PeterGlenshaw.com

John Sununu's Dream

John Sununu's has a dream about achieving victory on Election Night in November 2008 that ain't so crazy.  In fact, it's about 40% realized already.

First, Sununu needs a Republican Presidential nominee with a strong, positive identity in the Granite State.  Someone who could appeal to the entire base of the Party, but also (and most importantly) attract the kind of Independents who will vote for Governor Lynch again this year.  WIth McCain firmly and ably in that role, Sununu already achieved at least one-third of his goal.

Second, Sununu needed Jean Shaheen not only to be his opponent in the general election, but to be the only Democratic candidate in the race for a very long time.  The longer he could describe the race as "The Return of Sununu v. Shaheen," the better in terms of fundraising and support by Republican Party loyalists.

It's also important for Sununu to have only Jean Shaheen in his sights because it means that Sununu's abysmal voting record will not be the deciding factor in the race.  This race will come down to personality, not policy positions, and a drawn-out Sununu v. Shaheen race favors the incumbent Senator for several reasons in the personality department. 

First, Jean Shaheen has not used the intervening six years to add anything new to her identify for Granite State voters.  Voters still imagine her as she was six years ago: a weak Governor who did nothing on education and vetoed an income tax.  Trapped in the politics of the late 1990s, and unable to point to anything she has meaningfully done since leaving political life (sorry, working at Harvard will not score points among either lunch-pail Democrats or latte-drinking Democrats), Shaheen has unwittingly put herself into a retro corner that makes her seem old and square, and uncomfortably familiar. 

Shaheen also cannot embrace the change message of the Democratic Party nationally (which will be the message, regardless of whether Clinton or Obama are the nominee).  In addition to not offering anything new or exciting about herself since we last saw her in 2002, Jeanne Shaheen was an incredible hawk on the Iraq War in 2002.  Her positions then went to the right of even Hillary Clinton.  She even supported the Bush tax cuts!

Finally, Jean Shaheen -- who is a lovely person -- finds herself outmatched by John Sununu on the campaign trail.  Make no mistake, John Sununu is no Bobby Jindal (google that name if you want to know who will be the Republican nominee for President sometime in the next 10 years), but he's smart, thoughtful, and far more principled that Shaheen when it comes to appearing in front of voters.  Neither would win American Idol, but my gut says Sununu wins in the YouTube likeability contest.

The news this weekend that HIllary Clinton intends to fight for the Democratic nomination until the bitter end, no matter what the cost to the Democratic party, ought to put a huge smile on the face of John Sununu, no matter the outcome.

First, if HIllary manages to overcome every obstacle possible, and somehow win arm-wrestle the nomination from Barack Obama, Sununu realizes his dream in terms of a top-of-the-ticket opponent. Can you imagine the glee in Sununu's voice as he proclaims the following in state fair after state fair across New Hampshire late this summer and early fall?

"Hi, my name is John Sununu, and I'm running against Hillary Clinton and Jean Shaheen."

Game over.  The election is Sununu's to lose.

And even if HIllary loses the nomination, the bitter-end fight which she so lustily promotes can only serve to help Sununu.  First, it keeps Hillary's name -- and all of the negatives which go with it -- closely aligned to the top of the ticket in the Democratic Party. 

Second, her tactics tarnish the Party itself.  While it's certainly true that the win-at-all-costs strategy and mentality of the Clintons and their donors/strategists/staff is exactly what the country does NOT need now, the political reality is this tactic does not distinguish the Clintons or the Democrats from the current White House occupant, and thus makes McCain seem like a reasonable alternative to both. 

Granite State Independents, faced with a choice between the Democratic devil they know (Clinton), and the Republican they think might be a devil (or at least, devilish), will choose the latter everytime.

Six months ago, everyone thought John Sununu was politically dead.  Thanks to Hillary Clinton, his chances are better than ever.

Oh, That Experience

Over the past few days, a number of very interesting things have happened in the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

Today, for instance, the leading left-wing blogs -- dKos, Swing State Project, and Open Left -- endorsed Obama.   No surprise really, at least to us living in the climes of Northern New England.  This blog and Vermont Daily Briefing have endorsed Obama, and most of the Dems I meet on this side of the Granite State seem very pro-Obama.

