Clinton Administration Infighting Impacts IA Caucuses: Richardson Knifes Hillary (Field Report Four)

According to another campaign colleague, during the Iowa Caucuses, Richardson decided to ask his supporters to back Obama if he wasn’t “viable” in their precinct. In the Democratic Caucuses, a candidate must receive 15% of the vote on the first round in order to be eligible to win delegates. Supporters of candidates deemed “unviable” are cajoled, sweet talked, persuaded and threatened by their neighbors into supporting their 2nd preference. Richardson was always the only viable candidate among the 2nd tier under these rules and this actually explains why he didn’t come in with more than 2% of the vote.

Going into the Caucuses, Edwards was the 2nd choice of a majority of caucus goers. In fact, many political observers thought that he would win on that basis alone. By asking (and getting) his supporters to back Obama on the 2nd round instead of Edwards, Richardson essentially threw the election to Obama, kneecapping Hillary in the process. She would have been able to withstand an Edwards victory (after all, he has no money) but as we’ve seen an Obama victory is something else – a victory for the forces of real change and an inspiration our nation hasn’t felt since the days of RFK (apparently – I wasn’t here yet). Ironically Hillary really is not perceived as “a change agent” since she has been on the national scene at least since failing to get Congress to enact her misbegotten health care plan. Obama on the other hand, really is a new fresh face who does represent change and a new direction for the Democratic Party (i.e. away from the Clinton’s).

Now the question arises as to why Richardson, whom many perceived as angling for Hillary’s VP or Secretary of State slots, would do this. It’s quite simple really and it goes back to the Clinton Administration: Terry McAuliffe. Apparently there was some dust up between the Governor and the former Democratic Party Chairman/fundraiser extraordinaire in which it was strongly intimated that not backing Hillary would result in some type of retribution. Given McAuliffe’s position it could either be a threat to cut off Richardson’s funding for the NM Senate Primary (assuming he gets in during the short deadline after Feb. 5) or the promise of being excluded from a future Hillary Clinton Administration.

Ironically, whatever threat McAuliffe made obviously backfired and put Clinton in the position she’s now in – on the verge of losing a 2nd straight primary/caucus by double digits (assuming the David Duke Statistical Lie problem isn’t affecting the polling outcome, which based on my previous posts I believe it is though I still think Obama MAY be able to squeak through a victory). Should Hillary be unable to regain her footing before Feb.5, she will tarnish the Clinton legacy and effectively end the Clinton Machine’s hold on the Democratic Party. It would be morning in the Democratic Party.

To paraphrase Nixon, “Richardson knows a little about politics too.”

Oh, and just for the record, Hillary saying she knows how to beat Republicans is bunk. A Republican Minority, lead by Senator Phil Gramm of Texas beat her health care plan to smithereens in 1993. In both 1992 and 1996 more people voted against Bill Clinton than voted for him. He only received 43% of the vote in 1992 and 49% in 1996. The Clinton’s only know how to beat Republicans in a three-man race (Perot ’92, Buchanan ’96) in which the 3rd guy appeals to core Republican values. Put her head to head with anyone but Huckabee and she’ll have a hard time of it – Romney’s actually achieved universal health care in his state, McCain is definitely more trustworthy and likeable despite the establishment’s attitude towards him and can play the military b ackground card in a way she can’t, and Giuliani can counter the change argument easily (“I changed the country by bringing down the mob,” “I changed Wall Street culture, at least temporarily, by bringing down Ivan Boesky,” “I changed New York City, the untamable city, and made it livable for families again” – how does she counter that?).

Romney Tried to Suppress Giuliani IA Support (IA Field Report Three)

According to another colleague of mine who was monitoring Iowa Caucus 0precincts for his candidate in parts of Eastern Iowa, Romney County Chairs were demanding that Giuliani representatives not be allowed to speak since some of them were from out of state. This is a blatant abuse that should have been dealt with by the Iowa GOP County Chair or the state party.

As a veteran of Iowa caucuses, I can tell you that anyone can be authorized to speak on behalf of a candidate, regardless of state of voter registration. This is completely acceptable under party rules as long as the "outsider" doesn't attempt t vote. I'm a native Iowan, but not registered to vote there, and I've given multiple nominating speeches for different candidates.

In fact, last week both Governor Dave Heineman (Nebraska) and Governor Matt Blunt (Missouri) were allowed to speak on behalf of their respective candidates (can't remember who campaigned for whom). Either they shouldn't have been allowed to speak, or everyone should have been, regardless of where they were from as long as they didn't attempt to vote.

