The Clinton campaign, embarrassed by its own misstatements about Bosnia and Ireland, tried to deflect some of the criticism this week by attacking Obama with a press release and a conference call by trying to cite Obama's own exaggerations.
The very first claim was that Obama had falsely used the "law professor" to describe himself. The Clinton campaign first cites an RNC press release and then a 2004 article from Lynn Sweet, a Chicago Sun-Times columnist who for years has made it her career to try to catch Obama:
Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter.
Jerome Armstrong cited an interesting but ultimately unconvincing analysis from National Journal's Michael Brownstein about a potential Obama-McCain general election:
Obama's strong support from affluent and college-educated voters in the primaries demonstrates his opportunity to convert Republican-leaning upper-income voters (especially men) now disaffected from President Bush.
But Obama's struggle during the primaries with working-class white women suggests an opening for McCain to court those downscale "waitress moms" with the same security issues that drew many of them to Bush in 2004. The first trend should boost Obama in Virginia and Colorado (two affluent states atop Democratic target lists); the second should help McCain defend Ohio and besiege Pennsylvania.
Today, the Oakland Tribune and the Los Angeles Times endorsed Barack Obama for president, finishing off a remarkable sweep of the major newspaper editorial boards across the state. Among others, the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Francisco Bay Guardian, the San Jose Mercury, the Sacramento Bee, the Modesto Bee, Santa Cruz Sentinel, and the Santa Barbara Independent have all endorsed Obama.
This newspaper sweep is so extensive and so comprehensive that I'm not sure Clinton has received the endorsement of a single editorial board in the state.* In total, 32 California newspapers have endorsed Obama, from southern California to the Central Valley and the Bay Area and northward, newspapers of every size and in every kind of community.
* - There have been a handful of small papers to endorse Clinton. See below.
Principled leaders never vote present. Never. They "stand" for things.
Via Inside Nevada Politics, Clinton was asked if she supported the lawsuit filed to prevent casino employees from voting at their workplace as part of nine at-large precincts the Nevada Democratic party set up to try to enfranchise as many people as possible:
Asked about the lawsuit Clinton said:
"I know about the lawsuit. I hope it can be resolved by the courts and by the state party. Obviously, we want as many people as possible to participate."
In a later interview, I asked Clinton again about the lawsuit. She repeated her criticism of the caucus process, that it leaves too many people out and said she wants as many people as possible to participate. Does she support the lawsuit?
"I have no opinion on the lawsuit."
Does she have an opinion on the at-large precincts as a way to make the process more fair?
Over the weekend, Biden and Richardson announced that they do not support the right of Iowa students from out of state to caucus. Dodd has had four different positions in the span of as many days. The Clinton campaign seemed to retract her earlier comments and then notsomuch.
What is so shocking is that so few in the Democratic Party establishment and no one else in the Democratic primary field has weighed in on behalf of the utterly unproblematic, long-held progressive position that students have every right, and should be strongly encouraged, to register to vote. How hard can this be?
Last week, we saw a fairly astonishing display of doublespeak from Clinton and Dodd on the topic of whether Iowa students originally from out of state have the right to caucus.
Changes are coming at the American Prospect with Ezra Klein shutting down his own blog to move to the Prospect website and Garance Franke-Routa moving to the Washington Post.
Honestly, I thought the Clinton campaign would drop this charge quickly. Arguing that college students shouldn't be able to register to vote on campus is so obviously wrong. I've posted a series of diaries on this issue here and here.
Instead, Clinton has now joined in personally, charging that Iowa college students shouldn't be able to register on campus. We hear the same tired argument that has been used against students before: They don't live here, they don't pay taxes, they shouldn't be able to vote here.
In November 2004, just days before election day, voters received this mailer (pdf) from the Iowa Republican Party on behalf of state representative Danny Carol, who later apologized but was defeated in 2006:
Over the weekend, the Clinton campaign questioned the right of Iowa students to participate in the caucus. Threatened in the polls, Clinton has given up just attacking her rivals and has decided to launch full-out verbal assaults against key Democratic constituencies.
The caucus, her campaign representative said, ought to be "for Iowans," not for college students who have lived and studied there for the last four years.
Peter Baker, writing for the otherwise excellent Washington Post blog The Trail, declares that the blogosphere is overreacting and blames the medium, personalities in the blogosphere, the atmosphere in the country ––– basically anyone and everyone other than the Post. It's not us, it's the country, the blogosphere, the candidates, the mood of the times...
Yesterday, as we all know, the Washington Post saw fit to elevate a whisper campaign to the front page of the newspaper. The Post quoted extensively from charges about Obama's background without bothering to call them false or to refute them.
According to the LA Times, student activists, universities, and state officials have embarked on an expansive and unprecedented effort to boost student turnout in the Iowa caucus –– responding to the early caucus date by convincing students that caucusing in their hometowns during winter vacation might dramatically boost their influence over the process.
Much has been written about the extremely early January 3rd caucus date: We've talked about how the date will impact student turnout, about how the holidays will influence messaging and willingness to run negative advertising, and about difficulties in reaching voters tuning out the news and in recruiting volunteers busy with family.
I've also written about how caucus-goers will be surrounded with a different set of influentials ––– instead of discussing politics with their co-workers and friends, voters will be spending a great deal more time with their extended family. How will this change their decision-making process?
The editors of TechPresident, a blog dedicated to the intersection of politics and technology and to which I am an occasional contributor, took the time to grade each candidate's technology proposals.
Obama released a major package of technology initiatives today that Matt Stoller has greeted as "transformative" and "genuinely radical" ––– even announcing that, based on this package and despite his other reservations, Obama is now his first choice.
Obama has committed himself to a technology policy for government that could radically change how government works.
Kos has praised the package on the frontpage. And VentureBeat today called the package "the most comprehensive set of policies for open government I’ve seen."
Clearly, with this package, Obama has hit the ball out of the park.
A mere week after launching Students for Hillary and touting its support among young people, top advisers to Hillary Clinton were busy in the spin room Saturday night disparaging them, claiming that Obama's supporters were young and unlikely to caucus.
Good strategy: A week after finally setting up your campaign's organization to attract young people, tell them they won't vote anyway so their presence is irrelevant.
The ad features David Hartgrave of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, a former longtime employee of Farmstead Foods, standing before the shuttered factory where he worked, describing how executives misused company funds and left him with a dramatically reduced pension. The message is clear.
