The debate is scheduled to begin at 9pm eastern (8pm central time). I live in the central time zone. When I go to Hofstra’s debate website, the countdown clock has the wrong time (see screen shot below). Apparently, whoever set up the website didn’t account for anyone living outside the eastern time zone to rely on it. Anyway, spread the word in case some may be confused.

For me, the countdown clock should read 1 hour, not 2…

Additionally, we criticize both campaigns on their respective weaknesses and offer some unsolicited advice for improvement.

And much more…

[Listen Online] or [Download]

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us (mail at 2008central dot net) questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

[Listen Online] or [Download]

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

[Listen Online] or [Download]

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

[Listen Online] or [Download]

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

• Gov. Strickland and Former Gov. Vilsack Host Conference Call to Discuss Senator McCain’s Failure to Lead on Energy [Listen]
• Former Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig and Major General Geoffrey Lambert, (USA, Ret.) to discuss Prime Minister al-Maliki’s call for a timetable for U.S. troops to leave Iraq [Listen]

The McCain Campaign held one call with reporters:

• Randy Scheunemann, senior foreign policy adviser, and Kori Schake, senior foreign policy adviser, discuss Barack Obama’s statement regarding Iran [Listen]

[Listen To Previous Calls] or [Subscribe To Conference Calls in Your RSS Reader or iTunes]

Appearing on yesterday’s Race For The White House on MSNBC, Rachel Maddow discussed the likelihood of John McCain choosing Jeb Bush as his running mate. She stated:

Joe Scarborough: Rachel, you know, George W. Bush is like kryptonite to Republicans this year. But, is Jeb Bush, the good Bush to be standing next to in 2008?

Rachel Maddow: Well, Floridians like Jeb Bush and it seems like John McCain likes Jeb Bush. I mean everything you hear, I don’t know either of the candidates personally, right – I’m not an insider person who is getting that sort of information. But, the people who are close the candidates, when they talk about who John McCain personally likes, who he has good chemistry with, they talk about Jeb Bush. I think that when you hear McCain sort of bring up Jeb Bush unprompted in conversation, when you see Jeb Bush make this detour in Mexico City to go see McCain today – I think they’re testing just how important Jeb Bush’s last name is. Because, if he had a different last name, I think there’s no question he would be right at the top of the list for McCain.

Scarborough: …But Rachel, you’re not saying that McCain could possibly pick Jeb Bush as his vice president, are you?

Maddow: If I had to bet, and I don’t bet, but if I had to bet today I would bet on Jeb Bush. I honestly would.

It’s worth noting that last summer, Maddow put forth a conspiracy theory, which involved Cheney resigning for medical reasons and being replaced with Jeb Bush, who could then run for president as an incumbent VP. Onto, yesterday’s comment…

To begin, the mere suggestion that McCain would choose Jeb Bush as his runningmate is unbelievably silly. I don’t care what side of the aisle you are on, if you’re on television you shouldn’t say things this absurd. But, to Maddow’s credit, she did warn everyone how willfully ignorant she was. After all, she acknowledged that she wasn’t an insider and has no specific information to support her senseless contention. However, if you break down her analysis, it’s pretty obvious that she was solely saying it for political reasons, since, the more you tie McCain to Bush (either directly or indirectly, the better for the Democrats)…

She does provide a reason for her conclusion though: McCain is testing Jeb’s last name by meeting with him in Mexico City. I’m not entirely sure how a meeting that took place in Mexico City with significantly less coverage than it would have gotten back in the US somehow satisfies or signifies testing Jeb’s name. It actually doesn’t make sense. But, that’s okay, because it doesn’t need to. It only needs to link Bush and McCain.

It’s a shame when people, like Maddow, who spend so much time complaining about partisan hacks neglect to realize just what a hack they’ve become themselves. In my opinion, anyone that prefaces a statement with something to the effect of ‘I have no idea what I am talking about, but…’ should not be allowed to finish that thought on a televised news program. I guess I’m just reaching for the stars though…

By his own admission, Mr. McCain is not a great orator. He is ill-suited to lecterns, which often dwarf his small stature, and he tends to sound as if he is reading his lines, not speaking them. His shortcomings have been accentuated in a two-man race, particularly because the other man — Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee — can often dazzle on stage.

