If Mark Penn had been a favorite within the Clinton campaign, it is difficult to believe that he would have been forced out over the Colombian affair.  Sure, it was a dumb mistake – a “what was he thinking” moment.  Still, it was a far cry from what one of Barack Obama’s top advisers did when he met with Canadian officials on NAFTA and his mistake properly set off a mini-firestorm.  So, in the ordinary course of things, Mark Penn’s apology and a few days of reassuring labor unions would have been enough to quiet things down – and Penn would still be calling the shots.

Read the rest of this entry »

Hillary Clinton’s detour yesterday to Michigan reflects a clear understanding within her campaign that much could hinge upon what happens there in coming hours. If the Democratic state legislature leaves for a two-week vacation this afternoon without resolving to hold a make-up primary, her chances of wresting the nomination from Barack Obama could diminish sharply.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton holds a ‘Solutions for America’ event in Detroit, Michigan. Clinton came to Detroit to attempt to generate support for a Michigan democratic primary do-over.

It has been apparent for some time that Clinton’s best strategy - perhaps her only strategy - is to win lop-sidedly in Pennsylvania, then rack up a string of late victories in North Carolina, Indiana, West Virginia, and Kentucky so that she could argue that while still behind in pledged delegates, she had won the second half of the season and the two candidates were basically tied.

She could then plausibly look to re-dos in Florida and Michigan as an “overtime” and with victories there (almost certain in Florida, likely in Michigan), she would be in a reasonable position to persuade superdelegates (and the party) that she is more electable.

But take Florida and Michigan off the table and the Clinton game plan becomes much more difficult.

Read the rest of this entry »

Over the next several days, we will chatter a lot about the political fallout from Sen. Barack Obama’s speech today.  My initial sense is that he may have lanced the boil but he will continue to feel some pain from his association with the Reverend Wright for a while to come.

But even as we dissect the politics, is it possible to stand back and make a different set of observations: From my perspective, watching alone from a hotel in Florida, I found it refreshing to have a political candidate who finally talks to us as mature adults and also appeals to what Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature.”

We have become so accustomed to political “leaders” who treat us like children, spoon feeding us with platitudes and playing upon our prejudices, that we forget what it is like to have a serious conversation about our challenges as a people.  One important role of a leader is to serve as an educator, clarifying how we have arrived where we are and what our choices are as we look toward the future.

Obama did that well today.

Read the rest of this entry »

All three presidential candidates have moved in the past few days to put their campaigns on better footing. And from their perspective, they are probably pleased with the results. But it remains a mystery why they continue to duck the most urgent problem the rest of the country faces: a possible meltdown in our financial system.

John McCain is off in Iraq, and to be sure that is and will continue to be a major challenge. He is not only strengthening his credentials as a statesman – showing far more gravitas than his rivals squabbling on the other side – but he is also making effective political arguments about how wrong the Democratic leadership was on the surge.  Even as Baghdad was rocked by explosions today, McCain seemed “presidential.”

With the fifth anniversary of the war coming this week and McCain about to frame the argument, Hillary Clinton moved smartly this morning to provide her own counter-argument to his.  Her views are subject to debate, but from a purely political perspective, she was shrewd to jump in and go toe-to-toe with McCain on national security.  Once again, she has gotten the jump on Barack Obama when it comes to unfolding arguments about policy.  His political team has often outfoxed hers, but her policy team has been much more on the cutting edge.

Read the rest of this entry »

David Gergen is a political contributor for Anderson Cooper 360°.

Rarely have I seen in any presidential race stretching back more than 30 years as much of a disconnect between the world of the candidates and the rest of the world that we see right now.  Every day, on television and in the newspapers, the news is about Democrats squabbling - whether about race or gender or about some off-the-wall comment by a supporter.

Meanwhile, in what appears to be a different universe, the U.S. dollar is sinking like a stone, the price of gas has cracked $4 a gallon at some pumps, homeowners are going under, and star financial institutions like Bear Stears have their backs to the wall.

