done

Hillary Clinton made her first trip to Oregon, speaking to a packed high school gym just outside of Portland. While they acknowledge that her rival Barack Obama is favored here, the Clinton campaign is playing hard — naming a state director and what the campaign calls a “very active” steering committee, ramping up field staff and opening a state headquarters in Portland next week and satellite offices in every congressional district.

They’re also tailoring their strategy around Oregon’s unique mail-in primary system; ballots will be mailed out on April 28th, and the majority of voters are expected to submit ballots through the post.

“I’m here to meet with you and talk with you and hopefully make my case to you,” she told the voters of Hillsboro, OR. “This is my first trip in a campaign of firsts, and I’m glad to be able to blaze a home in the land of the Trailblazers.”

But even in the Beaver State, she was focused on Michigan and Florida. She’s long argued that their delegates should count, but today she claimed their popular votes should count as well — a move that would put her much closer to Obama in that metric.

(more…)

On the heels of Monday night’s Democratic presidential debate, John Edwards launched a new television ad on Tuesday to run in South Carolina, challenging his Democratic opponents on accepting lobbyist money—an issue that has become the touchstone of the former North Carolina senator’s grassroots campaign.

The 30-second ad, titled “What Happened,” begins with side-by-side images of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on the screen. The announcer says: “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?”

As the pictures changes to images of Edwards speaking before large crowds and mingling with supporters, the narrator continues: “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.”

Edwards has centered his campaign on the principle of “taking back America.” He reasons that one cannot reduce the power of lobbyists who control Washington if he or she is accepting their money. While campaigning in Iowa in December, Edwards announced he would ban all corporate lobbyists and individuals who have lobbied for foreign governments from working in his administration, if elected.

In an attempt to make a comeback in a state he won during the 2004 primary election, Edwards will embark on a two-day “Back Roads, Back Home Barnstorm” of South Carolina on Wednesday, targeting small towns and rural communities in the hopes that his populist message will resonate among rural voters. During Monday night’s debate, Edwards argued that he is the only Democratic candidate who can “go everywhere and compete head-to-head” with the Republican nominee, including in places like the rural South—a demographic, he said, the Democrats cannot afford to lose in the general election.

“We can’t concede places like South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Missouri,” Edwards said.

“We always do well in Chicago, or New York, or Los Angeles, Seattle. We do well in the big urban areas. The question is: Are we competitive in the rural areas, in the tougher places for Democrats to compete?”

On the eve of Martin Luther King Day—just moments before the start of the Democratic presidential debate in South Carolina—John Edwards’ campaign released a letter sent by King’s son, Martin Luther King III, to the former North Carolina senator, praising him for his commitment to end poverty and injustice and calling for all candidates to emulate his initiative.

“I want to challenge all candidates to follow your lead, and speak up loudly and forcefully on the issue of economic justice in America,” King wrote. “My dad was a fighter…Keep fighting. My father would be proud.”

Edwards and King held a private meeting at the King Center in Atlanta on Saturday, and though details of that encounter were not disclosed to the press, the two men discussed Dr. King’s legacy and their “shared commitment to fighting poverty,” according to Mark Kornblau, a spokesman for Edwards’ campaign.

In his letter, King addressed the aims of Edwards’ campaign mission: “I appreciate that on the major issues of health care, the environment, and the economy, you have framed the issues for what they are - a struggle for justice. And, you have almost single-handedly made poverty an issue in this election.”

The letter could not have come at a more opportune time for Edwards, who was asked at the end of Monday night’s debate, “If Dr. Martin Luther King were alive today…why do you think he would or why should he endorse you?”

Without hesitation, Edwards said he has focused his cause on the “two biggest issues that Dr. King stood for, which are the issues of equality and ending poverty in America.”

(more…)

The Obama campaign released a new ad today, airing nationally on CNN and MSNBC - pretty innocuous except that it will hit airwaves in Florida (as well as 49 other states). Because Democrats signed a pledge sponsored by the DNC promising they would not campaign in the Sunshine State after Florida pushed its primary up against the DNC’s wishes. The state was stripped of delegates and Democrats vowed not to campaign there.The Clinton campaign picked up on the Obama ad and pounced, saying on a conference call this was a violation of the pledge and that Clinton would now consider campaigning in Florida in retaliation.

“Both national cable networks told us it would be impossible for us to run advertising nationally that excluded only Florida.  For that reason we consulted with the South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler who told us unequivocally she did not consider this to be in violation of pledge made to the early states,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in response.

The Obama campaign then arranged its own conference call with campaign manager, David Plouffe, who said he believes the Clinton campaign has been looking for a way to break their own pledge not to compete in Florida. This seemingly small window was their opportunity and is part of a pattern of “playing outside the lines” on the part of the Clinton campaign. As evidence, Plouffe cited previous incidents in Nevada, when Clinton precinct captains allegedly tried to shut caucus sites early, and Iowa, where the Clinton campaign didn’t approve of Obama encouraging out of state students to caucus. This type of behavior, Plouffe said, shows that Clinton is willing to “win at all costs.”

