USNews.com: Political Bulletin: Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

CAMPAIGN NEWS

Obama Targets Clinton At YouTube Debate

The one theme that emerged in the coverage of the substance of last night's CNN/YouTube Democratic debate was attempts by other candidates, particularly Sen. Barack Obama, to directly challenge Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has held double-digit leads in most recent national polls. Obama was generally seen as getting a good shot in at Clinton when he criticized those that voted to authorize the Iraq war, but Clinton was seen as scoring points over Obama by taking him to task for saying he would meet with leaders of countries such as Syria and Iran. Most media reported on the exchange (along with a number of others, such as John Edwards' explanation of his position on gay marriage).

The Washington Post leads its front-page coverage of the event with that topic, reporting Obama "edged closer to directly criticizing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for voting to authorize the invasion of Iraq during a Democratic debate on Monday night, one of several sharp moments between the presidential contenders over the war -- and how to end it. Mentioning Clinton by name, Obama praised the senator from New York for recently prodding the Pentagon for its plans to withdraw troops from Iraq. But, he continued, 'The time for us to ask how we're going to get out of Iraq was before we went in.' He added: 'That's something too many of us failed to do.'" The Post adds, "Halfway through the debate, the Clinton campaign seized on what it said was a 'video moment of the debate,' when she said she would not promise to meet with leaders of regimes such as North Korea, Iran and Syria without a game plan. Answering the question before Clinton, Obama had said he would meet with rogue leaders as part of his diplomatic approach." The New York Daily News adds that Clinton strategist Mark Penn "said Clinton's answer was a 'presidential moment' that would become obvious in the fallout from the showdown."

The New York Sun reports Obama "is escalating his criticism of Senator Clinton's record on the Iraq war, using a Democratic presidential debate last night to belittle her attempt to force the Pentagon to release plans for withdrawing American troops. ... Mr. Obama's unsolicited jab, perhaps his most direct of the campaign, signals a potential turning point in a race that has thus far seen the leading contenders reluctant to take on their opponents directly." Clinton "appeared to hit back" with her response to the question on meeting with foreign leaders.

Similarly, the Washington Times reports, "Mr. Obama took a rare harsh tone toward Mrs. Clinton to highlight that he opposed the war before being elected to the Senate and she voted for it."

USA Today reports that Obama and Edwards "targeted" Clinton. Obama "needled Clinton for boasting she had demanded the Pentagon devise a plan for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, his most direct challenge to her on the issue," while Edwards "suggested that Clinton wasn't in a position to deliver on promises to change the country's course. 'Do you believe that compromise, triangulation, will bring about big change?' Edwards said, a reference to President Bill Clinton's strategy of 'triangulating' differences between Democrats and Republicans. 'I don't.'"

Clinton, Obama Seen As Winners While few media outlets this morning are declaring an outright winner in the debate, the performances by Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are generally receiving good reviews. The Washington Post reports, "Clinton, sounding as sharp as she has in any of the past four gatherings of the candidates, eagerly joined an exchange over immediately withdrawing troops from Iraq." Long Island Newsday reports, "The anything-goes format coincided with a more aggressive and sure-footed performance from Obama, accused of being flat and long-winded in previous debates. ... Obama, who is beating Clinton in fundraising but trailing by an average of 15 points in national polls, seemed much more at ease than in previous debates." Obama's staff "said he romped in focus groups of debate viewers. But Clinton's pollster Mark Penn said Obama's commitment to meeting hostile foreign leaders would haunt his campaign by pointing up his inexperience."

In an analysis on the website of CBS News, Vaughn Ververs writes, "Politically, there was little to change the underlying dynamics of the race. Clinton, as in previous debates, largely sailed through the event error-free and took advantage of the opportunities presented. ... Obama turned in a mostly steady performance but did appear to trip up at one point when asked about whether, as president, he would be willing to meet with the leaders of nations such as Iran, North Korea and Cuba." Ververs adds, "As has been the case in the candidate debates thus far, Edwards did not do much to break through the grip Obama and Clinton appear to have on the top spots in the campaign."