Putting on my analyst/pundit hat my observation is this: Despite Giuliani's lack of a strong presence in Iowa (And I do admire his attempt to run an entirely new strategy), Romney felt the need to keep Giuliani support down in Iowa in order to damage the viability of the person most likely to threaten Romney's ascension to the nomination. Huckabee is a joke - like Pat Robertson he'll get crushed in New Hampshire, where McCain will will. I already wrote about Thompson's dubious Iowa victory, though he has a strong chance of winning South Carolina if he plays it right. After two defeats for Romney and a mixed bag of other winners, Giuliani's strategy may prove wise, in which case he and Romney stand the best chance of being the last men standing and forcing a Feb. 5 showdown (Where, if all goes to their plan, Giuliani is likely to win California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois and a few other big delegate states). Romney obviously wanted to damage Giuliani as early as possible to undercut this possible scenario.




This is likely the last Iowa field report. I should be posting some from other states later this month. If you have anything to report, please let me know, and I'll do my best to verify it and put it up.

Thompson IA "Momentum" fueled by Ron Paul Database Crash (Field Report Two)

One of my well connected political contacts learned yesterday at a Midwestern airport that Ron Paul's 10% Iowa showing was due to a database crash that severely hampered their Get Out The Vote (GOTV) efforts. I feel badly for the unknown staffer/volunteer who accidentally caused this and debated posting this item due to the potential pain it might cause the anonymous person in question. The anonymous Paul staffer/volunteer went into seclusion after this debacle. I wish him the best of luck in the future and empathize with his embarassment / personal pain.

In any event, Fred Thompson lived in Iowa for the 18 days prior to the Iowa Caucuses, while Ron Paul did not make nearly as many appearances. The fact that Thompson only beat Paul by 3000 votes illustrates that his momentum is mostly an illusion. Had the Paul GOTV operation been operating properly, it is quite likely he would have been able to garner at least another 3500-5000 votes either by turning out additional voters or taking some away from Thompson (Paul actually has more appeal to the conservatives that voted for Thompson than Thompson does due to his "purity" on their issues).

Thus, the late "Thompson surge" is more a product of accidental, technological failing by a competitive rival with unparralleled grass-roots support among non-evangelicals than any indication of real support for Thompson. This is true despite anything Rich Galen has to say on the matter.

Edwards Alienates Hundreds of Potential Volunteers, Endangers Country and Party

About a week before the Iowa Caucuses John Edwards stated that if he became President, he would not hire anyone who had been a federal lobbyist. Now, I understand that he doesn't think trial lawyers are a special interest or that his actions as a trial laywer are actually what has caused the health care crisis (health insurance companies raise rates due to jackpot jury awards, thus making healthcare unaffordable and causing companies (especially small firms)to drop their health care coverage for employees.

However, there are literally thousands of people who have been lobbyists and frankly, most of the top lobbyists are the pre-eminent experts in their fields. Why would you want to forgo the expertise of someone simply because of a job they may have held? This is especially concerning considering that some of our nation's top foreign policy people have worked as lobbyists for one firm or another, and sacrificing their knowledge due to some populist BS concern that they're tainted could put our nation in real jeopardy.

Additionally, if he is serious about this, his administration would basically have to depopulate the ranks of senior political/policy experts on Capitol Hill. The effect of this would be to essentially disarm unilaterally against the Republicans on the Hill by taking away all the top Dems with institutional memory and knowledge of how to get things done, while leaving their Republican counterparts in place and able to outmaneuver his own party. In the wake of this past disastrous year for Congressional Democrats, why would you want to make them even weaker?

Finally, lobbyists and former lobbyists are the people who are willing to fly in from out of state on their own dime and help you get out the vote, ID supporters, etc. Telling them they'll have no place in his administration pretty much guarantees they'll drop their plans to help out. After all, why help an ingrate? No one, even "evil lobbyists," volunteers on campaigns simply for future jobs, but a telling them that you're not grateful and won't even consider them for a job in the future pretty much guarantees the loss of a lot of money (from their personal accounts) and help from people who otherwise share his values.

Thompson Advisor Insults Iowans' Intelligence

During a rant about how badly he was treated during the Des Moines Register/Iowa Public Television GOP Presidential debate, Senior Thompson Advisor Rich Galen earlier this month wrote in his Mullings Cyber Column:

"It is also possible that there is a law in Iowa forbidding the use of any form of the word 'abysmal.'"

Now, I am from Iowa and find this offensive. This statement implies that Iowans are uneducated and don't know the meaning of "abysmal." In fact, Iowans read more books per capita than the residents of ANY other state in the Union. Iowa high school students also score number one or number two in both the SAT and ACT EVERY YEAR. Hardly the hallmarks of an uneducated populous. Taking potshots at the residents of an entire state (Iowa) simply out of pique directed at one person does not seem smart politics for a senior advisor to a campaign (Thompson) which desperately needs to come in third just to keep alive.

And he wrote this just after a soliloquy of getting into fights with people who buy ink by the barrel.