By PATRICK HEALY, January 4, 2008

DES MOINES - The Democratic and Republican establishments and their presidential candidates, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and former Governor Mitt Romney, were brought low in Iowa on Thursday night, shaken seriously by two national newcomers who won decisively on messages of insurgency and change.

The victors in Iowa, Senator Barack Obama for the Democrats and former Governor Mike Huckabee for the Republicans, are as far from the status quo as possible. One is the son of a Kenyan father and a white Kansan mother who entered the United States Senate just three years ago. The other is a former Baptist minister who was best known until recently for losing over 100 pounds and taking on the issue of childhood obesity.

The two winners burst the aura of strength and confidence that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Romney had tried to cultivate for months, and left both parties suddenly without a clear path to their nominating conventions, let alone November.

Mrs. Clinton's loss was especially glaring. Her central strategy for much of 2007 was to appear as the inevitable nominee, but Iowans shredded that notion. She tried in recent weeks to convince voters that another Clinton administration could be an agent of change, but Iowans clearly did not buy it.

Without question, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Romney have the money, the campaign apparatus and the legions of supporters to stay in the hunt for the nomination and to right their campaigns. But Mrs. Clinton's lackluster finish raises anew questions about her electability, and whether independent voters - twice as many of whom backed Mr. Obama over her - will ever come around to Mrs. Clinton.

And Mr. Romney, who outspent Mr. Huckabee 6 to 1 in television advertising in Iowa, now faces a far more crowded field of rivals in the New Hampshire primary who are eager to tear into his wounded candidacy

All the candidates now move to that primary on Tuesday, which Mrs. Clinton had tried to make a fire wall for her campaign, as it was for her husband's presidential candidacy in 1992, when he finished strongly in second place.

"If Hillary doesn't stop Obama in New Hampshire, Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee," said Robert Shrum, a Democratic consultant who was John Kerry's senior strategist in 2004.

Clinton advisers declined to say Thursday night if she would now pursue a different strategy against Mr. Obama. But a shift seems likely now that Mrs. Clinton's multilayered, sometimes contradictory message - offering an experienced hand, for example, but also running as a candidate who could bring change - fell flat in this first contest.

"We built a campaign for the long haul - we feel very good about our operation in New Hampshire, and polling has us up," said Howard Wolfson, a Clinton spokesman. The danger for Mrs. Clinton, of course, is that those polls may not hold after the outcome in Iowa.

Further undercutting Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama peeled away broad swaths of women from her base of support, and the political potency of baby boomers fell apart in Iowa. Half of the Democrats under 45 said their first choice was Mr. Obama, according to a poll by Edison/Mitofsky of voters entering caucus sites.

At the same time, it was also historic that so many Iowa Democrats voted for an African-American man and a woman. For Mr. Obama, especially, the ratification of his candidacy by Democrats and independents in a predominantly white and rural state suggests that he may be able to build a broad and multiracial coalition in his bid for the White House.

The nomination fights will only intensify from now, though the steel that Mr. Huckabee will deploy in the battle is unclear. He seemed to come out of nowhere - a former governor who was so little known among Republicans that many of them could not even name the state he once led (Arkansas) - and turned from asterisk-status to giant-slayer in spite of a paltry political organization, slim dollars and a final week marked by gaffes.

As when Pat Robertson made a surprise second-place showing in the Iowa caucuses in 1988, Mr. Huckabee enjoyed substantial political support from evangelical Christians and took advantage of a muddled Republican presidential field to gain his 11th-hour victory.

For Mr. Romney, of Massachusetts, his loss will register as a deep blow to his candidacy - a failure bound to worry establishment Republicans and wealthy donors who have viewed him as their man. It will also energize and inspire Republicans who are backing Senator John McCain in the New Hampshire primary.

Mr. Romney's drive to the Republican nomination was supposed to begin with him looking formidable and confident coming out of Iowa. Mr. Romney, his wife and his sons planted themselves here for months and poured in money, including millions of his own; he now heads to New Hampshire clearly wounded and a target for even more rivals, like Rudolph W. Giuliani, former Senator Fred Thompson, and Mr. McCain, of Arizona.