The Obama campaign will not campaign in Florida - even if Clinton does. This campaign is about delegates, and Florida has none.

Despite his distant third place finish in the Nevada caucuses, John Edwards says he is the only Democratic presidential candidate who can beat all Republicans in a general election—including potential GOP frontrunner, John McCain.

“I think it’s important for us to have somebody run against McCain who can beat him,” Edwards told reporters outside a restaurant in Winnsboro, South Carolina, on Sunday. “And national polls show that I’m the one who beats John McCain in the general election.”

In addition to mentioning polls that find he is best suited to stand against a Republican next November, Edwards raised the issue of campaign finance reform. Edwards—whose campaign is publicly funded—has long prided himself in his refusal to accept money from Washington lobbyists, reasoning that one cannot challenge corporate powers and “bring change to Washington” if he or she has taken lobbyist money. Edwards has called for campaigns to be publicly financed, and often tells voters, “we’re going to have an election, not an auction,” as he travels around the country.

While some have doomed Edwards’ candidacy due to lack of funds (compared to senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who have each raised over 100 million), Edwards says his stand on campaign financing would work to his advantage—particularly in a race against McCain, who has also sought to reduce the influence of money in the campaign process.

“This is a guy who’s made central to his political life campaign finance reform,” Edwards said of McCain. “It seems to me we ought to be putting somebody up against him who’s never taken money from special interest PACs or Washington lobbyists. Between the three of us, that’s me.”

done

In an editorial board meeting with a Reno, Nevada, newspaper last week, Senator Barack Obama said what turned out to be ammunition for rival campaigns. “Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and a way that Bill Clinton did not,” Obama told the newspaper. “I think it’s fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10 to 15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom.”

Both John Edwards and the Clinton campaign used these comments to make it clear that they, good Democrats, did not approve of Ronald Reagan’s policies. “I would never use Ronald Reagan as an example of change,” Edwards told the Associated Press. His campaign later put out a statement. “The breadth of change Ronald Reagan brought was crippling for millions of Americans, with the two worst recessions since the Depression, a complete disregard for the rights of American labor, and tax cuts that lined the pockets of the richest Americans at the expense of fiscal sanity and the well-being of the most vulnerable in our society,” said Edwards campaign manager David Bonior.

The Clinton campaign dispatched surrogates to respond. Corrine Brown (D-Fla.) wondered, “I would like to know what Republican ideas he thinks are great ideas.” Brown then listed Reagan-supported plans to privatize Social Security and abolish the National Education Association as well as provide tax breaks to the rich. President Clinton also weighed in, saying Obama “said that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas. So now it turns out you can choose between somebody who thinks thinks our ideas are better, or the Republicans had all the good ideas.”

Today Senator Obama responded to their criticisms at his Columbia, South Carolina rally, saying his statements have been mischaracterized - just another Washinton “trick.”

“I didn’t’ say I liked Ronald Reagan’s policies,” Obama explained. “What I said was that was the kind of working majority we need to form in order to move a progressive agenda forward. So when I see, you know, Senator Clinton or President Clinton distort my words, say somehow that I was saying Republican (sic) the only ones who had good ideas since 1980 – then that is not a way to move the debate forward. That is not a way to help the American people. And I am not running for president just to become president – I’m running to help the American people and move the debate forward. I’m not willing to say or do anything just to win an election, because when you start operating that way, you lose the trust of the American people and we need trust if we’re going to build the kind of country that all of us want for our children and our grandchildren.”

Obama told the crowd that Reagan “was able to tap into the discontent of the American people and he was able to get Democrats to vote Republican – they were called Reagan Democrats.” This skill of bridging party divides is one that Obama admits he hopes to emulate. “We as Democrats right now, should tap into the discontent of Republicans. I want some Obama Republicans!”

Seems like the Obama campaign has been thinking about this - or at least they came up with a snazzy name for these Obama Republicans: “Obamacans.”

Barack Obama’s pledge to “directly confront” President Bill Clinton over what Obama says is Clinton’s “troubling” attacks against him on the campaign trail prompted a stinging response from Camp Clinton.

In an interview with ABC’s Good Morning America, Obama blasted the former president for getting too involved on his wife’s behalf — and for distorting Obama’s record. “He continues to make statements that are not supported by the facts — whether it’s about my record of opposition to the war in Iraq or our approach to organizing in Las Vegas. This has become a habit, and one of the things that we’re gonna have to do is to directly confront Bill Clinton when he’s making statements that are not factually accurate.”

Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer shoots back, “We understand Senator Obama is frustrated by his loss in Nevada but facts are facts. Senator Obama’s allies in Nevada engaged in strong arm tactics and intimidation against our supporters and his record against the war has been inconsistent.”

“President Clinton is a huge asset to our campaign and will continue talking to the American people to press the case for Senator Clinton.”

