It’s hard to believe that only a few months ago John McCain was using some questionable legal prestidigitation to get a bank loan just to stay in the presidential race.
Now, this gem from the Hotline’s perusal of the presumptive GOP nominee’s FEC report shows that things are certainly looking up on the money front:

$2,546.56
That’s how much cashola John McCain’s campaign spent March 2 at Barney’s New York in Beverly Hills. (That’s Zip Code 90212, in case anyone was wondering.)
According to McCain’s latest FEC report, the charges were “credited back” April 2.

This little tidbit stands out for two reasons.
First, John McCain just spent the past two weeks calling Barack Obama an elitist because the Illinois senator said that some voters are bitter. Now he is dropping individual maximum contributions at Blair Waldorf‘s favorite store. And in Beverly Hills, no less! Maybe McCain is the perfect candidate for Heidi Montag, after all.
Second, exactly how many jokes did we hear about John Edwards’ haircut and how is this any different at all? If Edwards was wrong to spend campaign cash on a grooming session, surely Barney’s is equally undeserving of donor dollars. What exactly does McCain need to do for his pals in the press to ask some hard questions about his judgment? Get into a shoving match with a fellow Republican senator? Oh, wait.
From a progressive standpoint, I guess it is remarkable how much trouble John McCain has managed to get himself into without an opponent. But I’m looking forward to the day when I can see what the Democrats will do to this guy when they aren’t so busy fighting each other.

With Pennsylvania’s Democratic presidential primary on tap for tomorrow, all attention has been focused on the relative strengths and weaknesses of Hillary Clinton–the consensus front-runner in the state, who needs as large a win as possible–and Barack Obama, who once appeared poised for an upset win that could have more or less ended the nomination contest.
But there’s been a secondary “story” in the Keystone State which may or may not have an impact on the Democratic outcome, but will definitely matter in November: a big surge in new Democratic voter registrations accompanied by another big surge in re-registrations into the Democratic column.
Jeanne Cummings has a good write-up of the phenomenon for The Politico. Here are her main findings:

According to the Secretary of State’s office, since January about 217,000 new voters have registered for the April 22 primary, the vast majority of whom signed up as Democrats….
That statewide Democratic surge has been accompanied by a flood of party-switching. More than 178,000 voters have changed their party status since January — and the Democrats have captured 92 percent of those voters.

Cummings quotes some speculation that this accretion of new Democratic voters–which is especially heavy in the Philadelphia area and in college towns–could help Obama outperform poll ratings tomorrow. But she really focuses on the possibility that we are witnessing “an ongoing partisan shift in Pennsylvania that could soon move it out of the battleground presidential states and ripple across congressional races this fall, as well.” That’s particularly true if you view the current spike in party-switching as a continuation of the realignment begun by Ed Rendell’s 2002 gubernatorial campaign, which arguably contributed to the big Democratic wins in the state in 2006.

Just wanted to note, for the record, a couple of things I was involved in outside this site.
Yesterday I was one of 41 journalists (I’m pretty sure the list has grown since it was first published) signing onto an open letter to ABC deploring the tone and content of the Democratic presidential debate the network sponsored on Wednesday. Given what I’ve posted here on the subject, it seemed like a natural step to take. But I do want to make it clear I was acting solely for myself, and not for TDS or its co-editors.
I also did a post at TPMCafe commenting negatively on an effort by Jamie Kirchick of The New Republic (disputed on their site by Jonathan Chait and Isaac Chotiner) to defend the proposition that Sen. Joe Lieberman’s endorsement and active campaigning for John McCain is compatible with his past protestations of loyalty to the Democratic Party. I wrote this because I thought it would be useful to hear a Joe’s-Crossed-the-Final-Line argument from someone who’s never been accused of Lieberman-hatred or TNR-hatred–particularly someone who doesn’t accept the idea that Lieberman’s been some sort of crypto-Republican all along.

