I Spent Two Years Campaigning in Iowa and All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt

After two long years of political foreplay, the game is finally on.

Tonight, Iowans will kick off the nation's presidential selection process by being the first to cast votes for one (in some cases, two, or even three) of the candidates.  Political freaks (like me) are on the edges of our seats.  But the truth is the results will probably be a lot duller and more indecisive than anyone thinks.

On the Democratic side, it will most likely be a muddied mess, with the top three---Clinton, Obama, and Edwards---clustered in an effective tie.  One may be slightly ahead of the others, and there may be one ahead and a two-way tie right beneath.  But in all likelihood, Iowa won't decide much, and the winning cluster will go on.

On the Republican side, it will most likely be a muddied mess, with the top two---Huckabee and Romney---see-sawing for first, and perhaps clustered in an effective tie.  The ones to watch are McCain---who spent very little time and money in Iowa and yet seems to be having a second life there----and Thompson---who isn't going to win anything (including the nomination) but may get something of a pity vote.

So, barring a breakout win by one of the candidates on either side, all of them will jump aboard their chartered jets at about 10:30pm ET and head east.  Toward New Hampshire.  By this time tomorrow, Des Moines will be a ghost town, Iowa yesterday's newspaper, not heard from again until the night of November 4, when Tim Russert will be wondering aloud where Iowa's electoral votes are going to go.

For the candidates, it's been a long, tiring road to Iowa.  Some of them (Clinton) have been campaigning for four years.  Many of them (Edwards, Romney) have been campaigning for two years.  A few (Giuliani, Obama) have been campaigning for a year.  That's a big investment of time and resources.  They all want to win, obviously.  But how many of them, after all of their blood, sweat, and tears, are going to leave with a lousy T-shirt?

Campaign Meltdown

Already today, we've had wild n' crazy news from several presidential candidates:  Rudy Giuliani admitted to a hospital with flu-like symptoms.  The New York Times reportedly debating whether to print a hit piece on John McCain.  Hillary Clinton's brother, Tony, is a deadbeat dad who owes his ex-wife $75,000 in child support.  Barack Obama is already floating names for his Cabinet.

And the voting hasn't even begun yet.

Twenty-four hour media and backing up the primaries to New Year's Day have turned presidential politics into the Wild West.

I wonder what is sinking in with voters and what sounds merely like annoying background noise.  How much are we absorbing?  Everybody's political baggage is hitting everybody's else's baggage.  The candidates are flailing.  The press is spinning out of control.  We've hit a saturation point---and we're still two weeks away from the first caucus. 

The Europeans are generally unreliable allies but they are good for a few things: food, wine, ancient sites.  They also do their political campaigns right: three to five months, and voila!  New president or prime minister.  That way is easier on the candidates, easier on the system, easier on democracy---and easier on the voters.  Viva la shorter campaign!

The Other Mayor Of New York

The media must be bored already with their latest creation, former Governor Mike Huckabee.  Poor Huckabee: just as he was getting accustomed to his newfound Brad Pitt-like status, he's becoming yesterday's newspaper.  The press is dropping him like a hot potato in favor of the next Latest Thing:

Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York.

Today's New York Post reports that Bloomberg's aides are quietly reaching out to old consultants to check their availability for next year, including the media guy who created his influential TV ads.

The media thought they'd have their hands full covering a past mayor of New York, but Rudy Giuliani seems to have stumbled badly, from which he's trying to recover.  But for now, Rudy is---can you believe it?!----the dull mayor of New York.  Bloomberg is now where it's at.

He's a media dream:  fabulously rich (over $10 billion at last estimate), self-made (Horatio Alger!), single (but dating a smart and accomplished woman!), but divorced with two normal, well-adjusted daughters (Jenna and Barbara 2.0!). 

He also has done something very few other public officials have been able to pull off: he runs the city the way he ran his business.  Most successful businessmen have run for high office, thinking they could just translate business acumen into political savvy.  Once there, however, they discovered that business (the profit motive) and politics (the vote-getting motive) were too different to be run the same way.

Bloomberg showed that it could be done.  Will that ability translate to the presidency?  Maybe.  Polls show that most voters are fed up with politics on both sides of the aisle, so Bloomberg's "post-partisan" appeal might be wider than we know.  The question is: when push comes to shove, will voters roll the dice on an outside-the-box guy?  His support may be wide, but is it deep?

