-
See all Swift Boat Watch entries here.
Who They Are: Let Freedom Ring
Purpose: To promote a conservative agenda and to counter liberal messaging. In this election, they support John McCain.
President: Colin A. Hanna
Funding: NPR reports that John Templeton, a physician and wealthy Republican donor, is a contributor.
Cost of the Ad: $5 million for the whole campaign.
Where It Ran: Colorado, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., starting Oct. 24.
Claims: Former Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney says that candidates who are determined not to use force or invest in a strong military convey "weakness" that "invites aggression." (He doesn't explicitly name Obama.) The ad then quotes Joe Biden's statement that "it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama."
Accuracy: Frank Gaffney writes editorials theorizing that Islamist groups are using Obama to take over the United States. The ad implies that Obama is determined not to use military force or to maintain a strong military. Both of these claims are false. In fact, both Obama and McCain want to expand the armed forces. In a 2007 speech, Obama said, "I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America. ... I will ensure that our military becomes more stealth, agile, and lethal in its ability to capture or kill terrorists." The Biden statement, made at a rally in Seattle, is accurate.
Background: The group's Never Find Out campaign features individuals addressing Obama's tax plan, energy plan, and use of the present vote in the Illinois Senate. Other ads have attacked Obama on his comments about small-town Pennsylvanians, his position on the Employee Free Choice Act, and offshore drilling. Ronald Reagan nominated Gaffney for assistant secretary of defense; Gaffney served for seven months until the Supreme Court blocked the nomination.
Swift Boat Rating: 
Biden did warn Americans that an international crisis would test Obama. But the ad's implications—that Obama would not use force and would weaken the military—are inaccurate. The ad gets an extra boat for featuring Gaffney, who is not the most credible spokesperson.
-
Sarah Palin got a tough rap this week for flubbing questions in media interviews. Her solution tonight: not answering them at all.
Gwen Ifill nobly tried to keep both candidates on task. But Palin demonstrated a knack for answering the question she wanted to answer—not the one that was asked. At one point, Ifill asked Palin to respond to a comment by Sen. Biden on health care. “I would like to respond about the tax increases,” Palin pivoted and proceeded to accuse Obama of raising taxes 94 times. A minute later, Ifill prompted Palin to respond about McCain’s record of deregulation. Again, Palin resisted: “I'm still on the tax thing because I want to correct you on that again.” Biden looked exasperated, prompting Palin to say, “I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also.” In other words, screw your questions, I’ve memorized a message and gosh darn it, I’m going to get it across. She even managed to steer Ifill at one point: “Can we talk about Afghanistan real quick?” “Certainly,” said Ifill.
It wasn’t just Ifill she ignored—Biden got the cold shoulder, too. When Palin said Obama voted to cut off troop funding, Biden pointed out that McCain has voted against troop funding as well, because the legislation contained a timeline for withdrawal. She did not respond. Same when he pointed out that Obama’s tax plan raises taxes only on those who make more than $250,000, not families who make as little as $42,000, as Palin and McCain claimed. She had talking points but few responses to Biden’s rebuttals. One notable exception was the time she corrected Biden on “McClellan’s” argument that counterinsurgency could work in Afghanistan as it has worked in Iraq. Biden conceded the point but didn’t mention that his name is actually Gen. McKiernan.
The strategy worked. Palin kept the conversation on her turf, avoided follow-ups, and came across both forceful and charming. She addressed the camera directly—part of the “straight to the American people” message—instead of addressing Biden (although she did turn his way to inform him, “Your plan is a white flag of surrender in Iraq”). She’s also a master of the tonal pivot, going from beaming smile to sly grin to dead serious all within the same answer. The format helped, too. The two-minute rebuttal periods didn’t produce much cross-chatter, and Ifill didn’t ask many follow-up questions.
In her closing statement, Palin said she liked the debate because “I like to answer these questions without the filter of the mainstream media.” If by “filter” she means Couric-style follow-ups, requests for clarification, and other obstacles to the subjects she came to talk about, she’s right. This debate was a great medium for her.