I’d be remiss in failing to end this week of political commentary without mentioning Jonathan Chait’s fine and definitive smackdown on Republican arguments (especially those expressed by self-styled-ultra-elitist George Will) that Barack Obama or Democrats generally don’t respect the cultural views of white working-class voters:

To urge the white working class to vote on the basis of economic policy is itself considered an act of elitism. When Obama and other liberals reproach blue-collar whites for voting their values over their wallet, argues Will, they are accusing those workers of “false consciousness.” A Wall Street Journal editorial took umbrage that Obama “diminishes the convictions of those voters who care more about the right to bear arms, or faith in God, than they do about the AFL-CIO’s agenda.”
But nobody’s challenging the validity of caring more about your religion, or even your right to hunt, than your income. The objection is whether it makes sense to vote on that basis. There are, after all, stark differences between the two parties on economic matters. Republicans do want to make working-class voters pay a higher proportion of the tax burden, restrain popular social programs, erode the value of the minimum wage, and so on.
Democrats, on the other hand, have no plans to keep anybody from attending church or hunting. A few years ago, their gun-control agenda revolved around issues like safety locks, banning assault weapons, and other restrictions carefully designed to have virtually no impact on hunters or average gun owners. Now Democrats have abandoned even those meager steps. The GOP’s appeal on those “issues” rests on cultural pandering rather than any concrete legislative program.

It’s much the same point I tried to make earlier this week: it’s bad to dismiss non-economic voter concerns as irrelevant. It’s far worse to dismiss economic concerns, which by and large do have a direct connection with public policy, unlike religion and gun ownership.
The idea that Democrats as compared to Republicans are the “elitists” when it comes to working-class concerns is just laughable–particularly when the supposed anti-elitists are folks like American Tory George Will or the editors of The Wall Street Journal.

FDR wasn’t the first president to use the wonder of radio for a political advantage, but that is how history remembers him. More and more, it seems likely that this year’s Democratic nominee will carve out that same historic possibility by using the Internet.
We’ve written a lot about that story here, but Ron Browstein has a must-read cover story in the National Journal, which offers a bunch of examples in vivid detail:

In scope and sweep, tactics and scale, the marathon struggle between Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton has triggered such a vast evolutionary leap in the way candidates pursue the presidency that it is likely to be remembered as the first true 21st-century campaign.
On virtually every front, the two candidates’ efforts dwarf those of all previous primary contenders — not to mention presumptive GOP nominee John McCain. It’s easy to miss the magnitude of the change amid the ferocity of the Democratic competition. But largely because of their success at organizing supporters through the Internet, Clinton and, especially, Obama are reaching new heights in raising money, recruiting volunteers, hiring staff, buying television ads, contacting voters, and generating turnout. They are producing changes in degree from prior primary campaigns so large that they amount to changes in kind.

Today brought the surprising news that my old boss, former Sen. Sam Nunn, has endorsed Barack Obama for president, along with his frequent collaborator in politics and policy, former OK Sen. David Boren.
Nunn and Boren last made news back at the beginning of the year, when they presided over a confab hosted by Boren that seemed to be designed to signal support for a “unity” third-party presidential run, probably by Mike Bloomberg. Back in August of last year, Nunn let it be known that he might himself be available for a third-party candidacy.
Since Bloomberg decided not to spend his dough on a presidential run, while the Unity ’08 “grassroots” effort to draft a third-party candidate sputtered out some time ago, it appears that Nunn and Boren looked at the presidential field and made their choice emphatically.
Maybe I’m prejudiced here, but I think Nunn’s support could be a reasonably big deal for Obama in a general election contest, if he uses the Georgian appropriately. Nunn’s national security street cred couldn’t be much higher, and in combination with his well-earned reputation for bipartisanship, should give pause to those chattering-class types who think John McCain is the “centrist” in the race, or is the clear choice for those who value national security above all other issues. If nothing else, he would be a pretty handy surrogate to put on the airwaves if and when Joe Lieberman attacks Obama’s national security views at the Republican National Convention in September. (I say this because one of the lost opportunities of the Kerry campaign was the failure to reach out to Nunn as the perfect person to answer Zell Miller’s attacks on the Democrat’s defense record in the Senate).
Not having been in touch with Nunn for a good long while, I have no idea whether his support for Obama would extend to support for HRC if she somehow wins the nomination. He did supply Bill Clinton with an important early endorsement in the 1992 cycle. But a lot’s happened since then, and Nunn and Boren clearly take Obama’s post-partisanship posture quite seriously. In any event, I don’t agree with those who may think these endorsements can’t matter because these guys aren’t superdelegates.