Clinton has called Obama’s claim to consistently oppose the war since 2002 a “fairy tale,” citing Obama’s 2004 claim that he didn’t know how he would vote on Iraq had he been in the senate at the time. Obama says he didn’t want to be seen as criticizing the party’s presidential nominee John Kerry, who voted for the Iraq war resolution.

And Clinton claimed to have witnessed intimidation of potential caucus goers by Obama supporters in the influential Culinary Workers union in Las Vegas firsthand as he toured a casino caucus site yesterday morning. The campaign backs up his assertions here.

After a decisive loss in Nevada on Saturday, John Edwards said he hopes the old saying, “what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas,” proves to be true.

Edwards placed a distant third in the Nevada caucuses—earning only 4 percent of the vote and acquiring zero delegates. Clinton won 51 percent of the electorate, while Obama received 45 percent.

Addressing reporters outside a diner in Winnsboro, South Carolina, on Sunday, Edwards said, “I got my butt kicked,” and attributed his loss to the millions of dollars spent by his rivals in the state.

“I think the other candidates spent enormous amounts of money and we didn’t,” he said. “It was a caucus process. They were there for a long time organizing.”

But Edwards spent more days in Nevada than his Democratic rivals—he visited the state 17 times. Obama came 12 times and Clinton 8 times. Though the Edwards campaign never predicted he would win the state, his advisers remained optimistic that he would finish competitively.

Edwards also criticized the national media for representing the Democratic presidential campaign as a two-person race—focusing most of their attention on the “two celebrity candidates,” senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Despite his loss, he assured voters that he is in the race “for the long haul” and that 47 states have yet to be heard from.

“I’ve gotten up, dusted myself off, and I’m going back to work,” Edwards said. “I’m fighting for what I believe in.”

done

On a conference call with reporters, Obama campaign attorney Bob Bauer discussed concerns over how the Nevada caucuses were conducted Saturday.

According to state law, “In order to participate in the Nevada State Democratic Party Caucuses, attendees MUST be in line, or signed in, by noon. At noon, Presidential Preference Cards should be given to any person in line, and after that point, no Presidential Preference Cards should be given to any new arrivals, as they will not be allowed to caucus.”

The Obama campaign claims to have received a “significant amount of reporting from precinct locations that doors were closing well before noon, many times as early as 11:30.” The campaign also described reports that a manual had been distributed to Clinton precinct captains that said that registration deadline for caucus ended at 11:30. They had an “unusual high number reports that the Clinton campaign was insisting” that this be enforced.

After setting up a hotline for voters to report irregularities, the campaign says it has received “hundreds of calls” from “all over the state.” Although many of these complaints came from Obama voters, the campaign said they want to make sure that no voter, no matter who he or she supports, is disenfranchised.

Other than the number of calls, the campaign doesn’t know how pervasive these early closings were and stressed they “are not calling the results into question at all.” They will notify the Nevada Democratic Party and request that they look into the matter along with the DNC to “collect all the relevant facts.” The Obama campaign stated that they wanted to make sure “this sort behavior was highlighted.”

The Obama campaign put on a hastily arranged conference call today, hosted by campaign manager David Plouffe and director of delegate selection, Jeff Berman, to claim victory on Nevada’s delegate count.

Plouffe said Senator Obama chipped away at Senator Clinton’s huge lead and closed strong to come within just several percentage points of winning the caucus. Instead, they settled for a win in the all-important delegate count - Nevada has 25 delegates who vote for a nominee at the convention. After multiple news outlets called the race for Clinton, the Associated Press reported that Senator Clinton won 13 of those delegates while Obama took 12.

Not according to team Obama. It was, in fact, the opposite, according to their math. They explained that Obama won the district with odd numbers of delegates while where Hillary won, the numbers of delegates were even, so the delegates were split evenly. The campaign explained that the state Democratic Party gave incomplete information to the news outlet. An Associated Press reporter on the call piped up during the question and answer period of the call to say the campaign “might be right.”

Plouffe stated that the campaign will have “20 lifetimes” between now and the end of February and ” it does seem like we are headed for a long and protracted fight here.” That campaign, he said, will increasingly turn into a contest for delegates. To rub it in a bit, the campaign announced their conference call today with a quote from Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson, who spoke to the Washington Post three days ago. “This is a race for delegates. It is not a battle for individual states. As David knows, we are well past the time when any state will have a disproportionate influence on the nominating process.” The “David” Wolfson was referring to, of course, was Obama campaign manager David Plouffe.

The Nevada State Democratic Party put out a statement of their own. “No national convention delegates were awarded. The calculations of national convention delegates being circulated are based upon an assumption that delegate preferences will remain the same between now and April 2008. We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support.”

Meanwhile, the Associated Press updated their story, which was forwarded to reporters by the Obama campaign. The first line: “Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama split the spoils in the Nevada caucuses Saturday night, a race marred by late charges of dirty politics.”