Dem Chair Howard Dean made the rounds on the a.m. shows.
Dean, asked if Rev. Jeremiah Wright complicates his efforts to eventually bring the party together: "I've made it a point not to comment on either of the campaigns, so I'm not going to comment on Reverend Wright."
NBC's Vieira: "But race has certainly become a key element in this campaign on both sides. You can't ignore that."
Dean: "I'm not totally convinced that it is a key element"
Asked if he has talked to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton personally about them campaigning vigorously for the winner of the Dem nod: "I don't think I need to do that. Look, when I lost to John Kerry, I didn't need to be told that this was about something that was greater than me. This was about the country. ... I think either of these candidates are experienced public servants and that they know without being told by me or anybody else that their obligation is to their country, and I think that they'll do that very thing" ("Today," NBC, 4/28).
On GOPers calling the DNC ad "a blatant mischaracterization" of what John McCain was saying: "I have the entire text of what he said right here. He wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years. He said, 'Maybe it would be like South Korea. Or maybe it would be like Japan.' Americans don't want to stay in Iraq for 100 years."
On the RNC saying he coordinated efforts with the Clinton and Obama camps to get this ad on the air: "There's absolutely no truth to that. We've heard those kind of lies for eight years. There's no evidence of that. It's not true. And neither campaign saw this ad or heard about this ad before we put it out" ("Early Show," CBS, 4/28).
Asked if Clinton should leave the race if she loses IN: "No, that is not my call. I ran for president four years ago. Believe me, this is a deeply personal race where you run incredibly hard. Either of these candidates, if it's time for them to go, they'll know it and they will go. They don't need pushing from people like me or anybody else, the newspapers or anybody else. You know when to get in and you know when to get out" ("GMA," ABC, 4/28).
MSNBC's Geist: "I want to just read back to you something you said on 'Meet the Press' yesterday, which is that my view, quote, 'is that superdelegates should vote for the person who can beat John McCain.' Are you saying superdelegates should not follow the popular vote? ... Isn't that argument the argument for Hillary Clinton?"
Dean: "No, that argument is what the rules say. Obviously, I'm neutral on both of these candidates. I don't get involved in this race. I've got to be the referee, much to my detriment sometimes. ... I uphold the rules. That's why I've been tough on Florida and Michigan" ("Morning Joe," MSNBC, 4/28).
On encouraging superdelegates to make up their mind: "The timing is up to them. ... All I want to do is make sure that the process continues. If somebody feels strongly that they want to wait to make up their mind until after the primaries, I don't have a problem with that whatsoever. However, it is no reason for folks not to make up their mind by the end of June, as opposed to the end of August. That would give us an extra two months to heal the party and to avoid having a really divisive convention."
On Chris Dodd saying the Dems will lose the election if they go into the convention divided: "I agree with that. ... Absolutely, yes. I think if we go in divided, we'll come out divided, and it'll be much harder to win."
Dean, asked which rules he might want to change for the next election: "Believe me, we're so immersed in this one, we're not worried about what we're going to change next time. We'll have lots of time for that. ... I think the next time around, you may get some changes in superdelegates, you may have some changes in schedule. Who knows?" ("American Morning," CNN, 4/28).
Oh, The Humanity
The "increasingly acrimonious" fight for the Dem nod is "unnerving" African Americans and wealthy liberals: both "are becoming convinced that the party could suffer irreversible harm" if Clinton "maintains her sharp line of attack" against Obama. Maj. Whip James Clyburn (D-SC): "If this party is perceived by people as having gone into a back room somewhere and brokered a nominee, that would not be good for our party." More: "I'm telling you, if this continues on its current course, [the damage] is going to be irreparable."