Fortunately or unfortunately, Barack Obama has had to spend a lot of time this last month demonstrating his mastery of damage control:
–A controversial sermon by Jeremiah Wright goes viral on YouTube? Obama delivers a forceful, historic speech about race (which has now been viewed 4 million times).
–Obama describes small town voters as “bitter” and immediately catches flak for it? He responds with a relaxed and witty counter, clarifying his remarks and likening Hillary Clinton to Annie Oakley.
–Obama gets roughed up in a national debate televised by ABC? Again the response is impressive — but perhaps this time, it’s worth explaining why.
In Raleigh, Obama is smooth, charming, and funny. He’s critical of the debate yet ties his objections back to the campaign’s larger theme of change — it becomes an opportunity for Obama to talk about the problems with politics as they are currently practiced.
Then check out what he does at the 2:20 mark.
He acknowledges that he expects these kinds of attacks — he pauses, reaches up, brushes off his shoulders, and smiles for the camera. The crowd immediately reacts to it with cheers and a standing ovation.
The gesture is universally recognizable. But I’m going to guess that some older members of the press pool didn’t quite get the crowd’s enthusiasm — “Why would they cheer so loud for that?”
The answer is generational. For observers of a certain age, it’s just impossible to see that clip and not think of this song (a word of caution — some might find the lyrics profane). Among Obama’s young, multicultural base, it’s probably fair to say that Jay-Z is a universal touchstone. This, then, was a wink and a nod to his strongest supporters — a private gesture of encouragement. And it was effortless.
How much money do we think that Obama raised off of the perceived unfairness of this debate — $2 million? $3?
If I was a betting man, after this particular allusion, I’d say the sky was the limit.

George Stephanopoulos has addressed criticism of his and Charles Gibson’s conduct as moderators in last night’s ABC-sponsored Democratic candidate debate, in the form of an interview with TalkingPointsMemo’s Greg Sargent. And George went straight to the “electability” defense:

Stephanopoulos strongly defended his handling of the debate. He dismissed criticism that it had focused too heavily on “gotcha” questions, arguing that they had gone to the heart of the “electability” that, he said, is forefront in the minds of voters evaluating the two Dems.

Ah yes, “electability,” which makes discussion of any criticism of a candidate, frivolous or serious, instantly relevant, on the theory that the opposition will hit the nominee with all this crap, so we might as well see how they handle its endless repetition today.
There are several problems with this line of “reasoning” that arrogates to journalists (not to mention the candidates themselves) the right–nay, the responsibility–to ape the nastiest hit tactics they can imagine emanating from conservatives later this year.
First of all, why is Stephanopoulos all that sure that “electability” is in the “forefront in the minds of voters evaluating” Obama and Clinton? Maybe he thinks that’s the only significant difference between the two candidates, and maybe he’s tired of hearing their substantive pitches, but that’s not necessarily true of actual voters who have heard far less of their policy ideas lately than any manner of gotcha stuff or “symbolism.”
Second of all, “electability” is a highly speculative concept at this stage of the presidential election cycle. Who knows how “electable” Obama, Clinton or McCain is going to look in October? I don’t; you don’t; George Stephanopoulos doesn’t; and grilling the candidates on their alleged “vulnerabilities” doesn’t cast much real light on that question, either.
Third of all, to the extent that we can measure “electability,” there’s a form of evidence that’s a lot more persuasive than how Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton answer nasty, contrived questions. It’s called general election trial polling. And so far, both candidates remain highly competitive, in roughly equal measure, with John McCain, even though McCain is benefitting from (a) an early nomination win, (b) years of positive media attention, (c) a heavy media focus on Democratic infighting, and (d) relatively low levels of scrutiny of the relationship between his current platform and his record. Unless the entire general election is going to be fought out over Barack Obama’s attitude towards flag pins or Hillary Clinton’s experience one day in Kosovo, then it’s hard to understand why such matters are the key to measuring “electability” for the Democratic voters of Pennslyvania.
And last of all, if “electability” was indeed the focus of ABC’s moderators last night, did it occur to them that asking the candidates how, exactly, they’d criticize McCain and his platform and record on this or that issue might be relevant to the topic? After all, the general election isn’t going to be merely an extended interview of the two candidates by the news media over their personal “stories.” What do they think of McCain’s new tax plan? How about his difficult-to-reconcile position on torture by the military and torture by the CIA? How will they handle his profession of being simultaneously a “maverick” and a rigorous foot-solider of the conservative movement? What if anything will they say about his foreign policy advisors? And on and on.
The more you look at it, the “electability” defense for endlessly superficial debates–and media “coverage” of campaigns in general–doesn’t make much sense. If George just came right out and said his network needed “fireworks” to boost ratings, it would sound more plausible.