Would the candidates please do us - and themselves - a big favor: Would they turn attentions away from the bickering and tell us in more depth and with more attention to the rapid economic deterioration what they would do?

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have each proposed plans for the mortgage crisis but the problems now stretch far wider and deeper than their plans cover.  John McCain keeps telling us that lower taxes and less regulation would do the trick - when it is obvious that the problems are much more complicated (just ask Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke).

Read the rest of this entry »

A year and a half ago, I hired a young graduate from Brown, Jeremy Haber, to become my research assistant.  He has quickly developed one of the finest eyes I have seen in politics, and as we await the verdicts of the voters today, I am paying increasing attention to his latest advice: “Watch the margins.” 

As Jeremy has figured out, the way Democrats award delegates will mean more than one might think in today’s contests.  Hillary Clinton is now favored in Ohio, but if she were to win there by less than 5 points, she would likely only gain a few more delegates in the state than Obama does.  She has to win by 5 or more to harvest a sizable number of delegates — to cut into Obama’s pledged delegate lead — and by all indications, that will be hard. 

In contrast, the much smaller state of Vermont could net Barack Obama 5 additional delegates if he wins there by double digits.   And by all indications, he will.  That may not seem right to Hillary supporters — that Obama could benefit more from winning Vermont, than she will from winning Ohio — but under rules both sides have embraced, the margin of victory counts enormously in awarding delegates.

One of the reasons why Obama is ahead so far in elected delegates is that his team figured out the math, too.  As noted here earlier, Clinton beat him in the New Jersey primary on Super Tuesday but on that same night, she didn’t really compete against him in the Idaho caucus and he swept to a big victory there.  Net result: putting the two states together, Obama actually came out ahead in delegate count!

I have been telling Jeremy that psychology can often trump math, so that if Hillary wins the popular vote in both Ohio and Texas tonight — and election-eve polls say she is gaining traction in both  — the fact that she won will be a huge story that will restore her campaign in the popular mind (and in the press). 

But he is right to caution, “Watch the margins,” because if Hillary were to win by only a tiny fraction, she won’t get much help in the delegate count.  Indeed, Barack could still end the evening with a bigger delegate haul.  If so, that will count for more and more as the race moves on to states like Wyoming and Mississippi, where he is strong.

My eye will still be trained first and foremost tonight on who wins the popular vote in the four states.  But my next question will be: by how much?

A final note: Hillary Clinton’s supporters have every reason to go into today with their hopes up again. She has waged an aggressive and apparently successful campaign in these closing hours. Yet Barack Obama’s supporters also have reason to be optimistic today: his crowds are still huge and boisterous, and since Super Tuesday a month ago, he has always done better in the final voting than the final polls.  As the man said, “crunch time.” 

- David Gergen, 360° Contributor

Coming into the CNN headquarters in New York a couple of days ago, I was greeted by a guard, “It’s crunch time, isn’t it?”  And so it is in the Democratic presidential race as we look toward this Tuesday.

It is becoming an article of faith among Hillary Clinton supporters that she is having trouble because the press has been fawning over Barack Obama.  I don’t share that view.  While there have been some tough stories about her and her campaign, that goes with the territory when you enter a race as the “inevitable winner” and are then upended by a virtual unknown who draws huge, boisterous crowds.  Certainly, many news organizations like CNN have given her a pretty fair shake.  Indeed, who can forget how much criticism CNN received for the YouTube debate in Florida when we were accused of being in the tank for Hillary?  Remember the catcalls that we were “Clinton Cable News”?