He goes on to detail some of the minor improvements that McCain is undergoing to address some of his issues (it’s worth a read if you’re interested in rhetoric). Tactical improvement is going to be a topic in our upcoming podcast, so I’ll refrain from suggesting too much detail here, but it’s worth teasing just a few simple suggestions that the McCain campaign utilize to address or mitigate some of his rhetorical weaknesses. It’s worth noting however that the campaign isn’t likely to listen to any suggestions from a young smart person. My $0.02…

• To deal with lecturn issue, use clear pediums.
• Change the cut on McCain’s suit to fit him better and have him wear bolded ties.
• Stop trying to have McCain deliver prepared speeches. Certainly in some circumstances they may be necessary, but in general, the campaign should be playing to his strength and having McCain speak more freely (consistent with the message of the day, of course).
• Assuming McCain can develop a bit more discipline, the campaign should smoke Obama out of his hole by dramatically increasing the number of press availabilities McCain holds. It’s risky, yes. But the campaign is going to need to get more direct McCain-Obama interaction in order to get McCain a stronger foothold in the news cycle.
• And lastly, why isn’t the campaign blasting Obama for not meeting with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani when he was in DC at the end of June?

If you’re interested in hearing a more significant discussion on campaign tactics be sure to check the site later this evening for our latest podcast or subscribe now in iTunes (or any other podcast subscription service).

[Listen Online] or [Download]

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

[Listen Online] or [Download]

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

[Listen Online] or [Download]

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

This evening, the McCain campaign held a conference call with their General Legal Counsel, Trevor Potter, to discuss some background information regarding Barack Obama’s decision to opt out of public financing. Audio of this call is available here.

The Obama Campaign contacted the McCain campaign and requested that their General Counsel, Bob Bauer, also participate in the call, so that the campaigns could jointly address the issue. Bauer was not on the call. I’m not sure if the McCain campaign rejected the offer or just ignored it; it is worth noting that a few seconds of the McCain campaign’s private conversation was accidentally broadcast prior to call and one of the individuals there was speaking about the Obama campaign’s offer and suggested that they have their own conference call, so it’s clear the McCain campaign was at least aware of the request (I did not include this portion of the call in the audio posted, which is consistent with my policy of not doing so – as I also did for the Clinton campaign when that accidentally happened to them as well).

The Obama campaign then held their own conference call with Bob Bauer to respond to the McCain call. Audio of this call is available here.

As already noted, if you’re interested in this issue then these calls are worth listening to.

This morning, in an email to supporters, Barack Obama announced that he will be opting out of the public financing system for the general election (video). The announcement has been widely expected for a few months now, so it wasn’t very much of a surprise.

Obama explained his decision, saying:

It’s not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections. But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.

It’s completely fair for a candidate to contend that the problems with campaign finance system are so significant that it would be better not to participate in it. However, there’s a bit more to this situation that raises some questions.

First, here’s a review of the time line (emphasis added):

In February 2007, Obama asked the FEC if it would be possible for him to accept money for the general election without disqualifying him for opting into the public financing system later in the process if he were to return the money. The FEC ruled that this would be acceptable. Thereby allowing Obama to preserve the option of opting into the public financing system for the general election.

When Obama made the request to the FEC, Obama Campaign spokesman, Bill Burton, said:

“Senator Obama has long been a proponent of public financing of campaigns and we are asking the FEC to take a step that could preserve the public financing option for the party’s nominees”

And, a lawyer for the Obama Campaign, added:

“Should both major party nominees elect to receive public funding, this would preserve the public financing system, now in danger of collapse.”

The primary purpose for Obama’s request to the FEC was to allow for both parties candidates to come to a truce for the general election, the NY Times summarizes:

But Mr. Obama, campaigning on pledges to clean up politics, argued in his filing with the commission that the public financing system had insulated candidates from a corrupting dependence on big donors. He asserted that the system could be preserved for the general election through bipartisan agreement if party nominees returned early contributions.

The plausibility of such an agreement is not clear. One nominee is likely to have a financial edge on the other at the outset of the campaign, and accepting public financing would mean relinquishing that edge.

