The '08 race in retrospect
Old war stories and new assessments
The '08 race in retrospect
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Six weeks after a national election, most normal Americans have successfully weaned themselves from presidential politics, preferring instead to do normal types of things, such as ingesting great heaps of saturated fats, or watching six hours of high-definition Sunday football, or cruising the malls for going-out-of-business sales.
But there remains a supspecies of human that still can't get enough of the '08 campaign - I'm talking, of course, about you - and this is why Harvard's Kennedy Institute of Politics lured four of the top campaign strategists up to Cambridge the other night, for the purpose of trading war stories and assessing the history that they all helped make.
The Dec. 11 session - featuring Obama strategists David Axelrod and David Plouffe, and McCain insiders Rick Davis and Bill McInturff - didn't inspire any news headlines, and some of the remarks were predictable (such as the McCain strategists' defense of the Sarah Palin pick). But, as evidenced by the forum video, there were numerous worthy info-nuggets along the way. So let's mine a few of them:
The Florida factor. On such fragile matters, history turns. Plouffe basically suggested that, if the Democratic National Committee had allowed Florida to conduct a meaningful primary on Jan. 29, Hillary Clinton may well have beaten Obama for the Democratic nomination. (And then Plouffe would not be viewed as the genius that he is considered today.)
The back story is simple. In 2007, Florida announced that it intended to stage its primary on Jan. 29, in violation of Democratic rules barring the state from scheduling the contest ahead of the Super Tuesday marathon on Feb. 5. The national party's Rules Committee could easily have ignored the violation; indeed, as Plouffe pointed out, Clinton had a lot of friends on the committee, and Florida was rightly viewed as good Clinton territory (due to her name recognition and her husband's residual popularity, among other things).
Plouffe said that, back in 2007 when Obama was still trying to get traction, "We were terribly frightened of Feb. 5. Hillary was ahead in all those (Super Tuesday) states...The only way we could survive Feb. 5 was to go into that with maximum velocity, and South Carolina (on Jan. 26) gave us the opportunity for a big win" - but only if it was the last real contest before Super Tuesday.
Yet that's what happened, because the Democratic party's Rules Committee sanctioned Florida for trying to stage its primary on Jan. 29. The committee stripped Florida of its delegates, and the candidates pledged not to campaign there. The contest was still held on Jan. 29, and Clinton won it handily - but the results were rendered meaningless.
Plouffe said that if Clinton had won a meaningful Florida primary on the eve of Super Tuesday, "it might have mitigated all the momentum we had out of (winning) South Carolina. In fact, we might not have been the nominee. It's things like that that haven't gotten that much attention." Without the party knocking Florida out of the picture, "I don't know how we could have survived Feb. 5."
The Wright factor. McInturff, who handled McCain's internal polling, said that McCain adamantly refused to raise Jeremiah Wright as a campaign issue, despite "enormous pressure" from Republican partisans. McInturff said he concurred in that decision.
McInturff said he told his campaign associates that McCain's "happy scenario" looked like this: a squeaker victory with 273 electoral votes, coupled with losing the popular vote by three million. He recalled telling people, "If your candidate used that (Wright) issue aggressively, and won the presidency that way, you'd already be delegitimized as president, you couldn't function or govern."
Besides, he said, McCain in the polls was losing young voters and Hispanic voters by as much as 30 percentage points - which prompted him to tell his associates, "Please tell me how using this (Wright) issue would improve those margins."
Plouffe, for his part, said that the issue would not have worked anyway, because "people had digested Rev. Wright" back in the spring - although that had been "a moment of great peril" for the Obama camp, in part because "we failed as a campaign to do the proper research, to have a full understanding" of Wright's potential downside.
The Bush factor. Axelrod said the Obama camp had always calculated that President Bush would be a major Democratic asset in 2008, especially for Obama.
Axelrod said that "every race is defined by the incumbent," especially when the incumbent is leaving. "Almost never do people look for the replica of what they have. They look for a remedy," the greatest contrast. And the Obama camp decided that Obama would embody "the starkest change from George W. Bush, in style and substance."
McInturff acknowledged that McCain was never able to embody change, simply because it was impossible for him to distance himself sufficiently from Bush. For a while back in 2006, he said, McCain was nicely positioned as a Bush critic on Iraq - McCain was arguing for a troop "surge," and Bush was not - but when Bush embraced the surge in January 2007, McCain had no choice but to march in step. As McCain's Senate chief of staff told McInturff at the time, "Bill, we're negotiating with the White House (on) how many troops. We cannot be on the air being that distant from the president on the same weekend that we're negotiating over the number of troops."
In essence, McInturff told the Harvard audience, "John McCain essentially became the Bush spokesperson, the administration spokesperson, on Iraq" - and that helped to alienate the crucial independent voters.