Heading into Tuesday night, some are saying that the way that commentators interpret the results could shape how the candidates are seen the day after.  Given the controversy over media fairness, it might be good to see if we can build some guidelines up front so that viewers know where we are coming from.  So, let me offer up the the score sheet I am currently working from — and invite viewers to tell me how to make it better: 

The current polls suggest a wide victory for Obama in Vermont and perhaps a narrow victory for Clinton in Rhode Island.  But the headliners Tuesday night are Ohio and Texas – it is the outcomes of these races that will determine the future of the race.  There are several possible outcomes, each of which will deserve a different interpretation:

1) Clinton wins both the popular vote and the majority of delegates in both Ohio and Texas:
She would clearly revive her campaign and become a serious threat to Obama’s candidacy.  After 11 wins in a row, his momentum would come slamming to a halt and Clinton could legitimately claim that voters are having second thoughts. But she would still be far from winning the crown — Obama will still have won far more states and have far more delegates.  So, the two of them would look to a yet another showdown in Pennsylvania, on April 22, and possibly North Carolina, on May 6. 

2)  A split 
the mostly likely being Clinton wins Ohio; Obama wins Texas — each race now seems slightly tilted in this direction.  If so, Clinton will face strong calls from within her party to retire from the race, as Obama will still hold a sizable pledged delegate lead.  This will be very hard choice for her as she will clearly want to go on (after all, Ohio is a bell weather).  But with the chances of the nomination extremely slim, she may prefer to leave with grace — helping the party in the fall and keeping her options open for the future. Remember that Bill said she had to win both to be viable. 

3) Clinton wins Ohio and wins the popular vote in Texas, but Obama wins more delegates on the strength of a strong showing in the Texas caucus
In this case, Clinton will still have had a strong night and will have a much more plausible argument for staying in, even though she will still be far behind in delegates and face a steep hill to climb.

4) Obama wins Ohio and Texas
It’s over.  Obama is the undisputed champion — ahead nationwide in popular votes, states, delegates, donors, fundraising, momentum, popular enthusiasm and more.  You name it, he will have won it.    

    That’s the way I would score it.  What do you think?

- David Gergen, 360° Contributor

Last night I missed the Democratic debate because I was flying back from Miami from a gathering of leading social entrepreneurs — young men and women whom I greatly admire. But I did manage to catch a chunk of the debate in a re-run.

What I saw was a Hillary Clinton who was once again poised, energetic and masterful in command of policy. Yes, she was more argumentative, constantly criticizing her opponent and even the moderators (her worst line was about Saturday Night Live and how the press treats her so badly by always asking her the first question — imagine how some of her earlier rivals feel about that after barely getting any questions at all). Still, this was very much the same woman who went on stage in the first debate in New Hampshire and clobbered Barack Obama. Debates have been her best forum — her trump card.

Her problem is that the man showing up against her is not the same one on that stage in New Hampshire. Gone is the tentativeness and the stumbles, the hems and the haws. No, Obama has grown in this campaign into a polished, thoughtful, confident debater — and let there be no doubt, a man who is also substantive and subtle. He is the single most improved candidate of the entire campaign. In the last two debates, he has easily held his own against her. When she goes after him to excess, he has even learned how to look more presidential than she does.

The net result is that he has seemingly taken away her trump card.

When Clinton beat Obama in New Hampshire, the big news was that she had saved her campaign — and that he may have lost his moment. There was great sadness in the Obama camp. Looking back, the Obama camp ought to be thankful for that loss: the longer campaign has given him a chance to show most of the country who he is and how capable he is of personal growth. He will need that and more if he now becomes the Democratic nominee and faces John McCain in the fall.

- David Gergen, CNN Sr. Political Analyst

Editors note: See David Gergen tonight on 360°

Some 24 hours after the New York Times posted the McCain story on its web site, here’s where I sense that things stand:

The story itself has plenty of smoke but absolutely no evidence of any fire.  Both the Senator and the woman in question have denied the underlying allegations — that (a) they had a romantic relationship and (b) that he did favors for her as a lobbyist.  Several others around the Senator have also issued similar, strong denials.  No one  — not a single source, named or unnamed — has come forward with a shred of evidence to show that their denials are wrong. 

