Web Stats: Bush Tanks There, Too

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 356

Following President Bush's last State of the Union address last night, the overwhelming bulk of post-speech commentary in the media (old and new) has been to the effect that everyone - Congress, the press, the vast majority of the American public - has already put this administration in the rear-view mirror and is focused on the question of who will be the next occupant of the oval office.

To be sure, I agree with this assessment, but I've also been curious to see if there would be any way to substantiate it. And so, being, y'know, me, I went hunting today for some numbers to back up or refute the conventional wisdom. And sure enough, the answer, like so many things these days, is to be found on Google.

I decided to punch in a trend search comparing search volumes for President Bush, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and just to provide a baseline for comparison, ultimate political botnet hit-bait Ron Paul. The search compared Google volumes over the past 30 days. The result: Bush comes in dead last. Dead last. Granted, the numbers available today run only through January 26, when Obama stormed to a landslide victory in the South Carolina, and so does not include data for the immediate aftermath of the State of the Union, traditionally an annual high-water mark of Presidential media coverage. But still. President Bush comes in last.

The picture below tells the story. The trend line legend is:
blue = Barack Obama
red = Hillary Clinton
goldenrod = John Edwards
violet = Ron Paul
green = George W. Bush



So, yes, based on these trends, the American people have clearly stopped paying attention to this president in favor of the next president, whomever that turns out to be.

I'll run another trend line in a few days time to track any changes between last Saturday and the last night's State of the Union. Watch this space!

The Other Clinton

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 357

When he came into office 15 years ago, Bill Clinton was on a mission to make his mark in history by reforming American government and reinvigorating a languishing economy. But notable missteps on health care and gays in the military contributed to a repudiation at the polls in the 1994 congressional mid-terms, which seemed to refocus Clinton's remarkable political skills. Bill Clinton presided over the longest peacetime economic expansion in our nation's history, turned record budget deficits into record surpluses, lifted millions of families out of poverty, and stepped in to prevent genocide in the heart of Europe.

And then the mischief set in. Somewhere along the line, being a successful president wasn't enough to hold Bill Clinton's attention, and he dallied his way into impeachment over a liaison with White House intern Monica Lewinsky; in so doing, President Clinton effectively sacrificed the last half of his second term, and the many things he might have achieved in that time, to the full-time pursuit of his own survival in office. Arguably, Bill Clinton didn't have a lot of choice in the circumstances. But the circumstances were largely of his own making, and he bears responsibility for those years of missed opportunity.

As a result, when he left office 7 years ago, Bill Clinton was on a mission to redeem his place in history by becoming a global elder statesman (if that term was to be applied to someone of Clinton's age at the time) in the Jimmy Carter mold. After his relief work following the Asian tsunami, he seemed poised to succeed, and his place in the public mind, if not quite yet in history, was looking more solid than at any time in his political career. When Hillary Clinton won election to the Senate, and then declared her candidacy for president, at least part of the excitement many felt about her was that she would bring Bill Clinton along as part of the package. And in the early going, during last spring and summer, Bill Clinton seemed to justify that esteem, making elevated speeches in support of Hillary which included the disclaimer, "I'm not here to say anything bad about anybody." People didn't just buy that, they loved it, and Bill Clinton's post-presidential stock took another jump upwards.

And then the mischief set in. Somewhere along the line, the prospect of becoming a globally beloved elder statesman wasn't enough to hold Bill Clinton's attention, and when a third place finish in Iowa and a squeeker of a win in New Hampshire reduced Hillary Clinton from inevitable nominee to candidate on the brink, Bill Clinton cast aside the unfamiliar role of political second fiddle for the evidently more comfortable role of full-time, fully engaged surrogate candidate.

There is no question that Bill Clinton is an effective campaigner. The question, rather, is how much tolerance there will be within the Democratic party and the public at large for the spectacle of former president as political wartime consigliere. This is a political calculation as high in risk as it is in potential benefit, and as such requires more careful management than Clinton's campaign has so far given it. It is always possible, of course, that no one, with the possible exception of Senator Clinton herself, is in any position to handle Bill Clinton; in that case the entire enterprise turns on the political, and, perhaps more certainly, and therefore more unsteadily, the personal judgment of Bill Clinton himself.

It will be intriguing to observe the choices Bill Clinton makes in the
next few days' worth of campaigning in the run-up to Super Tuesday. On the one hand, we might see the Bill Clinton of 1995, carefully charting a way back to the top after some harsh political reversals. On the other hand, we could see the Bill Clinton of the second term, squandering all that he has and might yet become because of impulses to misjudgment that he simply cannot resist.