McCain Rides Again

Primary season is a little like Christmas morning: there is a surprise waiting for you at every turn.

Senator John McCain, whom most analysts left for dead months ago (except for us!), has risen again.  In addition to three big newspaper endorsements (the Des Moines Register, the New Hampshire Union Leader, and the Boston Globe), he got the backing today of Senator Joe Lieberman.  Lieberman was a Democrat, until his party got hijacked by the George Soros-band of crazies, who ran him out on a rail.  Although he still caucuses with the Democrats, Lieberman is the only original thinker among them in the Senate.

This is why his endorsement of McCain is so important: part of the mythical appeal of a Michael Bloomberg candidacy is because Bloomberg appears POST-PARTISAN.  He was a lifelong Democrat who became a Republican to get elected mayor of New York, and is now an Independent.  In this era of hyper-partisanship, a lot of people are rejecting the old party lines.

McCain has always been an independent guy.  Sometimes too far off the reservation for some conservatives.  And during this election cycle, he's often been dismissed as an old war-horse.

But if the "new brand" guys---Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee (?)---cancel each other out, there will be an opening, and the old war-horse may ride on through.

Slim Pickings

This is the time when influential newspapers in the key early voting states make their endorsements. So far, Senator John McCain is leading the pack, scoring the trifecta of endorsements from the Des Moines Register, the (NH) Union Leader, and the Boston Globe. Senator Barack Obama has picked up the Globe, while Senator Hillary Clinton has won the hearts and minds of those at the Register.

Endorsements used to mean a lot: in a world before the  proliferation of media, newspapers were the only game in town. What  they said was considered gospel truth, because there weren't too many  other competing sources of information. People held newspapers in great esteem, and when they endorsed someone, it came down to the reader as if on stone tablets from Horeb.

These days, it's more important to have Oprah's endorsement than the Des Moines Register's. Still, all of the candidates hope for them: this weekend, the New York Times reported that Bill Clinton lobbied the editorial board of the Register hard for Hillary's endorsement. I'm sure there was an offer they couldn't refuse in there somewhere.

Begging for endorsements is par for the course, however unseemly. The irony is that while the Republican race is all over map, there is one candidate mopping up the endorsements: McCain.  Meanwhile, the Democrats now have a see-saw of endorsements, for which they are fighting tooth and nail.

The editorial board of the Des Moines Register is made up of three women. Of course they were going to go for Hillary, even without the hard sell from Bill. But they are just 3 votes. On January 3, there will be 150,000 other Iowa Democrats who will make their own endorsements.

The Playoffs Begin

Senator Barack Obama has had enough of the warm-up.  He's ready for the National Anthem and the coin toss.  He's ready to rock.

Senator Hillary Clinton needs a time-out.  She hasn't stretched, her muscles are tight, her game plan needs a complete retooling. 

Obama is Patriots Quarterback Tom Brady before the season: calm, confident, poised, ready to win.

Clinton is Jets Quarterback Chad Pennington before the season: talented but thrown off-kilter by unforeseen events, confidence shaky, throwing interceptions all over the place.

It all comes down to the playoffs:  Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina.  In each of these states, Obama is either ahead or right on Clinton's heels.  When the pressure's on, Brady never chokes; Pennington usually does.  Will Clinton play it like Pennington---or will she loft it like Brady?

Eggs, Potatoes and a Signal

This morning, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg invited Senator Barack Obama for breakfast. They went to a diner in Midtown Manhattan, sat in the window, and chatted up education and homeland security. The press stood on the sidewalk, cameras whirring away.

If Bloomberg and Obama had really wanted to have a private talk, they would have gone behind closed doors at Gracie Mansion or at the apartment of a third party. Instead, they chose a joint in the center of New York and sat so the press could get a clear shot. 

They didn't dine together for their health. This was a signal. It was a signal from Bloomberg to Obama's supporters that if Obama is the Democratic nominee, Bloomberg will not run for president. He will not stand in the way of this young, talented guy. He will defer.

But, if the morning after Super Tuesday, it looks like Hillary Clinton and Bloomberg's other nemesis, Rudy Giuliani, are their party's nominees, Bloomberg will run. That was the other signal.

That's what the Bloomberg-Obama breakfast was about. Eggs, scrambled, not over easy.

