From The Hotline Latest Edition for Tuesday, April 29,2008

THE FIELD

Fill 'er Up

Tue. Apr. 29, 2008


As "angry truckers encircled the Capitol in a horn-blaring caravan" of protest 4/28, the issue of high fuel prices "flared" on the WH'08 campaign trail, "sharply dividing" Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Clinton "lined up with" John McCain "in endorsing a plan to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline" for the summer. But Obama "spoke out firmly against the proposal, saying it would save consumers little and do nothing to curtail oil consumption and imports."

Speaking at a rally in Graham, NC, 4/28, Clinton said: "At the heart of my approach is a simple belief: Middle-class families are paying too much and oil companies aren't paying their fair share to help us solve the problems at the pump."

Meanwhile, Obama "derided the McCain-Clinton idea" as a "short-term, quick-fix" that would do more harm than good. At a meeting with voters in NC 4/28, Obama "said lifting the gas tax for three months would save the average consumer no more than $30, a figure confirmed by Congressional analysts." Obama: "Half a tank of gas. That's his big solution" (Broder, New York Times, 4/29).

Sour Grapes

Dems "increasingly dislike the contender they are not supporting" and that "is raising questions about how faithful some will be by" 11/08. A recent AP-Yahoo poll showed Obama supporters with negative views of Clinton "have grown" from 35% in 11/07 to 44% in 4/08, "including one-quarter with very unfavorable feelings." Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) on the poll: "These are snapshots of today." By the fall, "the party will come together." Yet some Dems "are wondering whether the party will have time to regain the loyalty of those whose candidate failed to win" the nod. TN Gov. Phil Bredesen (D): "If we can bring this to a conclusion by mid-June or something, I think that healing can take place. If it goes till late August, then it's a real problem." Clinton strategist Geoffrey Garin: "I know a lot of party leaders are concerned about this. But the Democratic rank and file doesn't seem to be" (Fram, AP, 4/29).

Bloomberg's Hassett writes, decades after the Ronald Reagan-Gereald Ford struggle for control of the GOP in '76, "our country is again witnessing a titanic battle for the heart of a party." Still, "while the fight itself is reminiscent" of the '70s, "it is impossible to say precisely what the fuss is about." For instance:

•Both Clinton and Obama "advocate repealing" the Bush tax cuts.

•"Both want to renegotiate the Nafta treaty and require stricter environmental and labor standards in trade agreements."

•The only "real area of disagreement" seems to be over "the fine print of their universal health-care plans."

So with the campaign focused on "personalities," voters "who have soured on Obama might well be lost to him forever" (4/28).

Here'sss Jimmy

Jimmy Carter was on "American Morning" this a.m.

Carter, on whether the losing candidate will support the Dem nominee: "I think it has temporarily. But I believe that after June 3rd ... whoever wins, I believe that the other candidate, and the other candidate's supporters overwhelmingly will support whoever wins."

Carter, on the possibility of a Dem "dream ticket": "I think it's extremely unlikely, because I don't really believe that if Obama wins, or Hillary wins, their adding the other one to the ticket will attract any additional voters" (CNN, 4/29).

He was also on "LKL" last night.

Carter, asked if he is surprised by the viciousness of the campaign: "Well, I don't think it's been vicious. You know, if you really analyze exactly what they've said, I don't think it's out of bounds of propriety. Nowadays, the enormous influx of money is tempting to every candidate, whether they're running for Congress or the governorship or mayor or whatever -- to vilify their opponent and try to destroy the character of their opponent. And I don't think that either Hillary or Obama have gone nearly that far" (CNN, 4/28).

Super Opinion Tuesday

•New York Times' Brooks writes, "this year's election has revealed a deep cultural gap" within the Dems. In state after state, Obama "has won densely populated, well-educated areas." Clinton, on the other hand, "has won less-populated, less-educated areas." Basically: "Obama has won a few urban and inner-ring suburban counties. Clinton has won nearly everywhere else."

"The divide has even overshadowed campaigning" the candidates "can spend tens of millions of dollars on advertising, but they are not able to sway their opponent's voters to their side." They can win a "stunning victory, but the momentum doesn't carry over from state to state." In '08, "persuasion isn't important. Social identity is everything. Demography is king" (4/29).

•Washington Post's Dionne writes, before PA, '08 "looked as big as elections get." The issues "discussed in debates and on the stump were the important ones: an Iraq war in which victory is elusive, an economy falling into disarray, a health-care system failing employees and employers alike." Obama benefited "from this sense of historic moment." Then something happened: Rev. Jeremiah Wright. "And he keeps happening."

The smaller this election looks, "the easier it will be" for GOPers to run campaigns such as they did in '00 and '88, "in which the particular flaws of candidates take on an exaggerated importance." Were Clinton to win the nod, "she, no less than Obama, would need this to be a big election" (4/29).

•Charlie Cook writes in CongressDaily AM, despite Clinton's win in PA, the odds of her winning the Dem nod are "probably worse." While it was "not unthinkable that a Clinton nomination was inevitable, it is truly remarkable that she would be beaten by Obama in the way that it looks likely to happen" (4/29).

•Paul Greenberg writes in the Washington Times, by winning "convincingly" in PA, Clinton "has not won the nomination but the chance to keep on fighting, fighting, fighting for it." Primary by primary, "the wounds open, and it won't be easy to suture them up" before the Dem convention, when the superdelegates "will have to decide the issue" (4/29).

•USA Today's Wicklam writes, if the Dems are going to win the WH in '08, "they need a shotgun wedding in June." Without Obama and Clinton on the same ticket, Dems "stand a good chance of suffering a humiliating defeat" in the general. Why? "Many blacks believe it's time that one of their own be the party's choice for president. And a lot of white women think the time has come for one of them" to be the Dem nominee. The best way to repair the damage done during the primary season "is to find way to make Obama and Clinton ticket mates in the general" (4/29).

•Afi-Odelia Scruggs writes in the New York Post, "when it comes to tough, high-profile political campaigns, race is an obstacle that can be overcome" (4/29).

•Michael Barone writes in the Washington Times, Clinton's PA victory she is "ahead of Mr. Obama in the popular vote." She won by 214K in PA, which brings her total to 15.1M to 14.9M for Obama, if you count the votes cast in the caucus states, as well as MI and FL. Clinton's "popular vote lead is one piece of evidence that suggests" Obama will be a "weak general election candidate." While Clinton's "current and tenuous popular vote lead may not persuade" Dems and superdelegates "to reject the candidate who has, after all, won more delegates in primaries and caucuses," it may prompt "some to think hard" about Electoral College math (4/29).