Following the FEC’s ruling on the matter on March 1, 2007, McCain accepted the Obama campaign’s proposal to work out a bipartisan arrangement regarding public financing. McCain’s campaign manager at the time, Terry Nelson, said:

“Should John McCain win the Republican nomination, we will agree to accept public financing in the general election, if the Democratic nominee agrees to do the same.”

At the time, this was welcomed news for the Obama campaign and the public financing system. Obama spokesman, Bill Burton, responded to McCain’s acceptance by saying:

“We hope that each of the Republican candidates pledges to do the same.”

Mr. Burton added that if nominated Mr. Obama would “aggressively pursue an agreement” with whoever was his opponent.

In September 2007, responded “yes” to a survey question from Midwest Democracy Network that asked: “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?.” In addition to his “yes” response, Obama stated:

In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

Yet, in today’s announcement, Obama supported his decision on the basis that the public system was broken and thus not worth saving. This certainly doesn’t seem to comport with his previous statements on the subject.

[NOTE: Since this diary was initially published, additional information regarding some of my questions have been answered. Although the accounts are disputed, there was at least one meeting between the Obama and McCain campaigns regarding this issue. Thus, until further research and verification can be done, please take these questions indicated below with this information in mind]

And, it raises some questions:

• Nothing about the system has changed since February 2007, so why was the system worth saving then and not worth saving now?
• Did the Obama campaign at least try to pursue some type of fundraising agreement with the McCain campaign? If so, what was the nature of these discussions? (Both the McCain and Obama campaigns have been contacted regarding this question. I will follow up if/when they get back to me).

That said, the reality is simple: it is politically smart for Obama to remain outside of public financing. First, he has an enormous fundraising potential and to self handicap would be silly. Second, as noted, the attacks from independent groups are likely to get especially nasty, so it would be a huge political risk to limit his campaign’s ability to directly respond. As already noted, these are completely fair reasons for not opting into the system.

My issue isn’t with Obama refusing to take public funds. Rather, my issue is with Obama spending most of 2007 arguing in favor of the public financing system and promising to support it should he become the party’s nominee, only to disregard those previous statements when he actually became the party’s nominee.

Further, I think it is a political miscalculation for the campaign to assume that people will not care about Obama’s changed position on the issue. Here’s why: [Continued at 2008Central.net]

With approximately 10 minutes notice to reporters, the Obama campaign held a conference call today with Pennysylvania Bosnia veterans to discuss Sen. Clinton’s previous remarks on Bosnia. The timing of the call is somewhat odd, especially in light of Sen. Obama’s statements regarding political distractions at ABC’s debate earlier this week.

Maj. Gen. Walter Stewart observed:

“Imagine the lack of moral authority she has now to lay a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier.”

He later added an observation about Sen. Clinton’s potential for leadership:

“So, let’s look at moral authority as the essential element of leadership. President George Bush, Sen. Clinton, Sen. McCain have squandered the moral authority of the United States of America and our ability to lead the free people’s of the world; and the oppressed peoples of the world towards freedom. Sen. Barack Obama displays the moral authority we need for a change in Washington D.C.”

Michael Kotyk began by saying:

“Sen. Clinton’s remarks are what I guess you would call a ‘whopper’ in the military terminology. It’s a breach of honor. And, it’s something that she has done continuously and even in regards to her support on NAFTA.”

As noted, this conference call is in sharp contrast to Obama’s remarks on Clinton and Bosnia during the debate earlier this week.

First, Obama suggested that the only reason his campaign initially criticized Sen. Clinton on the subject was because they were asked about it:

[CONTINUED...]

I. The Perot Campaign

Like all sweeping epics, this story begins in much the same place that it ends. In this case, it is with Penn making a lot of money and a Clinton presidential campaign have monetary problems. Of course, in this case, Penn did a month’s worth of work for the Ross Perot campaign in 1992, while Bill Clinton was the candidate in debt. Penn was with Perot from the very beginning. In fact, he received almost half of the first disbursements of the Perot campaign. (Washington Post, 4/21/92). On the same day, in fact, it was revealed one Bill Clinton was 2 million dollars in debt after the Illinois and Michigan primaries, ironically. (LA Times, 4/21/92). What did Perot pay for? Perot’s own words show little confidence in Penn: “”Friends of mine… just couldn’t breathe without one, so I said get one. Spent 10 minutes looking at his results. Everybody says I paid him too much for it.” (The Hotline, 5/5/92).