-
After Sarah Palin's interviews with Katie Couric, expectations could not be lower. Even showing up would be a victory.*
But as usual, both campaigns are engaging in the usual
counterintuitive praise for their opponents. The best quote comes from Obama
campaign manager David Plouffe as he tried to ratchet up expectations—reportedly
provoking guffaws from the press scrum.
"Governor Palin is one of the best debaters in American
politics,” Plouffe said. “If you look at her - no she is. Her 2006 debate, she knew
where she wanted to take every question, and so I think she'll be relentlessly
on message tonight, and again I'm sure she'll have any number of biting and
witty one-liners. But our focus is on the person sitting at home in Canton, Ohio, tonight, Akron, Ohio,
tonight, who's struggling economically."
*Update: The debate has begun. She is here.
-
Click on the links below to see the sources from which Joe Biden lifted his DNC speech!
“Beau, I love you. I am so proud of you. Proud of the son you are. Proud of the father you’ve become. …
“It is an honor to share this stage tonight with President Clinton. And last night, it was moving to watch Hillary, one of the great leaders of our party, a woman who has made history and will continue to make history: my colleague and my friend, Senator Hillary Clinton. …”
And that's just the beginning. Start Googling!
-
Early Saturday morning, the 3 a.m. phone call finally came. But it wasn’t a phone call. It was a text message.
It’s hard to imagine that the method and timing of Barack Obama’s vice presidential announcement wasn’t, in some small way, a reference to Hillary Clinton’s famous “3 a.m.” ad. Of the 24 hours they had to choose from, they had to pick 3 a.m. Eastern Time, the most famous hour of this presidential cycle?
Maybe it’s just a coincidence. The message blasted out soon after word leaked via the AP that Joe Biden was Obama’s vice presidential pick. Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Obama, denied any connection with the Clinton ad. “No—that’s an absurd assumption,” he wrote in an e-mail.
Still, the 3 a.m. connection is too good to ignore. Maybe it’s trying to suggest Joe Biden is prepared for that 3 a.m. call, should the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff accidentally dial the wrong extension. Maybe it’s meant to remind everyone that the Obama campaign never sleeps. Or maybe the campaign wanted to help simulate the presidential experience for supporters. So this is what it’s like to be president!
Either way, somewhere Mark Penn is smiling.
-
The Associated Press is reporting that Joe Biden is Barack Obama's running mate, ending weeks of frenzied speculation. This passage is my favorite:
The official who spoke did so on condition of anonymity, saying they did not want to pre-empt a text-message announcement the Obama campaign promised for Saturday morning.
And yet ... he did just that. All those times David Plouffe said I would "be the first to know" -- just words?
-
Biden's campaign just sent out this release, probably because they're sick of getting asked about it:
“There are no discussions underway and there will be no deal with any campaign. We believe Sen. Biden is strong enough on his own. Everyone knows that Sen. Biden is a popular second choice for the supporters of all the other campaigns. We remain confident that Sen. Biden will surprise folks this evening.”
The funny thing is, the statement suggests that Biden isn't making any deals in which he would take supporters from non-viable candidates. When in reality, seeing as he polls in the single digits, any deals he makes would more likely be with a frontrunner like Clinton or Obama, in which he would throw his supporters their way. He should be more worried about losing his supporters to a leading candidate than drawing supporters from non-viable candidates like Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel.
-
If you want to see how two campaigns with very different means trying to achieve the same ends, watch Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden's closing argument videos. Hillary's two-minute spot is airing on Iowa news programs this evening. Biden's five-minute pitch is online only.
Biden sells his candidacy based largely on the war in Iraq. He cites his prescient concerns about Pakistan's security even before the Bhutto assassination. He comes off as pugnacious: "I want this fight. I relish this fight."
Everything about Hillary, meanwhile, is softer. Her voice seems carefully modulated to convey calmness, almost motherly. She also looks younger than usual. In her monologue, she dumps policy specifics in favor of vague, comforting reassurances: Voters want "a president who could hear you and see you. ... Help me change America ... Stand with me for one night."