But the really interesting stuff this week came from two well-respected journalists about Hillary Clinton herself, and whether her experience counts as a plus or a minus in her quest for the Presidency.

First, David Brooks of the New York Times has written yet another in a series of fascinating columns about the Obama & Clinton matchup. As most readers of political punditry know, Brooks offers a conservative perspective, but in recent months, his point of view has been one that resists simple political definitions.  Indeed, since the Fall of 2007, I have easily found him to be one of the most thoughtful and insightful political columnists/pundits in the game. 

You get a feel for Brooks honesty and insight in his weekly appearances on the PBS news show, "The Lehrer Report."  Just this past week, on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War, Brooks dared to suggest the following in his weekly commentary on that show:

"It's been a searing experience for the country and for a lot of us.  I would say it's changed my view of the world quite dramatically, as I look back.  I think what I knew, but didn't practice, was a sense that societies are complex organisms, more complex than we can possibly understand, and if you are going to intervene in a society, you have to respect the complexity and respect your own ignorance of that complexity.  And that is something every conservative should really know, but sometimes those facts were held in abeyance in the enthusiasm of the moment."

Brooks has written admirably of Obama on several occasions, but just this week, it was his insights on Hillary Clinton as a person and as a politician which caught my attention.

In an essay entitled "The Long Defeat," Brooks argued that Clinton just had her worst week on the campaign trail and that more than the events of the week were responsible for her demise.

"For nearly 20 years, she has been encased in the apparatus of political celebrity. Look at her schedule as first lady and ever since. Think of the thousands of staged events, the tens of thousands of times she has pretended to be delighted to see someone she doesn’t know, the hundreds of thousands times she has recited empty clichés and exhortatory banalities, the millions of photos she has posed for in which she is supposed to appear empathetic or tough, the billions of politically opportune half-truths that have bounced around her head."

"No wonder the Clinton campaign feels impersonal. It’s like a machine for the production of politics. It plows ahead from event to event following its own iron logic. The only question is whether Clinton herself can step outside the apparatus long enough to turn it off and withdraw voluntarily or whether she will force the rest of her party to intervene and jam the gears."

That column by Brooks reminds me of the opening chapter in What It Takes, the brilliant book by Richard Ben Cramer that follows the 1988 Presidential campaign.  That first chapter takes you into the bubble surrounding George W. Bush, the then-Vice President, as he comes to Houston, TX, to throw the first ball in the 1986 National League Championship Series.  Imagine that bubble today, 20 years later, and you get an idea of what Brooks considers to be the compromised world of Hillary Clinton.

The second strong journalistic insight comes from Carl Bernstein, famously part of the Woodward & Bernstein duo who cracked Watergate at the Washington Post.  Last year, he authored a terrific book on HIllary Clinton (A Woman In Charge).  In a post this week on CNN, Bernstein refers to some conclusions he drew in that book in light of the recent Bosnia scandal with Clinton.

(For those in the dark, Clinton has claimed on several occasions on the campaign trail this year to have landed at an airport in Bosnia and had to run from the plane while sniper bullets whizzed all around. Nothing, it seems, could be further from the truth).

Bernstein writes in his biography of Clinton, the following:

"As Hillary has continued to speak from the protective shell of her own making, and packaged herself for the widest possible consumption, she has misrepresented not just facts but often her essential self.  Great politicians have always been marked by the consistency of their core beliefs, their strength of character in advocacy, and the self-knowledge that informs bold leadership. Almost always, Hillary has stood for good things. Yet there is a disconnect between her convictions and her words and actions. This is where Hillary disappoints. But the jury remains out. She still has time to prove her case, to effectuate those things that make her special, not fear them or camouflage them. We would all be the better for it, because what lies within may have the potential to change the world, if only a little.”

In the biography, Bernstein suggests that Hillary herself is a tragic figure -- privately able to see the big picture, someone without "the mind of a conventional politician.”  And Yet.

And yet, In this post, Bernstein goes further, and suggests that Hillary herself is even more deeply  flawed.  "The jury — armed with definitive evidence like the CBS tape of  Hillary Clinton’s Bosnian adventure — seems on the verge of returning a negative verdict on her candidacy."   