Mr. Huckabee, a folksy and fairly plain-speaking politician with a sense of humor that many Iowans enjoyed, appealed to Republican caucusgoers who put a premium on a candidate's Christian faith, and who were deeply wary about seeing a Mormon, Mr. Romney, become president.

But Mr. Huckabee also struck many populist themes that have deep appeal to middle-class Iowans and farmers, promising to tailor his economic priorities to their needs and taking tough stands on a key issue here, immigration.

But Iowa voters are not New Hampshire voters, as Mr. Huckabee and his advisers are well aware. Devoutly religious voters do not exist in nearly the same numbers in the Granite State. And the fervent anti-tax sentiment among Republicans there is likely to clash with Mr. Huckabee's record of raising taxes in Arkansas.

"If Huckabee scares the Republican establishment and makes the party fear losing, you could see a rapid rallying around a second candidate," said Nelson Warfield, a Republican consultant not working for any candidate. Still, he said, "Nothing makes a man look like a leader more than a winner."

Mr. Robertson's Iowa victory in 1988 - when he came in second to Bob Dole and edged out the ultimate nominee, George H. W. Bush - gave him little bounce in New Hampshire, given the lack of a fervent evangelical base. "I'm going to be the nominee," Mr. Robertson said right after his victory, crediting God in particular with his success. But his fortunes faded after a drubbing soon after in New Hampshire.

Mr. Huckabee talked about God on the Iowa campaign trail, as well, but on Thursday night there was one other word that he - as well as Mr. Obama, Mr. Romney, Mrs. Clinton, former Senator John Edwards - discussed especially and emphatically: "change."

As Mr. Edwards put it, "the status quo lost and change won" in the caucuses. Mr. Obama and Mr. Huckabee repeated the words incessantly in their victory speeches, brandishing the word as a talisman that overcame Mrs. Clinton's decades of experience and Mr. Romney's leadership bona fides. Yet change was not only the political message; change was the two men themselves.

Marjorie Connelly contributed reporting.

You can comment on this entry by posting a response at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/504Dems/message/6925

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

October 12, 2007
New York Times
Editorial

What, Me Worry?

If anybody had a doubt about Republicans' detachment from the economic reality of most Americans, Fred Thompson, the former United States senator, set them straight as he opened Tuesday's Republican presidential debate: the economy, he declared, "is rosy."

He wasn't the only one in rose-colored denial or out of touch. Despite entreaties from their hosts, all the leading Republican candidates neatly overlooked Americans' fear of recession and the fallout from the meltdown in the housing market.

Watching the debate, it felt as if these candidates, or at least the front-runners, were living in an alternate universe. It's one where nothing but taxes can stop the ever upward growth of the American economy and where a problem hasn't been invented - millions of uninsured, America's dependency on Middle Eastern oil - that can't be dealt with through tax cuts, slashing government spending and regular, stiff doses of deregulation.

Forget a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade regime for carbon emissions - not that anybody mentioned global warming as a big problem. Forget expensive incentives to develop alternative energy sources. With everybody calling for lower taxes, Republicans were left with no way to address any problem except exhorting the private industry to show its resourcefulness.

The best brawl was over who had done more harm to his constituents: Rudolph Giuliani, who according to Mitt Romney increased spending by 2.8 percent a year when he was mayor of New York City, or Mr. Romney, who according to Mr. Giuliani raised taxes by 11 percent per capita when he was governor of Massachusetts.

All this bowing before the tax-slashing idol could be understood as a matter of political survival. But the economic arguments are nonsense, none more so than the claim - trumpeted by Mr. Giuliani and a revered tenet of his party - that lower tax rates will inevitably generate more tax revenues. That theory has been tested and failed, leading to enormous deficits during the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

Two years ago, the Congressional Budget Office published an analysis of the effect of a tax cut on economic growth and tax revenues. It found that even under the rosiest of assumptions, cutting taxes led, inevitably, to lower revenues and a bigger deficit. But perhaps those assumptions were not rosy enough for the Republican presidential candidates.

