the President's policy or oppose the President's policy. Don't take my word for it. It's what Democratic politicians who oppose the Bush Iraq policy have been saying for months. Someone needs to tell the folks over at VoteVets.org that their ad is just plain wrong and that spending a lot of money to put it on TV doesn't change that.

I just did.

Say What? RNC Attacks Hillary

By Stuart Rothenberg

From a January 30, 2007 Republican National Committee Research Briefing about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton entitled, "Hillary Swipes John Edwards' 2003 Language and Ideas…."

First, the RNC charged that Senator Clinton stole Edwards' story about his father, presenting the following evidence:

Hillary In 2007: "[My father] believed in the basic bargain that America offered. You work hard, play by the rules, you do what you can to further your own life. Your country is going to be on your side." (Sen. Clinton, Town Hall, Des Moines, IA, 1/27/07)

Edwards In 2003: "My father worked very hard because he believed it was the right thing to do, and he thought it would help build a better future for his family. That's the basic bargain that we make with the American people. If you work hard, if you act responsibly, you can build a better life for yourself and for your families." (Sen. Edwards, Democrat Presidential Forum, Des Moines, IA, 5/17/03)

Second, the RNC claimed Clinton stole Edwards' plan to insure all children, presenting the following evidence:

Hillary In 2007: "So I am going to start by introducing legislation to insure every child. That is what I think we have to begin with." (Sen. Clinton, Town Hall, Des Moines, IA, 1/27/07)

Edwards In 2003: "So I start with a very simple idea: children first. For the first time in American history, I will make sure that every child is covered ..." (Sen. Edwards, Democrat Presidential Debate, Albuquerque, NM, 9/4/03)

And third, the RNC asserted that "Clinton Stole Kerry's 2003 Language on Use of Force Vote" because Clinton advisor McAuliffe said: "She voted to give the President the authority to negotiate and have a stick to go over there and negotiate with Saddam Hussein. In 2003, John Kerry said: "I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations."

My view? It's certainly fair for each national committee to try to discredit the opposing party's Presidential hopefuls, but this RNC attempt isn't even close. In using words like "swipes," "steals" and "stole," the RNC seems to be accusing Senator Clinton of plagiarism in an effort to discredit her.

In fact, her language was not identical to Edwards's. Does the RNC really believe that because Edwards talked about insuring children Senator Clinton can't without "stealing" from him? And didn't Hillary Clinton establish her interest in making health care more available even before Edwards ever got to the Senate?

As to Clinton's reference to working hard and to her father, if I had a dollar for every candidate who cited his or her father and talked about "working hard" or "playing by the rules," I'd be wealthy. Everybody does it. It's a generic political message.

As to McAuliffe's recent language about Clinton's vote, it's silly to attack the Senator for something a supporter said. And, in fact, Kerry's 2003 comment and McAuliffe's are not even close to being identical. The fact the Kerry and Clinton may have had the same reason for supporting the resolution is proof of nothing. Look at the language of Republicans who announced their support of the President's policy for the past two years. They all said the same things, and that doesn't mean that they "stole" their reasoning from one another.

There is plenty of substance that the RNC could say about Senator Clinton in criticizing her. But this release was just silly. Somebody should say so. I just did.

Say What? Mississippi Senate

By Nathan L. Gonzales

From a January 29, 2007 Roll Call story on Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) and his looming decision on whether to seek reelection:

"Thad Cochran has a long history of putting Washington before Mississippi," according to DSCC spokesperson Dierdre Murphy, "and it is going to hurt his Senate re-election bid in 2008."

My reaction? If Cochran "has a long history of putting Washington before Mississippi," Magnolia State voters apparently haven't received the memo.

What the Republican senator has shown is a long history of winning elections in the Magnolia State. Cochran won three terms in the House, beginning in 1972, until his initial election to Senate in 1978. Sure, he only won with 45% almost thirty years ago, but he's averaged 79% in his four subsequent reelection races, including 1984 (61%), 1990 (100%), 1996 (71%), and 2002 (85%). If Cochran's past record is so bad, why did Democrats let him run unopposed twice?

Really, the DSCC's quote has nothing to do with the senator's record and is little more than an empty threat. It's very unlikely Democrats are sitting on any new information on the senator that hasn't been revealed over his three decades in public office.

Instead, it's more of an attempt to "scare" Cochran out of running in 2008, creating an open seat and a potential Democratic opportunity. But with Cochran in the race, rational Democrats understand they have virtually no chance of winning. And they have a slim chance of recruiting a top candidate like former state attorney general Mike Moore (D) into the race if Cochran runs.

No senator is invincible, and the political dynamics of the race could change in the next two years. But suggesting that Cochran would be in trouble if he runs for reelection stretches the committee's credibility, and that's enough reason for the DSCC not to say it.