Clyburn "accused Clinton and her husband yesterday of marginalizing black voters and opening a rift" between her camp and an African American Dem base that "strongly backed" Bill Clinton's presidency. Clyburn: "We keep talking as if it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter that Obama gets 92 percent of the black vote, because since he only got 35 percent of the white vote, he's in trouble. Well, Hillary Clinton only got 8 percent of the black vote. ... It's almost saying black people don't matter. The only thing that matters is how white people respond. And that's what bothered me. I think I matter" (Weisman/Mosk, Washington Post, 4/26)
Money Walks
Recently released camp finance records "show that a growing number of Clinton's early supporters migrated to Obama" in 3/08. Of those who had previously made maximum contributions to Clinton, "73 wrote their first checks to Obama" 3/08. Of those who had made large contributions to Obama last year, "none wrote checks to Clinton" in 3/08. Ex-Clinton donor Daniel Berger: "I think she is destroying the Democratic Party. That there's no way for her to win this election except by destroying [Obama], I just don't like it. So in my own little way, I'm trying to send her a message."
Echoing that sentiment, Obama supporter/Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), directing his comments toward Clinton, said: "If you have any, any kind of loyalty to the Democratic Party, perhaps you need to rethink your strategy and bow out gracefully in order to save this party from a disastrous end in November" (Washington Post, 4/26).
More Doom And Gloom
Univ. of Chicago prof. Michael Dawson, on whether frustration could boil over if Obama loses the nod: "The sentiment is there and it's very dangerous. I think it doesn't take any work at all for images of 2000 to become visible again in black discourse [if Clinton] takes the nomination away from Obama."
ColorofChange.org exec. dir. James Rucker: "Democrats can't win in November without black people." Adding: "party leaders know it and so do everyday black folks" (Phillips, New York Times, 4/27).
Reaction To Clyburn's Comments On Race Within The Race
Clinton supporter/Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), on Clyburn saying African-Americans believe the Clintons are hell-bound on making it impossible for Obama to win: "I have great respect for Representative Clyburn, he was saying certain people thought that. ... Whatever each candidate has said about one another is nothing compared to what the Republicans are going to throw at whoever our winner is come the fall" ("Late Edition," CNN, 4/27).
Clinton supporter/Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX): "You know, traveling on a campaign, you get to see candidates up close and personal, and you know their heart. And frankly, I take great issue with this idea of the race card. ... Go to places where Senator Clinton is known, in Arkansas. She got 70 percent of the vote. That means that African-Americans voted for Senator Clinton in Arkansas? Because they knew her. ... So my point is that let us put the race card to the side. I think electability is a question" ("This Week," ABC, 4/27).
Obama supporter/Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL), on white voters overwhelming supporting Clinton: "[Obama] has taken some hits, but let me go back in history and draw some comparison here. In the spring of 1992, Bill Clinton was running for president, looking toward a three-way race. ... At one point, his polling numbers have dropped down to 22 percent while male support. What happened in November 1992? Bill Clinton ends up running better with white males than any Democrat since Lyndon Johnson. These numbers can change a lot in one cycle. ... As this campaign moves closer to November, and as people focus on the very clear choice that ... exists between the Democratic Party and John McCain, you're going to see those numbers improve for Senator Obama" ("This Week," ABC, 4/27).
Davis, on the Clintons: "They've eroded their own legacy. Because this constant talk that says that, well, Senator Obama is not electable -- let's call a spade a spade. ... I'm not saying [the Clintons are] playing the race card ... but I'm saying that all too many people in this town ... who are trying to say that Barack Obama's not electable" ("This Week," ABC, 4/27).
Ready, Aim, Fire
The DNC will begin airing its second anti-McCain TV ad, this one focusing on McCain's "100 years" comments, on nat'l cable "next week" (release, 4/25). Meanwhile, VA GOP Chair John Hager filed a "complaint" with the FEC 4/25 over the ad. Hager "alleged in an affidavit" that "the DNC coordinated the ad with" the Clinton and Obama camps, which "would violate federal law." In response, DNC spokesperson Luis Miranda said: "This is just GOP lie in the Bush-McCain tradition, but it doesn't change the fact that John McCain doesn't understand the economy" (AP, 4/25).
WashingtonPost.com's Cillizza reports, DNCers "have met in recent days" with "top campaign brass" from the Clinton and Obama camps "to brief them on the committee's plans in the coming months" ("The Fix," 4/25).
Looking Ahead
Speaking in IN to reporters over the weekend, Obama "declined to set expectations on a margin of victory in that state." Obama: "I think winning is winning, 50 plus one. Indiana is a very important state, so is North Carolina, we're not taking that for granted. There's no doubt it's close." (Kugler, AP, 4/28).