Unfortunately, even Clinton's denial contains serious flaws.  As the Washington Post "fact-checker" points out today, Clinton's insistence that she mis-spoke on the Bosnia affair only once is itself a mis-statement.  On at least two additional occasions, Hillary said the same thing: that she came under sniper fire while landing in Bosnia. 

With this information, the value claimed by the Clinton camp about experience takes on a bizarre and inverted form.

Indeed, experience like Clinton's -- 20 years of half-truths, obfuscations, and mud-slinging -- hardly seems like appropriate remedy for the United States today.  Maybe that is why conservatives of all stripes (like Doug Kmiec of Pepperdine University) as well as liberal Democrats like Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson are endorsing Obama.

They recognize this race is not about Obama.  It's about our country, and the quest for a more perfect union. 

Knowing When To Fold 'Em

It's interesting to see, over the last week, two major pieces from leading political observers on the inevitable end of Hillary Clinton's candidacy.

First, Mark Halperin of Time Magazine and ABC News has issued a post listing 14 reasons why Hillary Clinton should quit the race.  He puts it a bit more delicately -- "Painful Things Hillary Clinton Knows, Or Should Know."

Reason No. 1 -- "She can’t win the nomination without overturning the will of the elected delegates, which will alienate many Democrats."

Fascinating list, too, because Halperin claims that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former Gore campaign Donna Brazile are cited as two leading Dems who think it's time for Clinton to end her campaign. 

The second major piece comes from Politico, which is fast becoming required reading for anyone who cares about politics in America.  The gang at Politico, in addition to having one of the best bloggers following every nuance of the campaign (Ben Smith), have chosen to write the occasional piece about why the media covers a particular political story in the fashion it does.

In this case, Politico asks why the media have been treating the Obama - Clinton contest as a close race when, in fact, Politico says, it's a complete myth.  "One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning."

Calling it a "game of make-believe," Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen spell out how unrealistic it is that Hillary Clinton can win the nomination, and say her chances are about one in ten.

These two pieces provide two bookends to an incredibly fast-moving week in the contest, which began with Obama's extraordinary speech on Tuesday and ended with the endorsement of Governor Bill Richardson on Friday. 

After all of this, it was sad but not surprising to see the Clinton camp return to their tactics of reprisals and denial.  James Carville compared Richardson's endorsement to the betrayal of Jesus by Judas (with friends like Carville and Clinton, who needs....) and then Mark Penn of the HRC campaign claimed Richardson's endorsement -- which had been heavily sought -- no longer meant anything of significance.

Even if Hillary Clinton has only a 10 percent chance of winning the nomination, the prospect that we would see someone in the White House who campaigns as HIllary does should disturb anyone who wants a constructive change in country. 

It's time for HIllary Clinton to fold her campaign.

A Few Modest Comments

In New Hampshire, it's not "Beware, the Ides of March" so much as it is, "Beware, Early March" because two critical disruptions occur at this time of year.

First, there are three critical public meetings which occur in the first ten days of the month of March.  In my town of Lyme, NH, it's Little Town Meeting (when we meet to discuss the issues before us in Town Meeting), School District Meeting (when the budget for the entire school district is discussed and voted upon), and of course Town Meeting itself. 

The last of the three meetings, Town Meeting, took place today and ended relatively early -- 3:15pm or so.  We started at 9am, and then spent the next six-plus hours debating and discussing and voting some 25 warrant articles.  Altogether we spent less time than last year, when the meeting ran past 5pm.  And this year it was more civil and less contentious.  But each meeting takes their toll.  As Chair of the Lyme School Board, there are quite a few hours spent preparing for a presentation that ultimately takes less than 30 minutes and a vote which, if everything goes well, takes even less time. 

At the end of the last of the meetings today (Town Meeting), I went for a middlin' run of 5-6 miles, then gathered my colleagues from the School Board for a end-of-the-year informal cocktail party, and made ready for collapse.