After that poll, though, Penn stopped working for the campaign, apparently as even Perot found Penn too expensive, combined with Frank Luntz growing closer to Perot. (Washington Post 5/5/92). That didn’t stop Penn from doing what he is now incomparably famous for: spin that is completely unbelieveable to anyone who has taken a long term view to anything. In early June 1992, after he had stopped working for Perot, Penn said, “It certainly is too early, but the fact that the public has not solidified is a very positive factor for Perot, indicating the possibility that he can overcome the pattern of third-party trailoffs and sustain support to November.”

This culminated in what now seems like an absurd remix of the present election. From the July 12, 1992 edition of This Week with David Brinkley:

SMITH: [voice-over] If Bentsen’s right, that means a much nastier fall campaign, so it was perhaps no accident that, a week after the worst unemployment figures in eight years, Vice President Quayle was out testing what sounded very much like a personal attack on Governor Clinton.

J. DANFORTH QUAYLE, U.S. Vice President: One reason George Bush will win this election is that the American people know his character. He is honest, not slick.

SMITH: [voice-over] “Slick Willie”- remember him, the candidate who didn’t inhale marijuana and who didn’t sleep with Gennifer Flowers?

Gov. CLINTON: [February 1992] Your nation is losing its economic edge.

SMITH: [voice-over] Voters liked Clinton’s message of change, but were put off by questions about his character.

MARK PENN, Pollster: Can you trust him? Is he really sincere and believable? I think that it’s the women in America who have more doubt about him than anyone else and they’re the ones that have to be convinced over the next week that he’s a sincere candidate who’s going to help them.

Moreover, the following quote from the July 26, 1992 Washington Post might describe why he ultimately resigned now. (And the harm of him now resigning earlier):

Despite a year of image rehab, Quayle still is a sure laugh on late-night television. “He’s seen as a fool,” said Mark Penn, a political consultant and pollster who worked with independent Ross Perot earlier in the year. “Is this race such that Bush can win with a [perceived] fool on the ticket? No. He needs a partner who is a lift among swing voters, instead of a partner who’s really a drag on his efforts.”

II. The Distant Past – Anderson et. al.

Twenty years ago, Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas. Hillary Clinton was working for a top Arkansas law firm. John McCain was serving in the Senate and trying to live down the Keating Five. Barack Obama was entering Harvard Law School. Where was Mark Penn? Taking questions live on C-Span before the New York Primary. (Syracuse Post-Standard 4/17/88). Ok, seriously, he was already a Democratic pollster, but it certainly underlines where he comes from.

Mark Penn has been attacked for being both a pollster and a strategist. A look at Penn’s career through this regard shows something deeper. Penn’s career can be said to more or less begin with John Anderson’s campaign in 1980.

A National Journal article in 1980 looks very interesting in retrospect (National Journal, 10/18/80):

You wouldn’t know it from watching them in action today, but until recently political pollsters lacked both celebrity and clout.

It was only a few years ago that pollsters in politics were likened to accountants: behind-the-scenes technicians needed to keep a campaign running but seldom in on strategic decisions. Or they were dismissed as social scientists who played with computers to prove self-evident theorems.

Pollsters were considered useful to buttress political instincts and personal contacts in the heat of a campaign. But it was the polls, not the pollsters, who ran the show.

In the 1980 presidential campaign, however, that’s changed. The pollsters are directing — some would say dominating — the campaign and are intimately involved in campaign tactics and strategies.

In-house polling helped, for example, to dictate the style and content of Republican Ronald Reagan’s statements in his Sept. 21 televised debate with independent John B. Anderson. On the Democratic side, polling data suggested that Reagan would be vulnerable to hardhitting attacks on his public positions by President Carter and Administration officials.

Which one set of pollsters did not have that type of authority?