It's Starting To Register
The past seven states to hold primaries "registered more than" 1M new Dem voters. Meanwhile, GOP numbers "mainly ebbed or stagnated." Now, NC and IN "are reporting a swell" of new Dems registrations "that triples the surge in registrations" before the '04 primary. Committee for the Study of the American Electorate dir. Curtis Gans: "We are likely to set an all-time record for primary turnout. Whether this makes a major historical impact depends on who these voters are and whether or not they get what they want" (Saslow, Washington Post, 4/28).
Who's The Bigger Winner?
After PA, the debate between Obama and Clinton "is mostly about electability, about who has the better chance to win in the fall." Electability had been Obama's "strong suit," but that's changed "with the revelations about Obama's past associations and Clinton's continued success in larger states." Still, "there's not much historical evidence of a direct link between carrying a state" in a primary and "winning it" in 11/08." So, "it's not a given that Clinton would win" OH and PA "in the fall" (Eichel, Philadelphia Inquirer, 4/27).
More Dean
Dean was on "Meet the Press" 4/27 talking about when the Dem nod battle will end.
Dean, asked when the fight for the nod will end: "Well, I'm hoping it'll be over by the end of the month of June. We've made great progress in the last few weeks that I think about 50 or 60 unpledged delegates have said who they're going to be for. ... I'm not the most important person in terms of bringing the party together. The most important person is the person who doesn't win the nomination. Because I can remember when I lost to John Kerry, I had to go out and convince my supporters -- it took me about three months -- that they needed to support Senator Kerry. I endorsed him, I campaigned for him, I went to all the college campuses. And that's what the person who doesn't win this, with 49 percent of the delegates, is going to have to do in order to keep the party together."
On Clinton supporter/PA Gov. Ed Rendell (D) saying the popular vote is a much fairer indicia than the pledged delegates because the pledged delegates are elected in a very undemocratic way: "I don't agree with it. And secondly, look, we have a set of rules. ... Somebody's going to lose this with 49 percent of the delegates in Denver, and that person has to believe that they were treated fairly -- otherwise, we can't win. ... The only thing that's going to beat us is if we're not unified. ... Governor Rendell may not like the rules, but the rules are what we started with. Most of them have been in place for the last 25 years. That's what we've got to go by, whether you like the rules or you don't like the rules."
On saying "there's a gestalt in politics when suddenly people see things in a synchronous way": "There's going to be some feeling at some point ... that one of these candidates is more likely to win than the other, and I think that's who's going to get the nomination. I can't tell you who that is. I have no idea who it is. But that's what's going to happen."
NBC's Russert: "The candidate with the most elected delegates is not guaranteed the nomination?"
Dean: "The rules say that the candidate with the most delegates gets the nomination, and I support the rules."
Asked if the the superdelegates could overrule the elected delegates: "You shouldn't think of it that way. So-called 'superdelegates' are, in fact, elected by exactly the same people who vote for the elected delegates. ... This should not be looked at as some bunch of cigar-smoking folks in the back room slapping each other in the back and electing the next president. It doesn't work that way. ... They're supposed to vote their conscience. My personal belief is they're going to vote for the person they think can beat John McCain."
Russert: "So your personal view is that even if someone has won more elected delegates, if you think the other person would be a stronger candidate against John McCain, you'd opt for the other person?"
Dean: "That is not my personal view. My personal view is, I am the chairman of this party, we have a set of rules that have been in place for a year and a half, and I am the person who's in charge of upholding the rules whether I like them or not. Are there some rules I might change next time around? Yeah, maybe so. But right now we're focusing on the rules we have. ... I feel like I'm the referee here at the NCAA finals. You know, you make some calls, but if you stick to the rules and do the right thing according the rules, you're going to end up with a decent process."
More Dean: "I might add that never in my time as going to these conventions, which has been back to 1980, have I ever seen that not happen. I've never seen a situation where the unpledged delegates didn't essentially end up voting the same way the pledged delegates did."
On House Maj. Whip James Clyburn's (D-SC) comments about the Clintons: "I have enormous respect for Jim Clyburn, who I consider a great personal friend, but I'm not going to get in the middle of a fight between the Obama and the Clinton people, so I'm not going to have any comment on that."