CNN posted a post-debate "scorecard," with analyst Bill Schneider, Bill Press, and GOP strategist Leslie Sanchez all declaring Clinton as the winner of the debate. Roger Simon writes in The Politico, "It was a very close competition and the best debate yet." He give first place to Edwards, saying, "John Edwards has found a theme: He is angry and he is on your side. He is bold and he will use his boldness for you."

CNN Focus Groups Favor Obama, Clinton, Richardson. During the debate, CNN ran focus groups of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents in New Hampshire and Nevada. In New Hampshire, reporter Mary Snow said the CNN focus group found that Obama "got the most favorable [response] in terms of the best performance from the 24 people who are here tonight. Of course, it's unscientific, and coming in second, Senator Joe Biden and third, John Edwards."

New Debate Format Receives Good Reviews.

There were questions throughout the media yesterday about whether last night's CNN/YouTube debate was a novel approach that would elicit more straightforward answers than a typical debate or if it was just a gimmick. The consensus emerging in media reviews this morning is that the format did make this debate stand apart from others, pushing candidates to give more unscripted responses. For example, a widely-distributed AP story reports, "Young, Internet-savvy voters challenged Democratic presidential hopefuls on Iraq, the military draft and the candidates' own place in a broken political system, playing starring roles in a provocative, video-driven debate Monday night." A voter "named Chris, opened the CNN-YouTube debate with a barb aimed at the entire eight-candidate field: 'Can you as politicians...actually answer questions rather than beat around the bush?'" The answer was "a qualified yes. The candidates faced a slew of blunt questions - from earnest to the ridiculous - and, in many cases, responded in kind."

The Los Angeles Times reports, "The unusual format drew the candidates out on matters rarely discussed at the presidential level, such as their children's sex education and the willingness of at least some to work in the White House for minimum wage." The Times adds that the debate "also included a few sparks, in particular over the war in Iraq. But perhaps the most noteworthy aspect was the freewheeling format and the lively session it produced: something much more akin to a game show - complete with commercial breaks - than anything Lincoln or Douglas might have imagined."

The Washington Post reports, "Reparations for slavery. Atheism. The definition of a liberal. The marriage of the old and the new gave birth to something rare in the Democratic presidential debate Monday night: surprisingly diverse questions from a diverse group of questioners."

The Chicago Tribune reports, "Candidates gave a few answers previously unheard in this long summer of debates and forums, on an array of topics that Americans evidently think about but which panelists rarely broach in the button-down format of the traditional debate. Highlights included Obama asserting that he never has to explain how black he is when trying to catch a cab. Clinton said she wouldn't use the word 'liberal' to describe her politics but rather prefers the term 'progressive.'"

The Charleston Post and Courier reports that "even before the night was over, officials were saying the novelty of citizens submitting their own questions will take off. Debates are 'no longer a province of the elite, or the press,' said Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. 'After tonight, I think it's going to be hard to go back to debates how they were, without user-generated comments,' added CNN host Anderson Cooper."

Media Critics Not Impressed. Not all media outlets saw the format as bringing a new dynamic to debates. One group particularly stood out in opposition to the format TV critics. In a "TV Watch" piece in the New York Times, Alessandra Stanley writes, "Most of the video questions posed in last night's Democratic debate were more memorable than the answers, proving that novices can ask good questions, but not necessarily elicit better answers than professional journalists. The experiment by CNN and YouTube looked less like a breakthrough in the democratic process than a high-tech town hall."

TV critic Paul Brownfield, writing in the Los Angeles Times, gives the format a generally negative review, saying, "In the end, though, the event didn't amount to a lot more than an interesting town hall, people able to crawl through their broadband connections and meet the candidates. Sort of. Still it remained, mostly, a one-way conversation -- powerful people talking to a giant screen, addressing other people who weren't there."