The Obama Offensive

In an interview tonight on ABC's Nightline, Senator Barack Obama strikes at the heart of Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy:

"I think the fact of the matter is that Sen. Clinton is claiming basically the entire eight years of the Clinton presidency as her own, except for the stuff that didn't work out, in which case she says she has nothing to do with it," Obama said.

Courageously, he went on.

Referring to his relationship with his wife, Michelle, he said: "There is no doubt that Bill Clinton had faith in her and consulted with her on issues, in the same way that I would consult with Michelle, if there were issues," Obama said. "On the other had, I don't think Michelle would claim that she is the best qualified person to be a United States Senator by virtue of me talking to her on occasion about the work I've done."

And if that weren't enough to get him outfitted for cement shoes, check out his other body slam into New York's Junior Senator:

"You know, we must be doing pretty well in Iowa. She wasn't paying much attention to what I said before then."

So, in the course of a 15 minute interview, Obama said point-blank that Hillary's "pillow" talk with her spouse wasn't enough to qualify her for the presidency, slashed her for not taking responsibility for her own policy failures, and reminded everyone that he's the frontrunner now.

Not bad for a night's work.  To Hillary's shock, chagrin, and horror, Obama's attacks on her are unencumbered by the Clinton-imposed "rules of engagement."  And for the first time in its long political life, the Clinton Strike Force doesn't have the first clue how to handle it.  Except for playground taunting akin to "I know you are, but what am I?"

Obama has the momentum.  She's lost it.  He knows it. She knows it. 

For the two scorpions in the bottle, the question is:  Who will deliver the fatal sting first?

The Lesson of Bill

Last night's Republican debate featured a long segment of the candidates have a ball beating up New York's Junior Senator.  They treated Hillary Clinton as if she is already the Democratic nominee, not the presumptive nominee, not even the frontrunner.  The actual nominee.

At first blush, this looks like the Republicans fell for her bait.  By spending all of that time talking about her, they played into the perception of inevitability she's worked so hard to create.  They flattered her with all of the attention. They helped to make her coronation even more likely.

But look deeper.  Yes, she looks dominant.  Yes, she's got a lot of money.  Yes, she's way out in front in the polls.  But being that far ahead is no guarantee of winning when people actually cast votes.  Just ask Howard Dean, or the ghosts of Paul Tsongas, Edmund Muskie, or Hubert Humphrey.

Time and again, frontrunners have fallen.  Especially Democratic frontrunners.  John F. Kennedy was an underdog in 1960.  So was James "My Name is Earl" Carter in 1976.

As was her own husband in 1992.  He didn't even compete in Iowa and came in second in New Hampshire.  Two pretty major defeats, and yet he was able to brilliantly reposition himself as the "Comeback Kid."

Voters have a way of resenting being taken for granted, of having their votes counted before they are cast, of being used.  Hillary is savoring her frontrunner status, as well she should.  But she should not count on it actually meaning much when voting begins.  In fact, she should take a page out of Bill's playbook and hope that she actually gets humiliated in the early voting so she can also be a "Comeback Kid."

Building her up, reinforcing her frontrunner status, buying into the coronation looks like it's helping her.  But on second thought (and with an eye to history)....perhaps all of the time the Republicans spent talking about her last night wasn't so stupid after all.

Liberal-on-Liberal Violence

Will Rogers once said, "I'm not a member of any organized party.  I'm a Democrat."

A story in today's Washington Post raises the curtain on just how much chaos there is among Democrats.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was asked by reporters about the anger of the liberal base over the Democrats' failure to end the war in Iraq. 

"Look," she said, her frozen smile turning into a frozen frown. "I had, for five months, people sitting outside my home, going into my garden in San Francisco, angering neighbors, hanging their clothes from trees, building all kinds of things---Buddhas?  I don't know what they were---couches, sofas, chairs, permanent living facilities on my front sidewalk."

Sounds like liberal heaven.  But wait!  There's more:

"If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they would be arrested for loitering, but because they have "Impeach Bush" across their chest, it's the First Amendment."

This is liberal-on-liberal violence.

Speaker Pelosi complained that antiwar liberals 1) invaded her private space, 2) ticked off her neighbors, 3) set up "protest camps" outside her home, 4) made her life inconvenient with their antics.  Of course, all of that was fine when they were doing it to President Bush outside his home in Crawford, Texas.