On the VA GOP filing a complaint with the FEC saying the DNC ad "is being coordinated with the Obama and Clinton campaigns, it's all anti-McCain, and that it violates the election rules": "Yeah, that is a joke. There's no evidence for that whatsoever, and it's plain untrue. Neither one of the campaigns ever saw this ad or knew anything about it before we put it on" (NBC, 4/27).
It's Six A.M., Do You Know Where The Economy Is?
Washington Times' Lambro writes, throughout the PA primary campaign, Clinton "kept repeating that America didn't manufacture anything and that if she becomes president, we would start making things again." This was a "bigger whopper than her tale about dodging bullets in Bosnia." The Dems "have a huge stake in portraying the U.S. economy as bleakly as possible, even if that means making things up."
But "what if the economy begins turning around in mid-campaign?" That's what happened in '84 when President Reagan was running his optimistic "Morning in America" campaign ads as the long two-year recession was ending. Reagan's Dem opponent Walter Mondale "disagreed, and his America-in-depression rhetoric never changed." Mondale subsequently "carried one state, his own" (4/28).
A Second Opinion
•Philadelphia Inquirer's Polman writes, Dems, "so bedazzled by the choice between a black man and a woman, have been joyfully anticipating that they would write the history" of '08. But if they don't get their act together "will all deliberate speed, and tame their latest impulse for self-destruction" then McCain and the GOPers "will be making history this year" (4/28).
•Arkansas News Bureau's Brummett writes, Clinton "has all the momentum," her only problem is B. Clinton "claiming insanely that Obama had played that Obama had played a race card on him, then claiming with exponential, finger-waving insanity the next day that he hadn't said what he had plainly said" (4/28).
Gassed Up
Obama and Clinton traded remarks about high energy prices 4/25. Obama, campaigning at a "gas station" in Indianapolis, IN, said: "The candidates with the Washington experience -- my opponents -- are good people. They mean well, but they've been in Washington for a long time, and even with all that experience they talk about, nothing has happened. This country didn't raise fuel-efficiency standards for over 30 years." More Obama: "So what have we got to show for all that experience? Gas that's approaching $4a gallon." Clinton, meanwhile, "derided" Obama's promise "to take on special interests." Clinton, speaking at a rally at IN Univ. in Bloomington: "When it came time to stand up against the oil companies, to stand against Dick Cheney's energy bill, my opponent voted for it, and I voted against it. And that bill had billions of dollars in giveaways to the oil companies. It was the best bill that the energy companies could buy."
Clinton "also repeated her criticism" of Obama's campaign ads "that say he does not take money from oil companies" or their PACs. Clinton: "I know that my opponent has run ads claiming that he does not take money from oil companies. Well, no one does. It's illegal. It's been illegal for 100 years to take money from oil companies" (Glover, AP, 4/26).
Send In The Surrogates
Obama strategist David Axelrod and Clinton comm. dir./strategist Howard Wolfson appeared together on "Face the Nation" 4/27.
Wolfson, on Clyburn saying African-Americans believe the Clintons are committed to doing everything possible to damage Obama to the point that he won't be able to win the general and so HRC can run against McCain four years from now: "We just disagree. ... I'm sure he's sincere in saying that, and he's, of course, entitled to his belief, but I think that both the Obama campaign and the Clinton campaign are absolutely committed to coming together at the conclusion of this process, coming behind whoever the nominee is, and enthusiastically supporting that person. ... We're going to do everything we can to elect that person because the stakes are that high."
Axelrod: "In many ways I agree with Howard. I think that we do have a party that is very, very focused on winning. We understand that a continuation of these Republican policies would be disastrous for people across Indiana, across North Carolina. ... But the question is how we get to that change. And I think there, that's important. We do have to come together not just as a party, but as a country. We have to get past our divisions. ... I don't, by the way, believe that Senator Clinton -- I think she's competing very hard. I don't think she's doing it because she wants to defeat Senator Obama in the fall. I think she's doing it because she wants to be the nominee. And we have a very spirited battle going right now."