In his column in the Washington Post, TV critic Tom Shales writes, "It was hardly the dawn of a new age in democracy -- although it was hyped as at least that and more -- but last night's Democratic debate staged jointly by CNN and YouTube, the participatory video Web site, at least proved itself a novelty, especially considering how excessive the number of premature debates has been."

In an analysis in the New York Daily News, Critic-at-Large David Hinckley writes, "Like most utopian schemes, the plan to herd the Democratic presidential candidates into a TV reality show fell a little short of its goal last night."

Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.

Top

WASHINGTON NEWS

Bush Aides Face Contempt Citation

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers said Monday that his panel will vote Wednesday on a resolution to cite President Bush's chief of staff, Joshua Bolten, and former White House counsel, Harriet Miers, for contempt. Bolten and Miers have refused to respond to subpoenas pertaining to the congressional probe of the US attorney firings. The Los Angeles Times says the move "ratchets up a battle between Congress and the White House in which the Bush administration has sought to invoke executive privilege to keep documents about the firings under wraps." Along similar lines, the Washington Post reports "the move puts House Democrats on a legal collision course with the White House, which said last week that it would not allow the Justice Department to prosecute executive branch officials for being in contempt of Congress."

McClatchy suggests Conyers' move "may be a political calculation to cast more negative attention on the firings." Also, "legal experts said Conyers' scheduling of a Wednesday committee vote to initiate contempt of Congress proceedings...may be a way to exhaust legal remedies before pursuing a civil case." John Bresnahan, in The Politico, quotes from Conyers' statement: "I've allowed the White House and Ms. Miers every opportunity to cooperate with this investigation, either voluntarily or under subpoena. It is still my hope that they will reconsider this hard-line position."

The AP notes White House spokesman Tony Snow warned yesterday that "any House-passed contempt citation against the aides was unlikely to advance to criminal prosecutions. 'The Justice Department has, in fact, been reluctant to do such things,' he said." Roll Call reports Snow also "said the Democrats' pursuit of contempt charges is simply political theater, noting that the White House already has made thousands of pages of documents available to investigators and has offered to allow senior staff to sit for informal interviews with no transcript or oath."

Gonzales Vows To Stay, Repair DOJ Image AFP reports Attorney General Alberto Gonzales "vowed he would not quit Monday, as he braced for another roasting from lawmakers furious over a political scandal sparked by the sacking of federal prosecutors." Gonzales "was due to appear before the US Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday." The Hill notes that in a 26-page statement "submitted to the Judiciary Committee in anticipation of his testimony," the Attorney General "spent five paragraphs on the US attorneys scandal that for months has plagued the department." The AP says Gonzales wrote, "Reinforcing public confidence in the department is...critical, and will be one of my top priorities as attorney general for the remainder of my term." The Washington Times and Washington Post run similar reports.

US Officials Plan Iraq Role Through 2009

Even as Congress maneuvers to force President Bush to pull out of Iraq, the New York Times reports in a front page article that the top US officials in Iraq have prepared "a detailed plan that foresees a significant American role for the next two years." The plan, which represents the "coordinated strategy" of Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, calls for "restoring security in local areas, including Baghdad, by the summer of 2008" and then on an expanded, "nationwide basis by the summer of 2009," according to US officials.

Support For 2003 Invasion Of Iraq Rising The New York Times reports, "Americans' support for the initial invasion of Iraq has risen somewhat as the White House has continued to ask the public to reserve judgment about the war until at least the fall." In a New York Times/CBS News poll "conducted over the weekend, 42 percent of Americans said that looking back, taking military action in Iraq was the right thing to do, while 51 percent said the United States should have stayed out of Iraq." But "two-thirds of those polled said the United States should reduce its forces in Iraq, or remove them altogether."

Public Trusts Congress 55%-32% Over Bush The Washington Post reports in a front page story that most Americans "see President Bush as intransigent on Iraq and prefer that the Democratic-controlled Congress make decisions about a possible withdrawal of US forces, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll." Fifty-five percent "said they trust congressional Democrats on the war, compared with 32 percent who said they trust Bush."