Furthermore.  I thought liberals embraced the downtrodden, but Pelosi wants to see those homeless folks sleeping on her sidewalk removed for loitering.

What would Jesus do?

She's also seething over a primary challenge against her by antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan.  She called Sheehan's and others' targeting of Democrats "a waste of time."

Again, the Democrats were more than happy to have the lefties' support when things were really grim in Iraq and they could use them as surrogates to beat up the president.  Now that Iraq is improving somewhat, the Democrats have nothing else in their repertoire, so they are turning on each other.  They made use of each other when things were bad for the nation and thus good for them.  Now they are throwing each other overboard faster than you can say "Jim McDougal."

Democrats notoriously shoot themselves in the foot.  George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry?  Their ability to commit political suicide astounds.  2008 was supposed to be a perfect political storm for them.  But even perfect storms weaken and fall apart.  Trouble in paradise never looked so good.

Rollin'

The Junior Senator was brimming with coyishness last week during the Democratic debate in New Hampshire.  It turns out that all of those Cheshire cat grins hid a secret that would be hers---until today.

Knowing that the end of the third fundraising quarter was upon them, the Clinton Ladies' Intervention Team sprung into action.  Early last week, they leaked to ABC News that they expected this quarter to be something of a bummer.  They listed a whole litany of reasons why the money wouldn't exactly be rolling in to the campaign this time: folks go on vacation during the summer months, they said, she's tapped out the big donors already, and some fundraising fatigue had set in.  They went on to suggest that Clinton may have "only" raised between $17 and $19 million this quarter---and that they expected Barack Obama to raise much more.  Like $10 million more.

It was going to be a sad day for Team Clinton.

But as the Junior Senator herself might say, "Let's turn those frowns upside down, people!"

Seems that those wily ones over at the Chappaqua HQ set us up.  Seems that they knew all along that their gal was going to rake in about $27 million, and that Obama was going to be in the poor house by comparison, with $20 million. 

Nobody plays the expectations game better than the Ladies of the Intervention Team.  Nobody sets up opponents better than she does: first comes the lethargic smile, then comes the faux disappointment in the opponent, and then comes the slow, steady application of the knife in his back. 

Poor Obama doesn't know what hit him.  Maybe only now does he realize that he got played. 

Rudy Giuliani, on the other hand, is prepared for the smooth kneecapping efforts that are the speciality of the Intervention Team Enforcers.  He's prepared because he's from New York.  He's seen them in action, up close and personal.

Are any of the other Republican candidates prepared for the Clinton Death Tango?  They'd better be, or she is going to dance right over them and have them for breakfast.

Pass The No-Doze

Wednesday night's Republican debate was a big yawn.  At least last time, lightning from a passing storm crackled as Rudy Giuliani spoke about abortion.  Now THAT'S entertainment!

Even Fred Thompson announcing his candidacy on last night's Tonight Show with Jay Leno was snore-ville.

So what's going on?

For one, Democrats are usually a lot more fun to watch during a campaign because their ideas are so insane.  Therefore, they often step in it, with unintentionally hilarious results.  (Taking nuclear weapons off the table, anyone?!)  Plus this year, they have the added attractions of the first formidable woman and black man in their primary race---two candidates in a death match to claim biggest minority status and thus, the brass ring.  The Clinton-Obama duel is unparalleled for sheer entertainment value, as neither one can insult or destroy the other without looking insensitive to women or blacks.  And it's always a barrel of hearty laughs to have Bill Clinton anywhere near a political campaign.

The Republicans, by contrast, are all fine candidates but a bit milquetoast.  Even Giuliani with his three wives and children who are supporting somebody else, is a bit Vanilla to the Democrats' Rocky Road.   With the exception of stealth "Democratic" candidate Ron Paul, any one of the Republicans would be a good president.  But they are all white men of a certain generation.  Serious men, to be sure.  All incredibly intelligent, thoughtful patriots.  But not nearly as colorful as the Democratic band of characters.

So, we're left watching these serious and thoughtful men opine for the millionth time about abortion and taxes, always getting the same questions and always offering the same responses.  There are a few barbs here and there, but nothing like what's happening over there on the rainbow coalition side of the race. 