You can comment on this entry by posting a response at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/504Dems/message/6468

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

Voters Excited Over '08 Campaign; Tired of It, Too

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
New York Times
July 9, 2007

NARBERTH, Pa., July 6 - Kathy Hubbard likes politics, is delighted with the field of Democratic presidential candidates and considers the 2008 presidential race the most exciting - and important - in years.

But she raised an arm in frustration as she cringed at the barrage of images and information that the contest throws at her every day.

"It's too soon," Ms. Hubbard, a creative writing teacher, said as she walked up the street of this trim Philadelphia suburb, her two young daughters and a dog in tow. "I don't ever remember it starting this early. It's bizarre. It's a shame that I have to begin paying attention to the presidential race now."

Ms. Hubbard is hardly alone in her sentiments. In dozens of interviews across the country, voters said the presidential campaign had become much too intense, much too soon.

It is not unusual for Americans to profess irritation at campaigns that they say start too soon. But the sentiment this year appears notably different - and in some ways more complex - than in the past, reflecting the early start to the race, its intensity and, perhaps most of all, a sense in both parties that the country is ready to move beyond the Bush administration.

In interview after interview, voters said they felt overwhelmed by the battle for their attention: the speeches, the attacks, the unceasing news coverage of celebrity candidates, and a fund-raising free-for-all that many described as unseemly.

They worry that the public will lose interest in this contest before a single voter steps into the polls and that the bustle of this supercharged environment is crowding out lesser-known contenders. They are concerned that a race careering along at this pace does not give candidates time to listen and learn from voters, explore new issues and evolve.

But while voters from both parties in many places across the country said they were flinching at the onslaught of this early politicking, they certainly were not disengaged. Many suggested they were eager for the arrival of Election Day and, with it, a change in the White House and in policy at home and abroad.

Colleen Gallagher, a high school teacher in Narberth, said: "People are going to have burnout, they are going to be just sick of hearing about it. It's like, enough already."

Ms. Gallagher then proceeded to slip eagerly into an lively and informed 20-minute conversation about the race.

Those crosscurrents highlight a challenge for the large field of candidates: how to harness the energy coming from an electorate ready for a change without overloading it too soon.

In the Studio City section of Los Angeles, Ed Wood, 34, an independent voter, said that "we're being forced, dragged to pay attention." Mr. Wood added: "It's a really important election. It's going to be a reaction against the current president."

The sense that voters were ready to turn the page on Mr. Bush was reflected even in interviews with some Republicans.

"I did vote for him twice, but I'm very disappointed in him," said Kathy Shaffer, an elementary school teacher from Clear Lake, Iowa. "I have switched completely from pro-Iraq to 'I want them home.' I'm afraid Bush is not going to be able to do anything because of this Iraqi war."

David Labowitz, an insurance salesman here, said he voted for Mr. Bush in 2004 and was eager for the next election to come along so he could rectify what he called his mistake. "I am a registered Republican," Mr. Labowitz said, "but I am so embarrassed to be a registered Republican."

The candidates are drawing full-house crowds, from small Iowa living rooms to rallies in big parks. Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, reported last week that 258,000 people had contributed to his campaign; the leading presidential candidates have raised about $245 million, much of that in small donations.

Almost without exception, in interviews and in public polls, Americans say they consider this race vitally important and are paying attention to what is going on.

"You've got to," Mr. Labowitz said. "American has got some real issues, and we're wasting a lot of time."

Even Ms. Hubbard, as overwhelmed as she said she was by the race, said there might be some benefits. "You do have some time to process information, because there is a lot of information out there," she said, adding, "Maybe I'll be able to make a better and more informed choice."

The responses suggest the challenges candidates face in trying to break from the pack and appeal to voters. In interviews, voters were usually able to volunteer certain candidates' names (think Clinton and Obama), but from there, lapsed into hazy guesses about who the candidates were and what they stood for.