According to YouTube, Biden's video has been viewed 7,800 times since Dec. 31. Hillary's has 17,000 views over the past day.
UPDATE 8:38 p.m.: Barack Obama also wants your caucus.
-
In case you haven't heard, the Democratic caucuses in Iowa aren't exactly a microcosm of American democracy. Secret ballots are unheard of, candidates bribe voters with sandwiches, and second choices aren't just allowed, they're sometimes requested.
On Thursday night many supporters of Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, and Joe Biden won't be allowed to vote for their candidate. Democratic caucus rules say that any candidate who doesn't pull in 15 percent of the vote at the local caucus meeting isn't "viable," so their supporters must pick another candidate if they want their vote to count. Let's hear it for the democratic process!
Given that, we thought we'd put together a helpful guide for second-tier supporters when they have to shift allegiances. (Richardson supporters can find advice here.) Here’s a rundown on which candidates most closely share Biden's positions (just in case supporters lose their Mo-Joe):
Pakistan: Somehow, John Edwards has been getting rave reviews for his handling of post-Bhutto Pakistan, but picking up the phone when Pervez Musharraf calls doesn't make you an expert. Hillary Clinton seems like she could be a nice fit, with her competency and experience, but Barack Obama is the winner. Even though Biden was annoyed when Obama aped Biden's stance on attacking al-Qaida in Pakistan, the plans still resemble each other.
Iraq: Biden's three-part soft-partition plan is considered the gold-standard among Democrats, which means any of the Big Three are a step backward. This one's a wash.
Health care: Biden's plan doesn’t call for mandatory universal care, but it does make health care accessible to all children. It's far from all of the top Democrats, but it's closest to Obama's since there isn't a mandate for adults.
Resume: If Bill Richardson were polling higher, we'd give him the nod. But since he's unlikely to top the 15 percent threshold in most precincts, Clinton gets the edge. Not because of her White House experience, but because she's the only two-term senator among the top Dems.
There isn't an easy second-choice candidate for Biden supporters. His appeal comes from his foreign affairs expertise and his no-nonsense attitude. In many ways, Biden supporters would probably find a home with John McCain more than any other candidate. That says more about the Democratic front-runners than it does about McCain.
-
The latest from the Joe Biden press shop:
"Over the next week, Mo-Joe ’08 will sweep across Iowa, with Sen. Biden set to
attend over 30 rallies in 28 counties statewide."
Bad puns: the last refuge of a candidate with nothing left to lose.
-
After listening to a two-hour Democratic debate on NPR, I'm left wondering why they all can't be this good. You probably won't hear much news come out of this debate—there were few accusations, no gotcha questions, and hardly any petty attacks. But that doesn't mean the debate wasn't worthwhile. It was probably the most insightful one yet.
The debate felt like a flashback to more innocent times—an age free of counterattack Websites, split-screen Web videos, and kindergarten essays. That's because NPR decided to talk about three nuanced issues rather than a broad hodgepodge: Iran, China, and immigration. I had nearly forgotten, but the Democrats actually have similar positions on these and most other issues. The candidates' cooperative tone was in stark contrast with the accusations that have dominated the campaign trail in the last few weeks.
NPR's debate was structured to delve deeper into the issues than any other debate. The three moderators—Robert Siegel, Michele Norris, and Steve Inskeep—pressured the Democrats to reveal the nuances of their philosophy on the three issues. There were no lightning rounds, no grandiose introductions, and no questionable questioners. Instead, the candidates sounded like politicians who were truly grappling with the issues at hand. Would they extend a diplomatic hand to Iran at the risk of being used for propaganda? Limit trade with China even if it meant higher prices? Should the average citizen report illegal-immigrant neighbors to authorities, or is that the role of the immigrants' employers?