But in these volatile and dangerous times, I'd much rather have the steady leadership that comes from the milquetoast candidates than the "it takes a village" approach of those wild-n-crazy Democrats.  If the Republicans put me to sleep but are going to keep me safe from Islamic terror, lower my taxes, reduce the size of government, and stop illegal immigration, I'll take that over liberal vaudeville any time.

Musings from Michael Dukakis ?!?

Last weekend on the program, I told you about the latest Gallup poll that showed Senator Hillary Clinton with 47% of those polled viewing her favorably and a whopping 49% viewing her unfavorably. She is the only candidate on either side with a negative number higher than her positive number. And no candidate has ever won the presidency with an unfavorable number that astronomical.

That doesn't mean she can't pull it off. But it does mean that she's got a much taller mountain to climb than the liberal, mainstream media would have you believe.

A little over a week ago, the columnist Robert Novak pointed out that Democrats across the country were getting a bit concerned that she WOULD be the nominee---for that very reason. That her negatives would end up being a drag for other candidates down ticket.

These are the precinct captains and county chairmen who are responsible for getting Democrats to the polls in November 2008. If they're worried NOW about Hillary, the Democrats have a problem.

Maybe that's why a Democratic district in Arizona voted in a straw poll today and chose Al Gore.

In a story printed today (August 22), a previous Democratic presidential nominee, former Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, told the New York Observer that he recently hung out with the North Carolina Democratic delegation:

""These are Democrats,” he pointed out. “And they’re really scared to death that Hillary will be the nominee, because they think in a place like North Carolina, you know … And so I said, ‘Would Obama be any better?’ They said, yeah, Obama would be better. Now isn’t that interesting? These guys are hard-nosed pols from North Carolina. These folks are 12- and 15-year veterans of the North Carolina legislature.”"

Why would Obama be better? He replied:

"“Apparently it’s the negatives on Hillary that for some reason bothers them. I’m just reporting what I heard. I have no idea about the politics of North Carolina. But they seemed to think they had a better shot in North Carolina with Obama than they had with Hillary.”"

And all this time, the media has been telling REPUBLICANS that they shouldn't be "satisfied" with THEIR presidential choices!

McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry. Quite the unelectable hit parade. The Democratic party may choose to do it again. We can only hope.

The End

     Today, Senator John Edwards moved his campaign staff out of Nevada and relocated them to other early caucus and primary states:  Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.       

As for Nevada?  "I will continue going there and competing very hard," he said.        As for his presidential campaign?  And....scene.

Thompson Chills

In an interview this week, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich described the modern path to the White House as "insane."  He's right.

For decades now, political types have been complaining about the growing length of presidential campaigns: from weeks to months to years.  Today, the day after a new president is elected marks the beginning of the campaign to replace him.  It really is absurd.

And exhausting.  The physical toll on these candidates is intense. They travel to four or five states in one day.  Make multiple speeches and interviews.  Eat tons of junk food.  Get little to no sleep.  By the time election day rolls around, we don't have a fired-up, energetic new president-elect.  We've got a bone-tired person who has left every bit of intellectual, physical, and emotional energy on the campaign trail.

That may be why former Senator Fred Thompson has yet to declare his candidacy.  Or begin campaigning in earnest.  He's scheduled to visit Iowa for the first time next week, and he (along with former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Senator John McCain) will be skipping the Ames straw poll this weekend.  Thomas Beaumont of the Des Moines Register reminded us today that in Iowa, "the 2008 caucus campaign is already seven months under way."

Thompson has been criticized for waiting so long; reporters and fellow Republicans are starting to buzz that by not jumping in, he's looking disinterested, even lazy.  But maybe he just doesn't want to take part in the insanity---the endless rounds of insipid, scripted debates and the ridiculous merry-go-round of polling and rat-racing---so early.  Money, he needs.  The rest of this early drama, he can live without.

Of course, he can't wait forever if he's going to jump in.  Now his campaign says he will formally declare in early September.  If he does, he'll still have over four months to campaign in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada and all of the other primary states that will decide the nominee by early February.  Then we can all look forward to nine months of general election campaigning, with two interminable political conventions thrown in.  Heaven above, help us!

Maybe Fred Thompson has it right:  wait until your coffers can't wait anymore.  Save your energy.  Create an air of mystery.  Don't fatigue yourself or the voters.  Don't get Paris Hiltonesque overexposed. 

