-
sponsorship
It’s not going to happen. But here’s a hypothetical scenario that, however unlikely, could make John Edwards a kingmaker.
Saturday, Iowa Democrats will vote in the state’s county conventions. It’s a lot like the caucuses last January, only on a smaller scale. At 99 locations around the state, the 13,485 delegates selected at the caucuses will gather to choose delegates for the district and state conventions, which happen in April and June. Remember that in January, Edwards took 20 percent of the vote, which gave him an estimated 14 of the state’s 45 pledged delegates. (Iowa also has 13 superdelegates, bringing its delegate total to 57.) That means about 20 percent of the delegates showing up to tomorrow’s convention were selected as Edwards delegates.
These Edwards delegates have two options. (Well, three.) They can switch their allegiance to Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, both of whom have been pushing hard for their support. Or, if they’re able to meet the 15 percent viability threshold, they can stick with Edwards. Presumably, many of them have switched allegiances since January, and others probably don’t know they’re allowed to vote for Edwards now that he’s out. But if enough of them back him, they could put his delegates—again, the equivalent of 14 national convention delegates—in play at the state convention on June 14.
And as the Democratic race drags on, 14 delegates is starting to look like a lot. The last primaries are scheduled for June 3. If the delegate count is somehow tied—a long shot, given Obama’s current lead, but still possible—then Edwards’ 14 delegates would play a major role. There's a certain poetry to Iowa bookending the election like that, no? (Or, if you're concerned about the democratic process, a certain perversity.)
Back to reality for a moment. The other reason delegates might stick with Edwards would be if they think his priorities, particularly poverty, haven’t been addressed sufficiently. It’s the same reason Edwards hasn’t endorsed yet: He’s waiting for one of the candidates to take up the cause with the same fervor he did. Until that happens, he has no incentive to pick sides. Likewise, the longer his delegates hold out, the more pressure they put on Clinton and Obama to take up Edwards’ mantle.
-
sponsorship
Here’s a question: Who doesn’t have a crazy, wingnut, off-message preacher supporting their campaign?
Right now, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is getting the most attention for, among other things, his statements that the U.S. government caused the AIDS virus; a speech in which he said, “God damn America”; and his less-than-kind words about Hillary Clinton. Obama has distanced himself from Wright in general terms but hasn’t denounced specific statements.
But Obama’s not the only one. Clinton has her own spiritual adviser in the Rev. Bill Graham, who, while generally respected, has made remarks about Jews and the media that wouldn’t endear Clinton to voters. (Their connection hasn’t been an issue on the campaign trail so far.)
Even McCain has embarrassing pastors in his life—more than one, in fact. Earlier this week, McCain “condemned” the words that John Hagee “apparently wrote”—Hagee has said some ugly things about gays, Jews, and Catholics. But McCain said his remarks may have been “taken out of context.” Meanwhile, the Rev. Rod Parsly, an Ohio televangelist whom McCain has called a “spiritual guide,” wrote in one of his books that Islam is a “false religion” predicated on “deception,” David Corn reports. Not exactly part of McCain’s campaign platform.
So, given that each candidate has an embarrassing pastor, shouldn’t there be a stalemate? As Ambinder points out, the McCain campaign can’t ding Obama for Wright’s words—as it implicitly did in an e-mail today—without expecting to be repaid in kind.
My guess is that for McCain, it’s worth it. The Arizona senator has had a bumpy relationship with evangelical leaders—don’t forget his “agents of intolerance” quip—and he probably calculates that it’s better to have these guys on his side, controversy and all, than to lose them and their supporters. Plus, there’s a big difference between his evangelical endorsements and Wright’s proximity to Obama. (Wright married Barack and Michelle, and gave Obama the title of his second book.) If it comes down to a guilt-by-association competition, McCain probably thinks he would come out on top. Clinton should feel somewhat more comfortable denouncing Wright—Billy Graham, whatever his past statements, isn’t exactly controversy incarnate. Still, her campaign is so far withholding judgment.
-
sponsorship
There’s no written rule about what you’re supposed to say when asked if Barack Obama is a Muslim. But manners, respect for the truth, and disdain for the ugly rumors still circulating about his religion would suggest that you’d say something like, “No, Barack Obama is not a Muslim.”
But somehow, the rival camps can’t seem to bring themselves to utter those words. Last week on 60 Minutes, Hillary Clinton stopped short of an outright denial: “I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that,” she said. When pressed on whether she believes he is Muslim, she said, “No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.”
Then today on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, McCain adviser Charlie Black used similar phrasing, saying he “take[s] him at his word” that Obama is not a Muslim.
What’s the game here? It’s like they’re hedging just in case it turns out one day that Obama is indeed Muslim, as if Tim Russert would then read back their quotes to them and demand to know how they could have been so sure. You could argue that it’s impossible to know someone’s religion in their heart of hearts. But come on. If someone said they were going to “take Hillary Clinton at her word” that she’s a Christian, they’d be rightly mocked. Obama’s case should be no different.