In Anderson’s independent presidential campaign, by contrast, pollsters Mark Penn and Douglas E. Schoen are not at the center of operations. That place is filled by media adviser and campaign director David Garth, an acknowledged master at using polls to shape candidates’ media images. (See NJ, 9/3/80, p. 1523. )

“He asks for specific things,” said Penn. “We work with Garth closely and he integrates the data into the campaign… A part of his success as a political consultant is his success at turning polls into strategies

There are a couple of unflattering ways to look at this. One could look at the rest of Penn’s career in a vein similar to Captain Ahab. While both were ostensibly successful – captain of a ship, leader of Penn,Schoen and Berland and Burson-Marstellar, Penn was Ahab-like in his desire to both be a pollster and a “Chief Strategist.”

Moreover, one could also argue that Bill and Hillary Clinton (and others) trusted Penn with political advice, even though even John Anderson was smart enough not to.

A brief 1987 Advertising Age profile meant to indicate how revolutionary Penn was now reads more along the lines of how dated he may be (Advertising Age, 11/2/87).:

Mark Penn and Doug Schoen … had an innovative idea which “at the time we had trouble convincing people to try” — polling by telephone. That method is now the norm. In addition to being one of the country’s top Democratic political pollsters, Penn + Schoen also does an increasing amount of market research for corporations, corporate image work, survey research for government agencies, single-issue research for associations and public interest groups, legal research and international political polling and survey research.

“We’ve used the techniques of political polling in foreign presidential campaigns in places such as Venezuela and Israel,” says Mr. Penn.

What once was innovative now sounds like bragging for designing the piano necktie.

III. Rise With the DLC

In order to understand the fall of Penn, one has to understand his rise as well.

[CONTINUED...]

You can find audio for these campaign conference calls here.

Clinton has long insisted that failing to seat Michigan’s delegates would be equal to disenfranchising voters. (That is, after initially agreeing that Michigan wouldn’t count.) Today, she even lumped Michigan’s revote in with the “long struggle” of “women, African-Americans, Latinos and others” to “get to the point where barriers have been knocked down and doors opened.” What would you call that, disenfranchisploitation?

But now Obama’s camp is using the same terminology. Clinton supporters Jon Corzine and Ed Rendell, governors of New Jersey and Pennsylvania, respectively, wrote a letter today to Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm reiterating their willingness to pay for a revote. Obama spokesman Bill Burton fired back, denouncing their willingness “to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters.”

The Obama campaign’s rationale, in case you missed it: Voters who participated in the Republican primary wouldn’t be included in the Democratic revote. They also argue that young absentee voters—think college students—wouldn’t be included, since there’s a rule saying you must show up in person the first time you vote.

So, to recap: According to Obama, Clinton’s plan would disenfranchise Republicans, independents, and young first-timers—his base. According to Clinton, Obama’s nonplan would disenfranchise traditional Democrats—her base. When it comes to appropriating voting-rights rhetoric to serve their own needs, both campaigns are doing a smashing job.

Now that the vote is apparently dead (though there is still the occasional ghost sighting), look for this to shift to blaming of each campaign.

Ultimately, though, Ambinder is right that the Obama camp more than anyone prevented the recent agreement from going forward. The operative question regarding that is whether you think that their arguments that Beam listed are justified. They probably think they could reasonably compete in an open primary, but that only letting people who voted in the primary the last time (who overwhelmingly went for Clinton) or did not vote at all is too restrictive. Both sides have a point here, and it’s something you would hope that people could sit down and work out instead of not let anything happen, but these are the consequences of a draconian DNC ruling that for some reason makes the candidates the important figures in making decisions. That said, Clinton probably has more of a point.

However, [Read More...]