"You just keeping hearing about the big names," Ms. Gallagher said. "When Fred Thompson and those other names come up, I couldn't tell you the first thing about them."

Barri Iskin, a social worker in Philadelphia, said: "It kind of actually sounds all the same after a while. It's hard to really focus on anything specifically."

These sentiments were evident not only in places like Pennsylvania - a vital swing state in the general election, but one that has not yet seen much of the candidates or their commercials - but also in Iowa, where for the last week it was hard to turn a corner, pick up a newspaper or turn on the television without encountering a presidential candidate.

"I'm afraid we are going to get tired of all this hoop-de-la," Ms. Shaffer said as she settled into a lawn chair along the route of an Independence Day Parade in Clear Lake, jostling for ground in a crowd drawn by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (and husband), Mitt Romney, the Massachusetts Republican, and other candidates. "It is too much for too long. You get tired of it. You put mute on the commercials. I've heard them already. We're not ready to vote yet."

"And there's so much money involved," she continued.

Bernice Jennings, standing at the edge of a rally for Mr. Obama in Mount Pleasant, Iowa, said, "If I was making the rules, I'd say you've got six months to campaign."

It is a measure of just how overwhelming things are that even in Iowa voters say they are having trouble figuring out, well, who's on first. Iowans could see in person (or on television) Mrs. Clinton; Mr. Obama; Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Delaware Democrat; Senator Christopher J. Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat; Senator Sam Brownback, the Kansas Republican; and Mr. Romney.

"They are just jumbled up all over the place," said Terry Lentz, a retired insurance company executive watching the Clear Lake parade. "You can't keep track: whether it's a Republican or a Democrat, you don't know who is on one side or the other. You have Republicans that are sounding like Democrats and Democrats way on the conservative side. I want to wait another six months until this thing is washed out."

Candidates are typically working hard at this point in a presidential campaign cycle. But they are normally flying at a much lower altitude, little noticed outside places like Iowa and New Hampshire. The wide-open field on both sides, the presence of candidates with star power and a nominating calendar with the holding of votes early in the year by a lot more states has accounted for this shift that voters are noting.

And the focus on money has elevated this race even more, even as it adds to the unease among voters. "You hear more about how much they raise each month than you do about their policies," said Drew Johnson, who owns a tavern here in Narberth. "So it's coming down to special-interest money that is supporting these candidates."

In Philadelphia, Donna Braff, 42, who said she was unemployed, said: "When I think about all the millions that are going to be spent - if only we had that kind of money to fix the school system."

Some voters said they would take their time and pay attention when they were ready to pay attention.

"I want to wait until we get closer to the election," said Tekeytha Fulwood, 28, a nurse in Philadelphia. "I want to make sure there is consistency. The main thing I want to do is observe."

Ben Werschkul contributed reporting from Iowa and Pennsylvania, Ana Facio Contreras from California and Lynn Waddell from Florida.

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

By SUSAN SAULNY
New York Times
July 8, 2007

AS the election of 2008 approaches with its cast of contenders who bring unprecedented diversity to the quest for the White House, the voting public has been called on to ponder several questions: Is America ready for a woman to be president? What about a black man? A Mormon?

Now, with the possible candidacy of Fred D. Thompson, the grandfatherly actor and former Republican senator from Tennessee, whose second wife is almost a quarter-century his junior, comes a less palatable inquiry that is spurring debate in Internet chat rooms, on cable television and on talk radio: Is America ready for a president with a trophy wife?

The question may seem sexist, even crass, but serious people - as well as Mr. Thompson's supporters - have been wrestling with the public reaction to Jeri Kehn Thompson, whose youthfulness, permanent tan and bleached blond hair present a contrast to the 64-year-old man who hopes to win the hearts of the conservative core of the Republican party. Will the so-called values voters accept this union?

Mr. Thompson, who needs the support of early primary voters, is expected to formally announce his candidacy any day now. Meanwhile, much of the brouhaha around Mrs. Thompson, 40, is being stirred by photos of her in form-fitting gowns circulating on the Internet.