Axelrod, asked why Obama has difficulty appealing to blue-collar voters: "Senator Obama has proven through many of these primaries that he can do very well with that vote. Don't assume that because Senator Clinton did well in some that that means that we can't do well in the general election with these voters. ... But, yes, we need that vote. And we need the votes of minorities and we need the votes of independent voters. We need the votes of disaffected Republicans. And what Senator Obama has done in these primaries and what he would do as a general election candidate is bring all these elements together in the coalition we need to win."
Wolfson: "I think after significant losses in Ohio and Pennsylvania on behalf of Senator Obama, I think Democrats do have questions about whether or not he is going to be able to reach out and successfully win over the kind of blue-collar voters that Democrats need to win in order to take the White House back in November."
Wolfson, on B.Clinton: "The media has not exactly covered President Clinton all that fairly. He has a grueling schedule. He is out doing event after event, in places that the major candidates are not going to. He is a tireless campaigner. And everywhere he goes, he wins over votes. He is Senator Clinton's best advocate, and he gets large crowds wherever he goes, great press wherever he goes. And I think that has not been reported enough. He is really in a lot of ways our secret weapon. And I think anyone would love to have him on their side in any political contest."
Axelrod, asked if B. Clinton's mistakes have been calculated: "I can't climb into President Clinton's head and explain why he said some of the things he said. And some of them have been regrettable. But let me say this. His wife is running for president of the United States, and he is working very, very hard to try and get her elected president of the United States. And to some degree, that's understandable. And maybe some of these indiscreet remarks can be written off to the passion he feels about trying to get his wife elected president. ... I do think that it is important for everybody in the process, whether they're surrogates or the candidates themselves, to be thoughtful about the things that they say. Because words do have meaning, and they can be very disruptive and divisive."
Axelrod, on Wright's interview with PBS' Bill Moyers: "I saw the interview. I don't think I'd characterize him as saying he was just another politician. He said he had a different role, that he was a pastor and Barack was a politician and public figure, and those are different roles. And of course, that's true. But Reverend Wright has the right to speak -- the truth is that he has been, in certain ways, you know, an unwilling participant in this campaign. ... He feels, I'm sure, that there's more to the story, as people saw in the Moyers thing. ... I'm sure he wants to get that story out. And that's for him to do. We have no control over what he does" (CBS, 4/27).
They Keep Dreaming
Clinton supporter/Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Obama supporter/Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) appeared together on "Late Edition" 4/27, where they were asked about Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying it is a "bad idea" for Clinton and Obama to be on the ticket together.
CNN's Blitzer: "If Hillary Clinton were to get the Democratic nomination, I could easily see her asking Barack Obama to be her running mate. What do you think?"
Schumer: "So could I. I think Barack Obama would be a strong running mate for Hillary Clinton. I think he has shown an ability to reach out to people and a freshness to politics that is very good. And her experience and leadership at the top of the ticket and him right behind, you know, right as vice president, I think it would be a very strong ticket. ... I certainly agree with Nancy that the candidate, he or she who wins the nomination, should make up their own mind. But I for one, I would advise Hillary Clinton that Barack would make a very strong vice president."
McCaskill: "My friend Chuck has been in Washington a lot longer than I have. He may have more pull than I do. I would not be so presumptuous to tell either one of these great candidates who their vice president should be. I think Hillary Clinton is a strong and smart and wonderful leader. I think Barack Obama is going to be a terrific president. I know he'll want a vice president that will underline his message of fundamental change, changing the way we do business in Washington. ... That's his decision. And I know America will support him in whatever decision he makes" (CNN, 4/27).
Black And White
The Philadelphia Inquirer's ed. board writes, when one-fifth of Dem primary voters in PA "admit taking race into account in the ballot booth, it shows the nation still has social hurdles to overcome" (4/27).
But Newhouse News Service's Tilove reports, an analysis of the PA results "indicates that Obama's trouble may not be so much with white or white working-class voters generally, but with white women." Moreover, "their overwhelming preference for" Clinton "may have less to do with any resistance to the prospect of the first black president, and more to do with their powerful desire to see the equally history-making election of a first woman president" (4/25).
Want to stay ahead of the curve? Sign up for National Journal’s AM & PM Must Reads. News and analysis to ensure you don’t miss a thing.
Join the Discussion