My run traversed the other disruption in the Granite State at this time of year: frost heaves.  Blocks of road asphalt, twisted and mashed together in peaks and valleys, the kind which wreck carburetors and cause drivers to negotiate the road ahead in unusual ways.  More than 100 inches of snow have fallen this year, and we've seen a goodly amount of warming and cooling and warming and cooling over the course of the Winter, all of which means are roads are conflicted and twisted and bent. 

And I as observe the contour of March, at least here in Northern New Hampshire, a few modest thoughts come to mind.

First, the Clintons ("Billary," if you must) made a trap for themselves with their "offer" to Senator Obama to join the ticket as Vice President.  In this case, Senator Obama himself stated eloquently why such an offer made no sense to either campaign.  Read the entire story here.

Second, this is a fight between Obama and Clinton is akin to a heavyweight boxing match.  Today's story in the Washington Post confirms that impression, one I made earlier in this blog.

Third, unless the primary race ends soon (meaning before the Pennsylvania Primary), Democrats will be vulnerable in the November election.  Today's column from Richard Cohen in the Washington Post outlines one scenario for defeat, but it's not the only one.  The bottom line is, few teams who "win" a game in double or triple-overtime go onto to win the championship.  Same with politics.

It's early March.  The snow is start to melt, even though temps at night are pretty cold (less than 25 degrees).  The question is, will Democrats awaken in time to realize that an endless cycle of primaries will only lead to electoral frost heaves, and thus play into the eager hands of John McCain in November 2008?

The Muddy Road Ahead

It's late Winter in New Hampshire.  Which means less snow, and more rain and mud.  It's the kind of weather that matches the climate in the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

A few weeks ago, I called for Hillary Clinton to leave the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination.  I believed then that continuation of her campaign risked splitting "...the [Democratic] party at the expense of her own ambition for the Presidency."

Chris Dodd, when he endorsed Obama recently, alluded to a similar concern about the divisiveness which might overwhelm the Democratic Party the longer it takes to determine its nominee. 

That said, I think it's worth reflect on the lessons learned from last night's victories by Senator Clinton:

1) Negative campaigns work.  At least in the short term. 

Clinton promised to throw the kitchen sink at Obama and it succeeded  Is he a Muslim?  A NAFTA supporter?  Asleep at 3am?  A favorite of the Press?  Whatever. Senator Clinton did anything possible to convince voters that Obama was unfit for the Presidency.  She used similar tactics in the final 24 hours of the New Hampshire and there is every reason to believe this tactic of throw you-know-what-at-the-wall will continue in the weeks and months ahead.  Her campaign is about winning ugly.

2) Clinton's tactics and strategy help the Republicans and Senator McCain, and hurt the Democratic Party. 

As I explained to former NH Democratic Chair Kathy Sullivan a few weeks ago on this blog, "Passions run high on both sides in a tough primary fight, and if that fights last for too long, the party never heals, unity is difficult to achieve, and the promise of success in the general election is imperiled."

I stand by those comments today.  With Clinton promising to continue her campaign for at least six more weeks until the Pennsylvania primary, and more likely until the August convention, Senator John McCain now has a clear field without any obvious opponent until 2.5 months before the general election.  Remember, this is a candidate who was supposed to be dead in mid-2007.  There is no better recipe for possible Republican success in 2008 than the prospect of no visible Democratic opponent until late August 2008 and a divided Democratic electorate.

3) Obama must decide soon if his most important opponent is Hillary Clinton or John McCain.  A two-front war cannot be fought successively, not even in this century, and Senator Obama must determine quickly which opponent matters the most. 

Over the course of the day, I've thought long and hard about whether Obama ought to consider Clinton as a running mate.  Their policies are similar, their supporters almost equally fervent, but in the end the prospect of joint ticket seems unlikely for either candidate.   Obama is a Democrat, of course, but the difference between him and Clinton is akin to the difference between Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan in 1976. On paper, you can find the match, but in the flesh, between two people and before the crowds of voters, I don't see a pairing likely between these two candidates.  The differences are too deep, and just as you can't merge two companies with different cultures, it's unlikely that a so-called "dream ticket" of Obama and Clinton would really work.