This three-issue approach can be applied to the other debates, seeing as there are so many of them. The Democrats have already staged five televised debates, all of which were partly organized by the DNC. So, why doesn't the DNC (and the RNC across the aisle) help organize the debates to emphasize policy discussions rather than snipe fests? The general election debates already work this way: Each debate covers a broad topic (e.g., foreign policy and domestic policy) assigned by a bipartisan commission. It seems this would help voters better understand who to vote for and help the candidates better understand their opponents' messages.
I could tell you who I thought performed best out of the seven candidates at the NPR debate, but it just doesn't seem appropriate. This was about the issues, not about who made the strongest sound bites. Don't worry, though, there are more debates to come. Let's talk about theatrics then.
-
The National Intelligence Estimate reported yesterday that Iran isn't pursuing the nukes the Bush administration once thought they were. Predictably, the candidates quickly blasted out statements celebrating the news. But politically, not all of the candidates should be ecstatic.
LOSERS
Rudy Giuliani: Rudy's foreign-policy platform is based on "staying on offense" against terrorists, a category into which he often lumps Iran's government and military. Giuliani has a stable of neocon foreign-policy advisers, including Norman Podhoretz, who tried to convince President Bush to bomb Iran. As Fred Kaplan noted yesterday, staying on offense against Iran might not be such a great idea if they don't have any bombs.
John McCain: "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" isn't going to shoot up the Billboard charts anytime soon.
Hillary Clinton: That vote to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group isn't looking too good anymore. Having a nuclear bomb has little to do with whether they're terrorists (Iran's assistance to anti-American forces in Iraq is the United States' main grievance), but now Clinton's opponents can say that she was being overly hawkish on Iran despite a lack of evidence. (Cough—Iraq authorization vote—cough.)
Doomsday paranoiacs: Are we still on the precipice of World War III? Not so much.
WINNERS
CNN: Suddenly, the network doesn't look so bad for not taking a single question on Iran in the CNN/YouTube debate last week. Oh, right, they didn't take any questions on global warming, health care, or Iraq, either.
Joe Biden: Before the NIE came out, he had been calling for Bush's impeachment if America bombed Iran. Now that stance seems even sounder.
All of us: Let's take a moment to realize that Iran doesn't have any nuclear weapons. This means we can all sleep a little easier at night, breathe a little more freely during the day, and only freak out about the half-dozen other states that have a nuclear bomb.
-
Joe Biden has a goofy new Web video (goofy because it's scored by Randy Newman) that compiles clips of the other Democratic candidates agreeing with him during debates. For a full minute plus, they spew variations on "Joe is right." It's not just a trick of the eye—Biden has killed in the past few debates. When it comes to foreign policy, especially, his answers are usually as strong or stronger than the frontrunners'.
But that doesn't mean praise is a good thing. On the one hand, yes, he has good ideas about education and immigration and Iran that earn his opponents' admiration. But on the other, the frontrunners can praise Biden because they don't see him as a threat. Hillary, for example, looks good for saying something nice about a colleague, but she doesn't set any traps for herself by making that colleague Barack Obama. It's win-win, but it's also more than a little condescending. Just as "you never put your crosshairs on a dead carcass," as Mike Huckabee says, you never pet an animal that can still kick.
-
Using data from the indispensable New
York Times’ debate
analyzer , I crunched some word-per-second numbers from
last night’s debate. Dodd talks faster than Biden and Richardson speaks the slowest of all. Clinton and Obama’s
cadences, meanwhile, are in sync.
| Talker |
Words |
Seconds of talk |
Words/sec |
|
|
|
|
| Moderators |
4131 |
1435 |
2.88 |
| Audience |
719 |
304 |
2.37 |
| Biden |
1906 |
586 |
3.25 |
| Clinton |
2944 |
953 |
3.09 |
| Dodd |
1564 |
446 |
3.51 |
| Edwards |
2010 |
627 |
3.21 |
| Kucinich |
1119 |
355 |
3.15 |
| Obama |
3339 |
1081 |
3.09 |
| Richardson |
2199 |
838 |
2.62 |
-
Currently featured on www.JoeBiden.com:
(Screenshot)