No one, including, I suspect, Bill Clinton himself, fully knows how this dynamic will play out in the coming days. But if the campaigns in Nevada, and especially South Carolina, give us any indication, it may be time for the former president to exit the stage while some opportunity to do so gracefully still exists.

New Obama Ad: "Need"

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 361

Barack Obama has put up a new ad in Connecticut. The 30-second spot, titled "Need," features Obama speaking throughout the ad, both directly to the camera and in voice-over. The ad's focus, following the recent trend from both the Obama and Clinton campaigns, is on the economy.

Here's the script:

Obama: “I’m Barack Obama, and I approved this message.”

Obama: “This administration has further divided Wall Street from Main Street. You got C.E.O.’s who are making more in 10 minutes than ordinary workers are making in a year.

“The bedrock, the foundation of our economy, is our workers. And the middle class have been treading water or worse. My plan says: ‘Let’s return some balance to our tax code. Close these corporate loopholes the lobbyists put in, and let’s make sure that tax breaks are given to people who really need it.’ ”

And here's the video:



There's a PowerPoint-ish feel to this ad, which may indicate that the Obama campaign is using it to try to reinforce its message their candidate offers solid policy thinking, and not just stirring rhetoric. This is not home ground for Obama, and ads like this, running in Connecticut, may signal the near-term direction of his ad message in larger markets like New York City, California, and his native Illinois. In any event, making the case that Obama is the candidate of solutions, and not just "hope," while undoubtedly the right direction for the campaign to take, also clearly indicates that it is playing defense at the moment, attempting to counter Hillary Clinton's recent success in setting the policy agenda.

NY Times Endorses Clinton, McCain

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 361

The New York Times editorial board has published its endorsements for president, selecting Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

Good luck to you, NY Times - the same choices worked out really well for the Des Moines Register...

Kucinich Calls it Quits

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 361

The following press release from Dennis4President hit the inbox a little bit ago:

Kucinich calls news conference for noon Friday 

to discuss status of Presidential campaign

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - Thursday, January 24, 2008

CLEVELAND, OH - Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich has called a news conference for noon on Friday, January 25, at the International Laborers' Union (Local 310) hall at 3520 Euclid Avenue, to announce plans for "transitioning out of the Democratic Presidential primary race."

No further comments will be forthcoming from Kucinich or his Presidential campaign until tomorrow's news conference.

# # #

New Edwards Ad in South Carolina: "Native Son"

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 361

John Edwards has started airing a new ad in South Carolina. Titled "Native Son," the 90-second spot is a faux movie trailer, complete with an "In a world..." narrated beginning.

The fact that John Edwards feels the need, just two days before the South Carolina primary, to run an ad reintroducing himself to the state where he was born relieves me from any necessity of further comment.

Here's the script:

NARRATOR: In a world where candidates are many, one man stands apart from the crowd.

EDWARDS: When people say to me, 'why are you running for President of the United States,' I can say it in one sentence. I'm running for President of the United States because I want everyone in America to have the same chances that I've had.

NARRATOR: Born to humble beginnings in South Carolina, he spent his life fighting against the rich and powerful to help the kind regular people he grew up with.

SUPPORTER: Give 'em hell, Johnny.

EDWARDS: Oh, I will.

NARRATOR: Now we have the chance to let him bring that fight to the White House, to rescue a nation hijacked by special interests and deliver it back to the hands of the people.

EDWARDS: The strength of America's not just in the Oval Office, the strength of America is in this room, right now. It's the American people, the incredible capacity of the American people to do great things. And we need you. Your country needs you.

NARRATOR: From the people that want to end this senseless war, comes the story of the man who will bring you stronger schools, smart trade and universal health care. Starring South Carolina's native son, John Edwards. On January 26th, choose a brighter future – John Edwards for President.

EDWARDS: I'm John Edwards, and I approve this message.

And the video:

New Clinton Ads: "Warned," "Falling Through"

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 361

Hillary Clinton has put up new ads in seven states today. One, titled, "Falling Through," is a 30-second spot airing in Massachusetts, Missouri, Oklahoma and Tennessee, depicting Hillary Clinton addressing voters about her economic proposals in a town hall-like setting.



Another 30-second spot, titled "Warned," is running in Connecticut, Missouri, New Mexico and Utah, and features a narrated script running over footage of Clinton interacting with voters. The subject is, once again, the economy.