ABC World News, meanwhile, reported the "new ABC News/'Washington Post' poll has found that President Bush faces growing opposition on Iraq even within his own party. According to the poll, 78% of all Americans and 55% of Republicans now say the President is not showing enough flexibility to change course on Iraq."

Diplomats Got White House Political Talks

The Washington Post reports in a front page story that White House aides "have conducted at least half a dozen political briefings for the Bush administration's top diplomats, including a PowerPoint presentation for ambassadors with senior adviser Karl Rove that named Democratic incumbents targeted for defeat in 2008 and a 'general political briefing' at the Peace Corps headquarters after the 2002 midterm elections." The documents "show for the first time how the White House sought to ensure that even its appointees involved in foreign policy were kept attuned to the administration's election goals."

Feingold Seeks Bush Censure Cosponsors

The Hill reports Sen. Russ Feingold, "undaunted by Democratic leaders' reluctance to embrace his effort to censure President Bush, plans to begin enlisting cosponsors in the caucus this week and to draft language that may target other senior administration officials." Speaking about his plans to introduce a censure resolution, Feingold said on CNN's Situation Room, "The purpose here is not to embarrass or shame, but to make sure that when our children and grandchildren look at this history of this, it doesn't look like we were silent in the face of some of the worst acts that have ever been committed by an administration in the history of this great country." And on Fox News Special Report, Feingold was shown saying, "I have a lot of sympathy for those who are interested in impeachment, but the Constitution does not say you must impeach. It gives the option of impeachment. And in this case, exercising the option is not necessary, given the fact that we can censure this president."

On MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews asked director Michael Moore for his thoughts on Feingold's proposal to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Moore said, "Good idea. ... Actually, they should be lucky just to get censured. Personally, I'd like to see a perp walk coming out of the West Wing of the White House." Moore added Bush and Cheney were "absolutely" guilty of war crimes.

Sheehan Arrested At Conyers' Office The AP reports, "Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested Monday at the Capitol for disorderly conduct, shortly after saying she would run against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over the California Democrat's refusal to try to impeach President Bush." Sheehan was "taken into custody inside Rep. John Conyers' office, where she had spent an hour imploring him to launch impeachment proceedings against Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney." The Hill notes Sheehan said if Speaker Pelosi "refuses to bring articles of impeachment against President Bush to the floor of the House," she "not only will challenge the Speaker in the next election but also will defeat her."

Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.

Democrats Want Summit On Spending

The New York Times reports House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have "asked for a meeting with President Bush to see if they can work out an agreement on spending bills for the fiscal year that begins in 10 weeks. But lawmakers from both parties said they saw no obvious way to overcome the current stalemate with the White House." The disagreement, they said, "involves less than 1 percent of the federal budget, about $22 billion in a budget of $2.9 trillion." Rep. Jerry Lewis, "the senior Republican on the Appropriations Committee, said he foresaw an impasse that might end late this year with most spending programs thrown together in an omnibus spending bill. 'A legislative train wreck is likely to occur,' Mr. Lewis said."

Also of that opinion is Rep. Patrick McHenry, a Republican, who writes in today's Washington Times, "In 1995, a newly anointed Congressional majority seeking to assert its power through the federal spending process had a head-on collision with a president in desperate search for political relevance after a crushing electoral defeat. The outcome: a government shutdown. Twelve years later, the parallels are hard to miss."

Democrats' AMT Bill Hikes Taxes On Rich

Roll Call reports, "Despite months of delays, House Democrats still hope they can push through a tax overhaul that would shift a major chunk of the tax burden to the rich while providing a broad tax cut for the middle class." They "have crafted, shopped and poll-tested a bill that would permanently 'fix' the alternative minimum tax." While the bill "has many moving parts," the "concept is relatively simple: About 90 million families would get a tax cut, paid for by a hefty 4 percent rate hike on the few million who make more than $500,000 a year."

Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.

Top