A recent NBC/WSJ poll showed that 13 percent of voters still think Obama is a Muslim. That’s up from 8 percent in December, suggesting that the smear (and yes, given the motivation, I’m comfortable calling it a smear) is getting traction. (See the full poll here.) For a campaign adviser, let alone a rival candidate, to answer the question of Obama’s religion in a less-than-definitive way—as if you’re just guarding against saying something you don’t know for sure—merely plays into the hands of rumor-mongers.
-
sponsorship
Over the last two weeks, pressure has been building to get both Michigan and Florida’s delegations seated at the Democratic National Convention. Florida has set a self-imposed deadline of Monday to sort itself out, while Michigan has to reach a resolution by Thursday (before the state legislature goes on vacation). People have been proposing all sorts of solutions, from splitting the delegates to mail-in revotes. Because we can barely keep track of the proposals ourselves, here’s a guide to what’s on the table:
1) A Florida in-person primary. A classic do-over. Democrats show up to a polling place, vote for somebody, and go home.
Cost: An estimated $25 million. That’s a serious chunk of change for a state that has already paid for a primary. The only way that they could come up with the money is if Clinton supporters and Govs. John Corzine (New Jersey) and Ed Rendell (Pennsylania) followed through on their promise to raise money.
Whom it helps: Hillary Clinton. That’s why her campaign is the only group who wants this to happen.
Why it won’t happen: Nobody wants to shell out $25 million for a vote that’s likely to look very similar to the last one. On Jan. 29, Clinton won 55 percent to Barack Obama’s 33 percent. (John Edwards—remember him?—was still in the race at the time.) Currently, polls say she pulls 59 percent of voters and Obama grabs 39 percent. With other options on the table, Obama will never agree to this one.
2) A Florida mail-in primary. All registered Democrats would be sent a ballot in the mail at least two weeks ahead of the June 3 primary date. Ballots must be received by June 3, not postmarked by then. There would be only 50 in-person polling places across the state.
Cost: Originally, the plan was quoted at $4 million to $6 million. Now it’s inflated to $10 million to $12 million because of security precautions. The funding would almost certainly have to come from soft money, which means Corzine and Rendell may be involved, again.
Whom it helps: Clinton, but Obama could live with this option. For Obama, it gets the delegations seated and the mail-in procedure favors fervent supporters who will remember to mail in the ballot. For Clinton, she gets to grab the delegates she thinks have always rightfully belonged to her.
Why it won’t happen: It’s still unclear whether an all mail-in primary is even legal. There’s a huge hang-up on how to verify voters’ signatures that would take an emergency piece of legislation or an executive order to mollify. The Miami Herald has a great article on why that probably won’t happen. Plus, the people who like the idea—GOP Gov. and possible McCain VP Charlie Crist, Sen. Bill Nelson, and the state Democratic Party—are outnumbered by the nine Florida congressmen who don’t like the idea.
3) A Michigan in-person primary. It’s the same story as it was in January, except this time both Obama and Clinton are on the ballot.
Cost: It could run as high as $12 million, which would be paid for by soft money in one way or another. Corzine and Rendell could get tapped, or Obama and Clinton’s campaign could go dutch and split the bill 50-50.
Whom it helps: Obama. He’s already polling at a tie with Clinton, and he hasn’t stumped there. (Neither has she.) If he wins a populous swing state like Michigan, it would help him make the case to superdelegates that he’s the stronger November candidate.
Why it won’t happen: If Michigan Democrats can’t agree on the best approach, then it could fall apart. Otherwise, the outlook is good.
4) Seating Florida’s current delegation and arbitrarily tying Michigan. Everybody would agree to give up on the revote idea and come to a compromise. Florida’s delegation would be seated at the convention based on January’s vote, but each delegate would cast only half a vote as lingering punishment for cutting the line in the first place. Meanwhile, Obama and Clinton would agree to split the Michigan delegation 50-50. If you’re thinking that that doesn’t make any sense, you’re right. More on why below.
Cost: The best part of this plan: It’s free!
Whom it helps: Obama more than Clinton, most likely. He gets the Florida/Michigan monkey off his back and takes half the vote in Michigan. Obama’s campaign is on the record in favor of a 50-50 split. Plus, he gets to limit the damage in Florida, which Clinton would have won again.
Why it won’t happen: This is actually somewhat likely to happen if Michigan can’t figure out a way to stage a revote. But that doesn’t make it a good option. The idea behind seating these delegations was to make sure the two states’ Democrats weren’t disenfranchised. But splitting the vote 50-50 in Michigan essentially does disenfranchise them. Michigan would then have no impact on the race; its delegation would be window-dressing at the convention. Heck, even if you gave Michigan a bajillion delegates, it still wouldn’t matter if the candidates split its delegates 50-50. (See Slate’s delegate calculator for an illustration on how this would work.)