And, at the same, McCain was tied to Bush because of their mutual support for path-to-citizenship immigration reform - and that damaged McCain among conservative base voters. All told, McInturff lamented, "In typical John McCain fashion, he managed to alienate every side."
The brainpower factor. Axelrod said that Obama wrote his milestone speech on race relations (delivered in Philadelphia on March 18) by himself, in only two late-night sessions. Obama started it on the night of March 16 at 10 p.m., after he put his kids to bed, and worked until 3 a.m. He then returned to it at 10 p.m. after a full day of campaigning in Pennsylvania. By early the next morning, March 18, "there was the speech on my Blackberry."
No excuses offered. At one point, McInturff was asked whether he believed that McCain would have won the election if only he'd had a few more days or weeks on the stump. (Defeated campaigns typically answer this question in the affirmative.) But McInturff said:
"No. We lost...I don't think anyone in our campaign felt, 'oh my gosh, we're just a few days short.' I think we were happy it was over."
Wow! I tried to post that like a half dozen times yesterday. I didn't realize until this morning that "See.You.Em" in the Latin for "with great Honors" would get my post censored. Free speech isn't.— Phrossty- Phrosty: If you read on, Brits cite is based on Obama's representation. Let's see his transcript.— CD75
- As to the knuckleheads and loons who think Obama must be smart because he "talks" so well, reminder that Bush had better grades then Kerry at Yale.— CD75
- CD, the spelling ref wasn't my only response. You didn't answer the real question I asked about your seemingly inside knowledge of Obama's education. You keep makeing assertions but won't provide attribution for them. You've made that assertion several times in the last few months - I've asked for your source - you've never responded to any of the inquiries. BTW - you've used that same spelling,"moran", a number of times. It isn't a typo at this point.— JimR
- CD, it's pretty hypocritical for you as a good conservative republican to put so much emphasis on college grades. Don't your type of folks disdain pointy-headed intellectuals? Don't you think that success in real life is what counts? I'm having trouble following your point.— liberal
- I can't find the list of sources. Perhaps you would send an email to David Mendell demanding proof or a retraction since you seem to be so sure Encyclopaedia Britannica hasn't done the due diligence. I mean, really, the site has the unmitigated gall to list "born Aug. 4, 1961, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S." at the top of the page. That citation alone discredits the site for you. Doesn't it? Don't they know B Hussein Obama is a Kenyan-born, Marxist, Socialist, Sleeper-cell-Terrorist? Haven't they been paying attention to the unfounded, baseless, hysterical claims of the patriots in this country??— Phrossty
- CD75 - I asssert that you're so close-minded and bitter and racist because you were molested by your priest when you were an acolyte. Please present the proof that this isn't the truth. Or are you prevented from speaking out because of the terms of the settlement with the Catholic Church?— Phrossty
- What is the harm in actually seeing Obama's transcripts. Why are you all so defensive and scared? Kerry hid his transcripts from the public because he was actually dumber than Bush at Yale, but he wanted to paint himself as being smart. Sounds familiar here. To date, there is not support for Obama's college past other than the Word of Obama. What is he hiding, like Kerry?— CD75
- I'm having trouble following your point......CD's point is on his head.— chasing history
- At one time I worked with a group of professionals who were all about the same age and who all had very good grades--it was a necessary prerequisite to get the job. After a few months of working with these people, I could identify the couple of people who were really smart. The rest were just people who had the knack of getting good grades in school. I left myself out of the analysis, but suspect I'm in the latter group. In any event, Obama's reputation for "smarts" is based on observations by people who work with him, not on his grades as such, which most of us realize are not sufficient as criteria. The main thing that stands out in people who are really smart is curiosity, the ability to zero in on what you need to know to make a decision, and the ability to focus and work well under pressure.— liberal
- liberal: good point. Thanks for pointing that out. Obama has never held a real job for more than a year other than being a "community organizer". Not exactly the stuff of leaders and President's. Obama could never hack working a real job.— CD75
- swedesboromike: how do TWO nations engage in a UNIlateral action?— still_independent
- Still Independent- You asked how to two nations engage in unilateral actions? They don't! I was just using the liberal point of view when they openly profess George Bush enganged in unilateral action by attacking Iraq. Thanks for making my point
- CD75 - Should I take your silence on the issue of your childhood abuse as "proof" that you cannot discuss the issue because of the terms of the settlement?? --OR-- Is it more likely that you're choosing to ignore the groundless, baseless attack in the hope that intelligent people will see through the faulty logic I used while simultaneously not granting my post the "dignity" of a reply?? It could be why B. HUSSEIN Obama doesn't bother wasting his time "proving" himself to everyone who cries wolf!— Phrossty
- z— James TL
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