Under the circumstances — and given John McCain’s long and honorable record of serving his country — I believe that most Americans will more than give him the benefit of the doubt.  Unless someone comes forward soon with something concrete, the Senator emerges from this unscathed with the general voting public.  

Indeed, it is increasingly clear that among conservatives, this episode is actually serving to strengthen him.  Look at the way his detractors like Rush Limbaugh rallied around him today.  Many of them hate the Times, and even though they do not love McCain, the enemy of their enemy is now their friend. 

McCain’s team has also been adroit at turning the Times itself into a growing issue.  Personally, I think the criticisms of the Times that it intentionally sat on the story to protect McCain in the early primaries and then dumped it out on him now has no basis in fact — or at least any facts that we know so far.  The Times, like most news organizations on controversial stories, has to work hard to make sure it has enough solid sourcing before it goes with the story. And when that is in hand, it goes. Note that in all the denials today of any fire, there wasn’t much of a denial about the smoke — the allegation from unnamed sources that some of his aides became convinced that there was an underlying story; the fact that John Weaver and the woman in question have both said there was a meeting to tell her to get lost actually lends a little credence to the idea that some aides were worried about appearances. 

So, the Times did have something.  It is a much harder question whether, given how little they had, they should have held the story altogether.  I can imagine that was a very tough call within the newsroom — journalists do publish such smoky stories a lot (just ask the Clintons, who were pummeled by such stories, some from the Times).  But it is also very understandable that the Senator and his team were outraged — if there is no evidence of any underlying story, doesn’t a story like this seem terribly unfair, even a smear, as they argued?  This is where the world of journalism collides with the world of politics — each has its own values, its own culture, its own set of standards.  Personally, if in the newsroom, I would have voted to spike the story unless and until something concrete appeared.  But I also know that among many outstanding journalists, not just at the Times, the vote would have gone the other way.

For now, unless another shoe drops, John McCain goes forward with a more united base than he had 24 hours ago.

-David Gergen, 360° Contributor

Last night’s Democratic primary in Wisconsin was like a bolt of lightening, illuminating the political landscape as few other events have done.  One thing became clearer than ever: the deep troubles of the Hillary Clinton campaign are due in significant measure to its own misjudgments.

I said last night on AC 360 that some folks on her team are guilty of political malpractice, and I meant it. 

Why in the world did they abandon the Democratic caucuses to Barack Obama, letting him run virtually unopposed so that he racked up big delegate counts in all 11?  (In one of the most interesting observations of the campaign, Dan Balz of the Washington Post points out that on Super Tuesday, Barack actually won more delegates in the Idaho caucus than Hillary did in the big New Jersey primary.) 

Why, too, did the Clinton folks not foresee that after Super Tuesday on February 5, they could and should have been able to win some victories before Ohio and Texas on March 4?  Instead, they failed to mount a vigorous campaign anywhere and he has racked up 10 straight triumphs, building huge momentum. 

And why in crucial moments last night – when the country was watching to see what she would say – did they send her onto a stage in Ohio with virtually nothing new to say (not even a gracious concession to her rival)?  

It is all a great mystery, because the Clintons have on their team some of the finest minds and most seasoned veterans anywhere in politics. I don’t get it.  It will be fascinating to learn more during the post mortems.

Meanwhile, the Obama team saw their openings and barreled through them with enormous skill.  They haven’t won yet.  He and Michelle have both made some rookie mistakes in recent days, and it is possible that he will make a big one between now and March 4.  Clearly, the press is also starting to subject him to tougher (i.e. more negative) scrutiny. 

There is always the possibility, too, that Hillary will truly find her voice – and a message that actually works.  But as that bolt of lightening showed us last night, Obama  is riding a powerful wave forward – and it increasingly looks like the nomination has become his to lose. 

-David Gergen, 360° Contributor