Both are effective ads for Clinton, inasmuch as they help her exploit her polling lead over Barack Obama on economic issues, and help to further distance her presidential campaign from foreign policy issues like Iraq and Iran, which have proved to be problematic for her. Indeed, it could be said that Wall Street, in riveting everyone's anxiety by taking the world economy on a roller coaster ride for the past week or so, has arguably done as much, or more, to aid Hillary Clinton's presidential ambitions than it ever did to aid George W. Bush in his. Give Clinton credit for capitalizing on that turmoil with these ads; it's a smart campaign move.

New Edwards Ad: "What Happened?"

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 363

John Edwards is putting up a new TV ad in the run-up to the South Carolina primary. The 30-second spot, titled, "What Happened?," throws some bombs at Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, painting them as Washington sell-outs.

But, really, isn't anybody at the Edwards campaign paying attention to how ads like this play? "What Happened?" could easily be the tag line to John Edwards' entire disastrous month of January, and the tone of the ad comes across as more swan song than anything.

Anyway, here's the script of the ad:

Narrator: One gets more money than anyone from drug companies.
The other one takes more money than anyone from Washington lobbyists.
What's happened to the Democratic Party?
Whatever happened to the party of the people?
Good question.

The only one who's never taken a dime from PACs or Washington lobbyists
Who knows we've been ignored too long.
Who knows that rebuilding the middle class is more important than politics.
Our John Edwards.
The only one.

John Edwards: I'm John Edwards and I approve this message.

And here's the video:

Post Nevada Thoughts: What Happens in Vegas Stays in Vegas?

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 364

Nevada had its turn in the nominating contest spotlight this past weekend. The results indicate that the Democratic race remains wide open going in to South Carolina this weekend, race and gender remain live and dangerous wires, and there is no one on the other end of the line when it comes to labor endorsements and electoral victory. Here are some thoughts on these things and more.

Hillary Clinton

Okay, Hillary, you can exhale now. Sort of. Clinton turned out more supporters on Saturday than Barack Obama...and still won fewer delegates. But in terms of electoral narrative, if not electoral math, Hillary won the Nevada caucuses, which allows her to claim momentum with back-to-back wins over Obama. And momentum, of course, ties in to inevitability, the story line that the Clinton campaign has longed to emphasize from the beginning.

But Clinton's campaign, as enormous and well-funded as it is, has always been oriented more toward withstanding siege than launching assault. This week's campaign in South Carolina will tell much of the tale as to whether the Clinton operation can be as nimble going into the heart of the primary calendar as it has been pertinacious in the early contests. If not, then February 5 likely becomes for them an exercise in containing a once-again surging Barack Obama, rather than a march to victory.

Oddly enough, I think Hillary Clinton understands this dynamic and has internalized it. The question is whether the candidate herself can convey that message across all the layers of her vast campaign in the few days left before the South Carolina vote.

That will turn out to be a big part of the story going in to Saturday. Stay tuned.

Barack Obama

In the wake of losses in New Hampshire and Nevada, the Obama campaign finds itself in urgent need of a message makeover. It isn't that "hope" and "change" have stopped resonating with the electorate since the Iowa caucuses on January 3. Rather, Obama's signature themes have been overtaken by bedrock pocketbook concerns that, to many voters, makes the "old politics versus new" argument seem like an abstraction in comparison.

The trick for Obama now is to marry specific, credible proposals, especially on the economy and housing, to his mainstay themes in a way that effectively counterpunches the Clinton campaign's policy initiatives and drives home the message that new leadership and new political thinking are the best means of delivering concrete results to the country.

Race & Gender

The question for both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama now is whether the tactical ugliness indulged in by both during the run-up to Nevada's caucuses can be left behind in the West as the campaign swings to the Deep South state of South Carolina and its primary this coming Saturday, and then moves to the national canvas on February 5.

The answer is problematic. Ours is a culture with a collective memory capable of retaining only two things: one, the latest escapades of Britney and Paris; and two, every last detail of every statement ever made by anyone, anywhere and at any time on the subjects of race and gender. These are among the hottest of hot button issues, and if American socio-political history teaches anything, it is that hot buttons tend to get pushed, hard and often, sometimes merely because they're there.

It was probably inevitable that race and gender controversy would arise in the course of an historic campaign between the first credible woman and African-American presidential candidates. That being the case, one would have hoped that the Clinton and Obama campaigns would have given a bit more thought on how to more effectively navigate those hazards. In any case, the Nevada campaign has put those hot buttons on the table, and it will be difficult now for the candidates to keep them out of play going forward.