• Politically irrelevant (and justifiably so) candidate, Daniel Imperato draws the ire of a librarian. Apparently, Imperato has been placing press releases framed as news stories in foreign news release services that are subsequently getting pick up by Google News and Yahoo News and making their way into readers mailboxes. Some headlines from Imperato’s stealth stories (I do not suggest reading them):
  • Imperato on the Road to Recovery after Surgery – An article about Imperato’s “major eye surgery”
  • 2008 US Presidential Candidate and Papal Knight D. Imperato Named as Grand Prior of Orden Bonaria for the US and Canada, & Wife Jan Deborah
  • Media Alert: The G8 Summit: Subject Africa; Presidential Hopeful Dan Imperato Comments on the G8 Summit and Their Dealings with Africa
  • Leading 2008 Presidential Candidate Imperato Speaks on Corporate America
• Some guy’s been fasting for 3 weeks in hopes of persuading Nader to drop his bid for the presidency. Thus far, this effort has been unsuccessful and will likely remain so, especially given that in the recent Zogby poll, Nader’s polling between 5-6% nationally (caveat emptor: it’s Zobgy). Also, Nader’s picked a running mate – Matt Gonzalez.
• Libertarian George Phillies leads his rivals in individual contributions, which will no doubt be one of his arguments at the Libertarian Party’s Convention (they choose their nominee at the convention). At a recent Libertarian candidates debate, Phillies argued that he had the strongest organization (or one of the strongest organizations) of all the candidates (video of the debate available here). For what it’s worth, Phillies’ claim is probably true. Of all the Libertarian candidates, he’s certainly the most active based on my experience/research/reading.
• In a bold move demonstrating what can only be characterized as confidence, Democratic contender Mike Gravel (yes he’s still in the race despite what you may have heard) has expressed support for Green party hopeful Jesse Johnson. I guess this means the pain train is headed for one of Johnson’s Green Party nomination rivals, Cynthia McKinney?
• Behind, Behind The Scenes: Sam Nunn’s been mentioned as a potential running mate for Mike Bloomberg, when talk of a Bloomberg run was in vogue (but that’s soo yesterday) and there was also talk of him running as an independent a while back. Last month, an article Newsweek named Nunn as a suggested Secretary of State for Obama. Recently, George Will upped the ante by suggesting that Obama pick Nunn as his running mate. Historical note: Nunn was also mentioned as a potential running mate for Kerry in 2004. It’s highly unlikely that Nunn would make Obama’s short list, even with Nunn’s respect as an independent person. Moreover, even if Nunn was on that VP list, it’s also unlikely that he’d accept. But, at least George Will is trying, right?

So we now have a pattern. Obama’s chief economic advisor (Austan Goolsbee) and a prominent foreign policy advisor (Power) have now told the truth on two important issues, trade and Iraq respectively. Their truth contradicted some of the overheated rhetoric their boss was using on the campaign trail. Hillary Clinton–whose actual positions on trade and Iraq are probably the same as Obama’s advisors–has attacked Obama in both cases for saying one thing and believing another…when she is doing the exact same thing.

You’d hope for something better in a crucial election year, but hey, this is politics. For what it’s worth, I score this contretemps slightly in Obama’s favor: At least his advisors know the truth about these issues and are impolitic enough to be honest about it.

I am certainly disappointed that Clinton didn’t use this opportunity to address the Iraq problem for real–to say, “Look, even though Samantha Power called me a monster, what she said about Iraq is true. Both Senator Obama and I would like to be able to pull a brigade a month out of Iraq, and I’m sure we’ll both try to do that. But truth in advertising requires me to say to you that it’s a best case scenario. I have no idea what the situation on the ground is going to be on January 20, 2009. I have no exact idea how we can use the prospect of our withdrawal to leverage the Iraqis into getting their political act together, but it’s the only real leverage we have–and a new President needs to point the military and our diplomats in that direction. So my policy will be different from John McCain’s, which is to use Iraq as a permanent U.S. base in the region. That’s a bad idea. Permanent U.S. bases would be a permanent irritants in the region. So we’re going to try to leave. But it won’t be easy and it won’t be as quick as we’d all like it to be.”

So in other words, both campaigns are running on distortions of the truth, where only some of the most naive of Obama’s supporters actually tell the truth, and instead of trumpeting that point in print and ensuring it becomes a major campaign issue, Joe Klein just wishes it was not the case to the extent where he can write an alternative speech.

Look, I’d love to start writing alternative speeches on this site too, and occasionally I probably fall into that trap, but it’s more important to actually call people out as loudly as possible. When both sides are doing it and no one is paying attention to what McCain says, it’s likely that the press and people like Joe Klein are the only ones who will have the ability to make that case. Playing silly games with this (or falling into the “Oh SNAP Hillary went after Samantha” trap) is pointless and only encourages more reckless politics from both Democrats.

The people who actually can fix this will only fix it if there is enough pressure upon them to do so. An isolated blog post on a busy Monday on a secondary story will not bring that pressure.

See my annotated version of Clinton’s Iraq speech today for more.

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for next week’s podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).