Say What? Tom Vilsack

[Say What? is a new semi-regular feature on RothenbergPoliticalReport.com]

By Stuart Rothenberg

From a January 29, 2007 Tom Vilsack for President press release, reporting that the Democratic Presidential hopeful raised "more than $1.1 million in last 7 weeks of 2006."

"Tom Vilsack proved…that he'll have the money to campaign across America in 2007 and win the Democratic nomination in 2008," said Vilsack spokesman Josh Earnest. "Vilsack's strong performance is a powerful indication that his outsider status, successful record as governor and his plan to end the war and make America energy secure is resonating with voters."

And later, Earnest concluded:

"Vilsack's early fund raising success ensures that our campaign will be able to win Iowa and then the Democratic nomination based on his message of having the courage to create change in America."

My reaction? Oh, Brother. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. Anytime a press release talks about "a powerful indication" and spends more time on message than on reporting the news contained in the press release, you know you are getting mostly hype. Vilsack's fundraising doesn't "ensure" anything. Six weeks worth of fund raising certainly doesn't guarantee that the campaign "will be able to win Iowa."

The Vilsack release also compares his fundraising to Howard Dean's and John Kerry's in 2004. That is smart, but misleading.

Kerry ended 2002 with over $3 million in the bank, and his personal financial resources and early favorite status virtually guaranteed that he would be able to raise enough money to run a credible Presidential race. Vilsack doesn't begin anywhere near where Kerry was at this point in the 2004 Democratic contest, and, frankly, it's laughable for the former Iowa governor to make the comparison.

Dean ended the 2002 with just over $150,000 in his campaign account, so Vilsack can accurately portray himself as better funded at this point in the campaign than Dean was four years ago. But Dean became a credible contender for the Democratic nomination because his candidacy became a phenomenon. That's what enabled him to raise big money later on. There is no guarantee that Vilsack's campaign will take off, or that he will eventually raise the tens of millions of dollars that both Dean and Kerry raised.

Moreover the comment that his fundraising "is a powerful indication that his outsider status, successful record as governor and his plan to end the war and make America energy secure is resonating with voters" is ridiculous.

Most voters don't know who he is or about his record as governor. About half of his money was raised in-state, from Iowans who know him, like him and almost certainly see him as a favorite son.

With top tier Democrats likely passing on federal funds and raising many millions more than in the past, Vilsack has an uphill battle. And there is nothing wrong with that. Maybe he'll catch fire. Maybe Democratic caucus attendees in his home state will stick with him. Maybe a year from now he'll be the frontrunner for the nomination.

Maybe, Maybe. Maybe.

But the idea that Vilsack's fundraising in the last quarter of 2006 "guarantees" anything is absurd, and someone should say so.

I just did.

Say What? Minnesota Senate

[A new, semi-regular feature on RothenbergPoliticalReport.com]

By Stuart Rothenberg

Okay, I know that I shouldn't do this, but I'm going to do it anyway. We're starting a semi-regular feature in which we identify really, really silly comments that we read or hear. I know that I'm not single-handedly going to cause people to stop saying dumb stuff, but I'm at a stage in my life and my career when I feel free to say what I really think. I do want to emphasize that the people who say these things aren't necessarily unintelligent, illogical or inane. Sometimes smart people say dumb things too. (Yes, I'm sure some of my past musings fit this category, though I hope not too many.)

From a January 23, 2007 Roll Call article reporting that Senator Norm Coleman has hired a campaign manager for his 2008 reelection bid:

"I think it's clearly a sign that he thinks he's in trouble," said Brian Melendez, chairman of the Minnesota Democratic Party. "I don't know any other Senate campaign organization that is in place with a campaign manager at this point in the campaign," Melendez continued. "I guess Coleman saw what happened to all the other Bush cronies in '06 and is desperate and terrified."

My reaction? Given Minnesota's political bent, the state's election results in 2006 and likely Democratic efforts to oust Coleman, the Republican Senator would have to be kidding himself not to think that he's in trouble. Obviously he's a top Democratic target, and obviously he'll have a tough race if Democrats in the state get their act together. In fact, if Coleman didn't think he was facing a difficult reelection, I'd think that he was delusional, and I'd see that as a bad omen for his political future.

So if Coleman understands that he's in trouble, he's being smart and sensible. Melendez's comment that Coleman's step of hiring a manager is "desperate and terrified" ranks as absurd. The senator is just doing what anyone with a brain would be doing, preparing for a battle.

"Desperate" almost two years out from Election Day? "Terrified" because Coleman brought on board a staffer? In fact, it is Melendez's comment that is ridiculous and over the top. I understand that he wants to take a shot at Coleman, and that's obviously fine. But his comments are silly, and someone should say so.

I just did.