Labor Endorsements

One thing that is clear coming out of Nevada is that, in terms of securing victory in any of this cycle's nominating contests, endorsements from organized labor mean nothing. This is not to say that labor unions are suddenly irrelevant in Democratic politics. Far from it. Unions can channel money and boots on the ground in support of their chosen candidates quickly, effectively, and with unquestionable impact on behalf whomever they endorse. But the ability of unions to monolithically deliver the votes of its members to its endorsees - a far different matter - is all but nonexistent. Culinary Workers and Obama? SEIU and John Edwards? And, for that matter, harking back to Iowa, IAFF and Chris Dodd? The same story, all the way around. The message to candidates this cycle is don't count on a labor endorsement automatically turning into labor votes at the polls.

John Edwards

Based on the fact that the candidate left Nevada the day before the caucuses, I think it is fair to say that the Edwards campaign didn't think they had a legitimate shot at winning in the Silver State. But I don't think they expected a defeat of the magnitude John Edwards experienced on Saturday.

As I wrote following the New Hampshire primary, John Edwards would, by virtue of being the third wheel in the race, find himself in the middle of the two-person campaign he's been aiming at for months should defeat or other misfortune befall either Clinton or Obama. The key, of course, is to remain a credible candidate in the meantime, and that means staying genuinely competitive (i.e., tallying 15% or better) in every contest along the way.

Coming in with just 4% support in Nevada undermines the entire rationale for Edwards continuing his White House bid. A respectable showing in South Carolina this week, where Edwards was born and where he has been counting on doing well since the start of his campaign, now appears increasingly unlikely. This raises two questions for John Edwards: how can he keep his campaign alive after this Saturday, and, overwhelmingly more to the point, why should he?

I think John Edwards is staying in the race, for however long he continues to be able to do that, no longer in hope of securing the Democratic nomination. Rather, I believe that the rationale for a continued Edwards candidacy is based on Clinton and Obama coming out of the primaries in a near deadlock in terms of delegates won. In that event, a handful of delegates controlled by John Edwards puts him in the position of virtually nominating the candidate he prefers, on whatever terms he dictates.

Any such hope is pure fantasy, of course, both in expectation of a deadlocked convention and the ability of Edwards' delegates to swing it one way or the other. There is, at least at this point, no indication that Edwards' delegates will be decisive in determining the Democratic nomination any more than delegates pledged to Kucinich or Gravel (should there be any) would be. And that fact in itself reveals the crossroads at which the Edwards campaign now stands: absent a big win on Saturday, John Edwards will find himself playing in the same political league as the other also rans in this campaign. Ugly choices await.

Advice for Primary Voters

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 370

Ron Klain has a terrific op-ed piece in the New York Times today on the subject of electability. Klain's article points out a number of difficulties inherent in basing one's choice of candidate in a primary election on prognostications about how they will fare against the other party's candidate in the general election, and, along the way, throws in some sage advice for primary voters.

Aside from the dubious practical problems with picking candidates based on electability, there are other concerns too. When I was supporting Senator Joe Biden earlier this year, I often had people say to me, “I think Joe Biden would be a great president, but I won’t vote for him, because he can’t win.” In this way, electability becomes a tautology: voters won’t support a candidate who isn’t electable, and he isn’t electable because voters won’t vote for him.

It's a fair question, but, no, it wasn't just the pro-Biden quote above that got me. The most compelling argument in the piece follows.

More philosophically, an excessive focus on electability diminishes the franchise. Taking something as sacred as your presidential preference and turning it into an act of political prognostication cheapens your choice: being a voter is a more important job in our system than being a pundit or a consultant. Why should you cast your vote based on how you think others will vote (even if you could guess that accurately)? Why should their choice matter more than your own?

Yes, ultimately, presidential campaigns are about winning: a candidate who does not win cannot achieve policy changes or make the country a better place. And being mindful of the consequences of our votes is important, as many people who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 — only to put George Bush in the White House, instead of Al Gore — have painfully learned.

But Klain's real gem is at the conclusion of the article, and goes to the heart of what primary elections are (or should be) all about.

If you want to back a winner in 2008, focus on persuading your neighbor to come over to your choice, instead of guessing how he will vote.

I could not agree more. The study of politics - things like polling, punditry and commentary (even on blogs like this one) - is to democracy as astronomy is to space travel: observation, rather than participation. Both may be necessary to their respective pursuits, but neither one will get you anywhere on its own. Involvement is the distinguishing factor.

If you care about who wins the next election, then ride the rocket: suit up, strap in, and hit the blast off switch. Don't settle for watching through a telescope.