It's hard to throw a political trend like this into reverse, but if Thompson succeeds, we all may be treated to shorter campaigns the next time around.  And then we'll get a president we're not already sick of by the time he gets sworn in.

 

Back in Business

Hi everyone.  I finally got my computer fixed after having been without it for a week, so the blogging is back!  Since last weekend's show, I've been asked by many listeners for the monologue I did about how Senator Barack Obama represents the first new BRAND of the 21st century.  Here it is:

OBAMA: THE NEW BRAND In the crucial early primary states of New Hampshire and South Carolina, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) has now, according to the latest polls, pulled dead even with Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) In Iowa, both of them still trail Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), but even there, Obama is nipping at Clinton’s heels.

The question is: why is Obama getting traction now? Why, all of a sudden, has this junior Senator from Illinois, grabbed so much attention, support and money? Why has he already graced the covers of Time and Newsweek multiple times? Why is he attracting huge crowds? Why is he creating a sensation?

The conventional explanation is that he’s the first credible black man to run for president. And that’s not a small detail. But that’s not what’s really going on here.

The real explanation for the phenomenon of Barack Obama is this: he is the first new BRAND of the 21st century.

Think about it this way: with this presidential election, we have finally entered the new millennium. The first two elections of the new millennium -- 2000 and 2004 -- weren’t really new at all. Bush vs. Gore? Bush vs. Kerry? These were 20th century races. They were Vietnam-era guys. In fact, the Vietnam war was all over these campaigns, from CBS’s use of fraudulent documents questioning Bush’s National Guard service to Sen. Kerry’s “reporting for duty” at the 2004 Democratic convention. They were running like it was 1966. Or 1968 or 1972. They were partying like it was 1999, because it WAS 1999.

They were -- they ARE -- old, tired brands.

Now, our politics have finally caught up with the calendar, which says we’re already seven years into the new millennium. They have also caught up with our technology, which speeds along like Bill Clinton through a meeting with Hillary.

In this new era, the rules are different. The generation is different. The way people get their news is different. Many people don’t read books or newspapers or magazines anymore. They get their news off the internet, their cell phones, and from YouTube.|

The forces bringing in this new millennium are converging -- and they are converging around Barack Obama. Why? Because Obama is a new brand. And Hillary is an old brand. Both of the Clintons are tired, spent brands.

If you are a new voter, the Clintons have been around since you were two years old. If you are under thirty, they have been around since you were in middle school. Even if you are under forty, there is enormous Clinton fatigue because in this age of cut-to-the-quick life and super high-speed connections (which is what Generations X, Y, and now Z were raised on), then the Clintons make you yawn. They are yesterday’s newspaper. They aren’t even on yesterday’s blog.

It must be beginning to dawn on Team Clinton that this is a force beyond even their control. A few weeks ago, they sent Bill out to say that although “some people” think the Clintons are “yesterday’s news,” he said he thought “yesterday’s news was pretty good.”

If that’s all they have to counter this tidal wave, then Hillary had better start rehearsing, “You want fries with that?” Because although she seems relatively dominant now, there’s a lot more vulnerability in her candidacy than meets the eye. The technology is 21st century, and until now, the political thinking has been 20th century. But now the politics is catching up -- and fast. People are used to getting the latest thing. They want it fast, hip, cool, and new. This is not the Clintons. Their brand is as exhausted as the Bush brand is.

This is why Hillary made a big mistake when she attacked Obama recently for his statement that he would talk directly to America’s worst enemies. Her attack brought him up to her level. Frontrunners need to pretend as if their primary competitors are mere nuisances, and not deign to engage them directly. By going after him, she elevated him --and his brand.

Team Clinton rarely makes a mistake. But it must be occurring to them -- between their photo shoots for Vogue and fending off “hecklers” -- that there is a bigger danger to her than they ever anticipated.

It’s called modern times.

She is the candidate of a bygone era. Obama, on the other hand, projects a futurist image. He’s very 21st century. And that’s why he’s doing so well.

Try as they might, those old dogs -- Bill and Hillary -- cannot be rebranded. She’s taking a stab at it by running on “change,” by trotting out her Generation Y daughter, Chelsea, and by spotlighting her glamorous 32-year-old traveling chief of staff, Huma Abedin. But all of this is akin to re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

The Clintons are Richard Nixon to Barack Obama’s JFK in 1960.

