Interesting article out from the NY Times today on the wooing of Bill Richardson by the Obama and Hillary campaigns. With all the talk and speculation about Edwards and the secret meetings in Chapel Hill, I almost forgot about him. 

I find this type of behind the scenes report totally facinating. Here's how Richardson describes the different approaches by the campaigns as they reach out to him:

“Barack is very precise,” the governor observed, sitting in his office at the New Mexico Capitol. The Obama campaign rarely pesters him with surrogates. Mr. Obama’s approach is like “a surgical bomb,” he said, while “the Clintons are more like a carpet bomb.”

Depending on who you're supporting in the primary, you could probably read the article and feel like your candidate is going to get his support.  I read about a couple of superdelegates who clearly are having the same dilemma as Richardson. They each said something like "my head is with Hillary, my heart is with Obama." 

Here's Richardson expressing the conflict:

“I feel a great deal of personal loyalty to the Clintons,” Mr. Richardson said several times in the interview, his face betraying the agony of indecision as much as fondness. He went on to describe Mr. Obama as “remarkable,” “someone I like very much” and a leader “who is creating something that’s really good in this country.”

I'd be shocked if  Richardson (or Edwards) endorsed Hillary now when her campaign seems to be floundering and all signs point to an Obama victory.  

Whoever wins the nomination (and the White House), I'd be happy to see a new America under Secretary of State Richardson and Attorney General Edwards in the new administration.   

(I tried to post this a minute ago but the body seems to have been lost in the internets. Here it is again)

Is Obama too much talk and not enough substance?

First, I’ll say that before I came to support Obama this was exactly one of my critiques of him.  I didn’t think much of his speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, even as many friends raved about it. But at some point last year I decided that Obama would get my vote based on his early opposition to the Iraq invasion, back when Edwards and Clinton were giving the President the authority to invade. Otherwise, I think it is fair to say the Democratic candidates have very, very similar records and positions on policies.

Given that on a policy level these candidates are so similar, it makes sense that the Clinton camp is going to have to go after Obama in some other ways. The “inexperience” tag really didn’t work and was probably a major strategic misstep when you consider that experience doesn’t exactly resonate at a time when people are yearning for something very different in the White House.  Also, when we’re talking about experience as an elected official, Hillary has 7 years in the U.S. Senate.  That doesn’t seem to be an overwhelming advantage compared to Obama’s 3 years in the U.S. Senate and 8 years as a state senator.    

So now the Clinton camp is going after Obama because he gives great speeches - essentially saying that he's all talk but without substance.
I think that there is a sizeable chunk of the Democratic base, certainly the ones who follow elections closely and get involved with campaigns, who really like getting into the meat of issues. If you’re reading this, that would be you.  We’re policy wonks.

Many of us helped to nominate the last two Democratic contenders, John Kerry and Al Gore. During their campaigns, no one could accuse them of being inexperienced and they could argue policy with the best minds in America. They could also get into the nuances of each and every boring ass policy.  Indeed, they were practically twins in their wonkish, monotonous, robotic style.  I’m getting sleepy just thinking about them.

When they did try to come off with some emotion and fanfare, it came across as utterly fake. I was aghast when at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, the first words out of John Kerry’s mouth were “reporting for duty” followed by a military salute to the crowd.  It was a moment when I first realized that Kerry could lose the election to one of the worst Presidents in the history of this nation. It was a sign of a campaign run by professional consultants and speech writers who would have been better suited writing scripts for an episode of Saved by the Bell.  I can also remember the week that Al Gore conceded the election in 2000 and when he gave some interviews shortly afterwards. He sounded so much more human, emotional, and relaxed and many people lamented that he didn’t give us more of the “real” Al Gore during the campaign.

Obama may speak generically about change and about hope and he may just scratch the surface of the issues as he campaigns – but that’s because it works. He connects with the average person and that connection cannot be underestimated. 

I’ve been a community organizer for nearly a decade and I’ve seen how this works with organizing on progressive issues. If I’m collecting a petition for campaign finance reform, I don’t talk to the average Jane/Joe on the street about the intricacies of the reform options, but stick to much more generic rhetoric that hooks them in and gets us on common ground. When the occasional policy wonk comes by and says that “the devil is in the details,” I’m ready with all the facts figures, and models they could hope for. But those people are 1 in 100 at best.

If you’re a wonk and worried about Obama’s politics, I say dig into his record. (96% lifetime voting record on the environment, 100% voting record on choice, fought for federal ethics bill, spoke out against the invasion of Iraq when it was a popular war, passed Illinois legislation to protect the rights of the accused from police brutality, etc.) I think that once you do you will be convinced that Obama is a strong progressive candidate.   

Obama is the anti-Kerry-Gore candidate. He’s connecting with people rather than preaching to them. He’s talking about progressive policies yet he has some conservatives excited about his campaign. He’s running a hell of a ground game in the primary states and he’s building a true movement around his campaign that gives people many ways to get involved. Perhaps more than anything, he is winning people over with the idea that he is genuine. And I believe that’s what voters want that more than anything.  

I've been very curious to see what the financial reports would be from the Clinton camp. The Politico has a story up today that adds to the growing list of bad news for Hillary's campaign and sheds more light on why she needed the $5 million personal loan. (and this just as Obama's campaign is reporting that is has over 500,000 donors in 2008). It's got to be frustrating to have more money available for a general election run than money for a primary election that you are quickly losing a grip on:

According to the (FEC) reports, Clinton raised about $20 million in January, including her ($5 million) loan. She spent nearly $29 million during the month.

She reported a cash balance of $29 million. But more than $20 million of that is money dedicated to the general election. Her personal loan accounts for more than half of the remaining approximately $9 million, leaving just about $4 million in cash raised from donors.

But even that money is illusionary when measured against the reported $7.6 million in debts.

More than $2 million of the red ink is owed to chief consultant and adviser, Mark Penn. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8613.html

Obama, not surprisingly, continued to have plenty of primary money available at the end of January.

He reported raising nearly $37 million and spending nearly $31 million. His cash balance was $25 million, of which roughly $20 million can be spent on the primary. He reported a comparatively small $1 million in debts, owed largely to just three vendors.

This has real consequences for the Clinton campaign in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania - since they are expensive states to run a ground campaign and paid media.

After March 4th, I can't imagine that money will flow to Clinton if she loses Texas or Ohio. If she wins both though she may be flush with new donations and momentum and be determined to drag this out to the bitter end.   

Last thought: she could pay me $2,000 and get better advice and talking points than the $2 million worth of advice she's getting from Mark Penn.   

What's the opposite of hope?

He also emphasized a tough stance on national security, warning that the nation remained under threat from terrorists that he described as “moral monsters” who are “led by an apocalyptic zeal that celebrates murder.”

- John McCain in his victory speech in Wisconsin as reported by the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/us/politics/19cnd-campaign.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed."

- Sen. Hillary Clinton, floor speech on SJ Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorizr the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. October 10, 2002 http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

 

"I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics."

- Barack Obama, Illinois State Senator, speech at the first high-profile Chicago anti-Iraq war rally. October 2, 2002. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama%27s_Iraq_Speech