"You have a situation where a candidate happens to have an attractive wife, therefore it's open season for smutty thoughts and lowbrow humor, and no concern for the fact that this is a wife and mother, a professional woman?" said Mark Corallo, a former Justice Department official who is a consultant and the chief media adviser to the Thompson campaign. "One picture on the Internet and all of a sudden she's reduced to being a bimbo?"

On a morning cable news show last month, Joe Scarborough, the commentator and former Republican congressman from Florida, compared Mrs. Thompson to a stripper. The comment came after a segment on the use of stripper poles in exercise routines, but it still stung. It is hard to imagine a man, however handsome, suffering similar insult.

THE term "trophy wife" was coined by Fortune magazine in 1989 and immediately entered the language. Although it often has a pejorative spin, the term originally meant the second (or third) wife of a corporate titan, who was younger, beautiful and - equally important - accomplished in her own right, which describes Mrs. Thompson.

She is a former Senate aide and a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee. And she is not a home wrecker. Mr. Thompson had been divorced from his first wife for almost two decades before he remarried in 2002.

But so far it is her youth and appearance that have trumped her résumé. It is unclear how that reality will play out with voters.

"It's unprecedented so it's almost unpredictable," said Susan J. Carroll, a professor of political science at the Center for American Women and Politics at the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University. "I think it depends a lot on how the campaign deals with it, and how she and Thompson deal with it."

So far, they have not dealt with it, which is perhaps fueling the fire of speculation. Both Thompsons declined requests for interviews about their marriage. The details of Mrs. Thompson's résumé have not been officially distributed. And unlike other potential presidential spouses like Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama, Mrs. Thompson lets her husband do most of the political talking. In public appearances recently, her most dramatic statements have been sartorial, like gold-lamé wedge sandals on a campaign stop, or a plunging neckline for a Washington dinner.

She will not be able to avoid the spotlight once her husband declares his candidacy. Will she be a help or a hindrance?

Frank Luntz, the consultant who helped write the language of the Contract With America, a manifesto of conservative principles that helped the Republicans win the House of Representatives in 1994, falls into the "no consequence" contingent.

"The spouse of the candidate matters in less than 1 out of 100 votes," Mr. Luntz said. "It's not relevant. It will have no impact whatsoever."

Her style could, of course, help him. The Thompsons' young daughter and infant son also help humanize the candidate as a family man. (Mr. Thompson has adult children from a previous marriage.)

On the Web site Footballguystalk.com, Mr. Thompson not only won votes thanks to his wife, but one anonymous poster said, "I think he's my new idol!"

Mr. Thompson's supporters, on their Web site draftthompson08.blogspot.com, put it this way: "It couldn't hurt diplomatic relations to have a smart, pretty blonde as first lady."

But that comment was quickly attacked. One writer described the May-December marriage as "gross," while others said Mrs. Thompson was an outright liability.

Political analysts said there is very little evidence to suggest that candidates' spouses affect their electoral outcomes. But one political scientist, Karen O'Connor, the director of the Women & Politics Institute at American University, said Mr. Thompson may lose with one key group whose support he needs: Republican women.

"I think women have an innate 'ick' reaction when they see a wife so much younger and vital than her husband," Professor O'Connor said.

Wes Thornburg, a Republican financier in Chicago who has not yet committed himself to a candidate, said that Mr. Thompson has an issue that could be the envy of every campaign.

"If I were in his camp, I would love for this to be the main criticism from the press or opposition because it's so easy to defend," Mr. Thornburg said. "He'll come back and say, 'It's not that unusual and the key is we have a great marriage.' The determinate issues will be defense, taxes and his ability to communicate."

It is too early to know what kind of role Mrs. Thompson would play in a Thompson administration. Or, for that matter, what role any other first lady or first gentleman would play.

"In all likelihood we're going to have something quite different as a presidential spouse this time," Professor Carroll said, "whoever wins."

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post