They are George H.W. Bush to Barack Obama’s Bill Clinton in 1992.

Sometimes, the old hand wins -- when people want steadiness and reassurance. But when America is in an era like this one, ready to sprout new buds like a tulip in spring, the old guard doesn’t do it. They want the new brand. And that’s one of the great ironies of this race: Hillary Clinton may be defeated by the Bill Clinton of 2008: Barack Obama.

Bloomberg's Bid

Today's Washington Times reports that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is seriously considering a run for the presidency.  Not as a Republican, mind you, even though that's what his nominal party affiliation is as mayor.  No, if he were to run for president, he'd do it as an Independent.  A third-party candidate.  An outsider.  A modern-day---and urban---Teddy Roosevelt.

Well.  Historically, third party candidates have had mixed success. Some have done better than others.  But none has reached the presidency in this era in which the two major parties are so entrenched, have incredibly powerful fundraising machines, and have the reach provided by the mainstream and alternative media.  Those advantages have inhibited third party candidates from emerging, or from achieving great electoral success.

Bloomberg, however, has built-in advantages that could overcome all of these obstacles.  First, he's got a multi-billion dollar self-made fortune.  Sources say he's willing to spend up to $1 billion on a presidential campaign, so he doesn't need to do the frenzied fundraising the other candidates must.  Second, he's the mayor of a city that has the most dominant media market in the country.  He can and does get wide and continuous media coverage, so he doesn't need to beg for it.  And finally, there may be an untapped impulse in the country for a genuine outsider, particularly if the parties nominate establishment figures that set eyes rolling, like Hillary Clinton or Newt Gingrich. 

Here's a scenario:  the Democrats nominate Hillary, the Republicans nominate Giuliani, and Bloomberg runs as an Independent.  How much New York can one country take?!  It would be enough New York to make the rest of the country sick to its stomach.  But with those personalities and all of that money, it would be one wild ride.

 

The Hollywood ATM

The so-called Hollywood "community"---actors, actresses, directors, producers, studio executives, etc----resembles a pack of lemmings.  You know, those cute little animals that plunge into the sea en masse.  There is very little individualism in the lemming community.  One of them takes off for the ocean, and the rest, following some basic intinct, follow. 

Everybody knows that Hollywood is a liberal place.  It's also true that real conservatives exist in Hollywood, but most have to conceal their beliefs or risk ostracization and unemployment.  The community that says it prides itself on "free speech" and "open creativity" actually penalizes anybody that doesn't toe their political line.  They will vehemently deny it, but they have imposed a new kind of "black list" against anything and anybody conservative.

But given the current crop of presidential candidates, we might see some interesting bedfellows.  Most of the Hollywood Left supports whatever Democrat:  Hillary, because she looks like the frontrunner, or Obama, because he's a "fresh face" (and we know how much Hollywood prizes the "fresh face."), or Edwards, because he's thrown himself at their mercy over Iraq. 

Hillary's got stars like Ted Danson and Mary Steenburgen (remind me please of what they have done recently?).  Obama has reeled in Tom Hanks, Tobey Maguire, Eddie Murphy, Morgan Freeman, and Ben Stiller.  Of the powerful triumvirate, Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg, and David Geffen, only Geffen has publicly disavowed Hillary and is solely supporting Obama.

But the Republicans are offering candidates not totally offensive to Hollywood.  Exhibit A: John McCain.  Although Hollywood can't stand his position on Iraq, they like his bona fides as a war hero and his authenticity (although they wouldn't know authenticity if it hit them in the face.) They also like that he's gotten up the president's grill on terrorist interrogation and tax cuts.  Exhibit B: Rudy Giuliani.  He appeals to them because he's pro-gun control, pro-gay marriage, and pro-choice.  He's a Republican that even Hollywood could...well, not love, but not hate either.

McCain has gotten bucks from blockbuster producers Jerry Bruckheimer and Lorne Michaels.  Giuliani has gotten checks from "Frasier's" Kelsey Grammer, Adam Sandler, and Paramount studio head Brad Grey. 

Not exactly Obama's crowd, but not chopped liver, either.