4) Obama is ahead in more than delegates.  Way ahead.  If you told me in December 2006, when Obama made his first appearance in New Hampshire in front of what seemed like a large crowd then (1,000+ people), that over the next 15 months, he would raise some $180M, be in the lead in terms of delegates (pledged and super) for the Democratic nomination, and mathematically appear to have the best chance at the nomination, I would have said you were crazy. 

Yes, Hillary has had her moments in this campaign.  But....stepping back...who really has gone from zero to 120+ miles per hour in this campaign?  Obama was such an unknown four years ago that when Bill Cinton wrote his memoirs, there was NO mention of Barack Obama in the entire book.

What's even harder to understand for the Clintons and their supporters rests with the fact that Obama's support is not ephemeral. A deep-seated desire exists on the part of Obama people to realize a politics  far grander and more inclusive than anything the Clintons preach or practice.

Instead of imaging politics as the dirty road on which only so-called "fighters" can travel, the Obama campaign has shown that most voters want a more honorable path, one that inspires and conveys the very best in our nation, a path that does not resort to the mud-throwing and other tactics which so skillfully and negatively highlight our differences. 

As supporter and reporters and bloggers emerge from the tulmut of Tuesday, I think it's important to realize this:  this is the real difference between to these campaigns, the likes of which I hope will attract greater press attention in the coming weeks and months.

"The Fighter?"....Hey, Get in Line Behind those other Clinton Slogans

If, like Rip Van Winkle, you woke up in Ohio or Texas in early March 2008, with no idea of what had come before in the Democratic Presidential nomination campaign of 2008, you might find yourself in good company.

Many voters in Texas and Ohio found themselves in the same place this month.  They hardly expected to be playing the role set for them tomorrow, Tuesday, March 4th.  Instead of being an after-thought following the primary traffic jam of Super Tuesday on February 5th, voters in the Buckeye and Longstar states find themselves in the unexpected position of playing possible nominee-maker.

It’s gotta feel weird.  But maybe no more weirder than Senator Clinton herself who, in preparation for the primary elections of March 4th, has donned yet another gown campaign slogan in her quest for the Clinton monarchy presidency.

This time, in Ohio and Texas, Senator Clinton has become “The Fighter." There are at least a couple of television commercials airing in both Ohion and Texas which allegedly testify to her fortitude in the political ring, and at an increasing number of rallies, Hillary Clinton has come to use every permutation possible of this pugilistic allusion.  Only the Rocky theme music seems to be missing from her repertoire.

“The Fighter” joins a long list of Hillary Clinton campaign themes, slogans, and phrases used over the last year to get people to pay attention and embrace the Clinton reign race.  In fact, if you weren’t Rip Van Winkle, and noticed the many guises of Senator Clinton, a very different picture emerges.

To be frank, it's an ugly picture.  Hillary Clinton's politics are overwhelmed by marketing.  Instead of advancing ideas and values and vision, Hillary Clinton has insisted on furthering a politics that relies on tabloid-like gotchas. 

No better example exists than the following Clinton motifs, slogans, phrases, and themes used during the last year to try and convince saps voters that HRC is the one to support in '08.

I’m in, and I’m In to Win.
January 2007

Let the Conversation Begin
Feb 2007

"Ready for Change, Ready to Lead”
July 2007

Fighting for Change
September 2007

Turn Up the Heat, Turn America Around
November 2007

Working for Change, Working for You
December 2007

The Hillary I Know
December 2007

Big Challenges, Real Solutions: Time to Pick a President
late December 2007

Ready
January 2008

Ready on Day One
January 2008

“I’m in the Solutions Business”
early February 2008

“She’s Worked the Night Shift, Too”
Late February 2008

It’s Time to Get Real
late February 2008

By my count, the latest slogan “I’m a Fighter,” brings the slogan/motif/phrases/themes total to fourteen in approximately the same number of months of Clinton's campaign.

14 different slogans!  In 1+ year??!!

Imagine what Hillary Clinton will do in the White House with this track record. 

If George Bush was obnoxious with those Orwellian slogans behind him, consider Senator Clinton with the biggest bully pulpit possible. 

Would we face a slogan a month?  A week?  A day?

Yes, Hillary Clinton is ready on Day One…as long as you don’t mind reassigning the address of the White House from Pennsylvania Avenue to Madison Avenue.