The lemmings will all vote for whatever Democrat is nominated, of course.  But since neither Rudy nor McCain is considered a thoroughbred conservative, Hollywood wouldn't mind too much if either were elected.  They won't admit it, though.  Because to do that, you'd have to be a lemming of heroic proportions, with courage and character, to buck the overwhelming peer pressure to jump off the cliff along with everybody else.

UPDATE: Follow the Money

Well, well, well.  It seems that since yesterday's initial fundraising reporting, the tally for Barack Obama is even more than expected.  For the first quarter, he raked in a whopping $25 million, just $1 million shy of Madame Clinton herself.  This, of course, must be giving Madame an epic fit. Having Obama nipping at her heels BOTH in the polls and in the money race must have lamps flying all over the nerve center of the Clinton Ladies' Intervention Team.

Hillary Clinton transferred $10 million left over from her Senate race to her presidential campaign.  Although this is a legal transfer, it's a clever way of getting around the campaign finance limits.  An individual can give up to $2300 to a candidate for the primary, and up to an additional $2300 for the general election.  So Hillary used her Senate campaign to raise both sets of money from individuals and then banked it, knowing she would never need it in such a cake-walk of a race. In other words, she used the Senate race as a cash cow for her presidential run. Now she can go to THE SAME people and get them to contribute ANOTHER $4600 each.  You gotta give it to the girl: she's a clever cat.

Follow The Money

In politics, as in most things in life, perception is reality.  And in a presidential race, perception as to whom is leading whom is built on two things: polls and money. At this point in the campaign, polls measure name recognition and popularity.  The amount of money raised, however, indicates something else: viability.  If people tell a telephone pollster that they like Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani for president, they are indicating an emotional feeling for the candidate.  They like them, admire them, respect them.  But when asked by the candidate's fundraising team to put their money where their mouth is, voters will often think twice.  People don't easily part with their money.  And that's why the amount raised by candidates is a more reliable indicator of early support.

In the first quarter of this year, Hillary Clinton raised the most money among Democrats running for president.  She raised $26 million, although the Clinton Ladies' Intervention Team was swift to point out that her grand total is $36 million.  Why?  Because she transferred $10 million left over from her Senate race.  That race was so  lopsided and Hillary was always so far ahead, that she used her New York Senate race as a fundraising machine to finance her presidential run.

But what's more interesting is that Barack Obama raised over $20 million, and John Edwards was not that far behind.  So for all of Hillary's vaunted fundraising success, the other two top-tier Democratic candidates are giving her a run for her money (literally) that she didn't expect.  She had expected to raise $50 million by now, which she would have been able to do, if Obama hadn't suddenly come on the scene.  Now she has to work harder for the moolah.

On the GOP side, the big surprise here is that Mitt Romney knocked it out of the park, raising over $23 million.  Rudy Giuliani clocked in with over $ 15 million, and John McCain with $12.5 million.  Romney is playing this race brilliantly, flying under the radar, and quietly putting together an organization that may help him over the finish line next year.  Remember: in primaries, Democrats tend to go for the new, shiny candidate. Republicans tend to go for the establishment candidate.  Of the three top-tier GOP candidates, Romney looks the most classically establishment.  This could be why he's currently raising the most money.  And loyal fans of The Monica Crowley Show will recall that last year, I predicted on the program that Romney would be the Republican nominee.
 
There's a long way to go, but as the old adage says, "Follow the money."

Bloomberg Eyes '08 Run

New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg is toying with a run for President in 2008.   This morning’s Washington Post reports Mayor Mike is taking a wait and see approach—waiting to see who the Democrats and Republicans choose as their nominees.

Before you laugh this one off, remember, Bloomberg has one thing the other candidates don’t—and almost endless supply of money. The self-made millionaire spent $85 million on his last campaign for mayor and has enough cash to blanket the country with television ad for months.

Read more about the Bloomberg speculation in this morning’s Washington Post.   CLICK HERE

Showdown in Selma

As they battle for support in the black community in their quest for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will attend Sunday's commemoration of the historic 1965 Selma voting rights march.

Both ABC News/Washington Post and Diageo/Hotline released major polls on the 2008 campaign yesterday. On balance the numbers were positive for Obama and Rudy Giuliani and not so great for Senator Clinton.

So this weekend, the Clinton campaign will be bringing out the big gun-- former President Bill Clinton.   Hide your daughters!