Ross Douthat is a conservative, albeit of a somewhat heretical temperament, so his assessment of John McCain’s new “economic agenda” is particularly interesting insofar as he thinks the whole thing is, well, pretty poorly thought out and essentially a box-checking exercise.

McCain’s speech reads like an attempt to unify a divided party by offering every faction something to make them happy. For the GOP’s supply-siders and business interests, there are promises to extend the Bush tax cuts and slash corporate rates. For moderate Republicans clinging to seats in Democratic states, there’s a pledge to cut the Alternative Minimum Tax, which hits upper-middle class Blue Staters hardest. For free traders, there’s a shout-out to the Colombian Free Trade Agreement; for flat-tax obsessives, there’s a call for an alternative tax-filing option, featuring just two brackets instead of four or five. For deficit hawks and porkbusters, there’s a promise to veto any bill with earmarks, an attack on corporate welfare, and a call for a one-year freeze in discretionary spending and a top-to-bottom review of every agency’s budget. For entitlement reformers, there’s a call to means-test the prescription drugs benefit. There’s even something for the small band of conservatives (this writer among them) who have been agitating for a distinctively pro-family economic agenda, in the form of a pledge to double the tax exemption for dependents, from $3500 to $7000.

In other words, it’s all pretty much a politically-motivated grab-bag, with the desire to shower tax benefits on voters struggling rather painfully with McCain’s long-time theme of demands for fiscal discipline. McCain does seem to have figured out that it’s not exactly the right moment to pose as Dr. Root Canal (to use the term of abuse supply-siders have traditionally applied to fiscal hawks). But it’s not especially clear that offering something to everyone will work politically, either. As Douthat says:

This is almost certainly a wiser approach than campaigning as the prince of budgetary rectitude and nothing else, but by leaving McCain without a signal theme, it runs the risk that the media will end up deciding which aspects of his program get highlighted, and what narrative he ends up saddled with.

Well, yeah, insofar as one of those “media narratives” could involve getting out the calculator and figuring out that McCain’s tax proposals will once again shower corporations and the wealthy with the bulk of benefits, while dwarfing the negative fiscal consequences of even Bush’s tax plans. And maybe that’s why Ross concludes by suggesting that McCain could wind up vulnerable to claims than on economic issues, he’s “George W. Bush redux.” It might even, you know, be true.

For a variety of logistical reasons, I wasn’t able to watch last night’s Democratic candidate debate, sponsored by ABC. But I did watch some highlights–or as they put it, lowlights–put together by TalkingPointsMemo, and it does indeed look like the terrible reviews are justified. Here’s what Washington Post TV critic Tom Shales had to say:

When Barack Obama met Hillary Clinton for another televised Democratic candidates’ debate last night, it was more than a step forward in the 2008 presidential election. It was another step downward for network news — in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances.

The main complaint is that the moderators spent an inordinate amount of tiime on substance-free gotcha questions and querelous follow-ups, mostly aimed at Obama. The whole show, which also featured constant commercial breaks, was generally so bad that the audience booed the moderators at the end.
This will probably be the last debate between the Democratic contenders in this cycle, and it is devoutly to be hoped that the news media have learned some things about how to conduct a debate that will be used during the general election. Last night’s event wasn’t, however, a good sign.
UPCATEGORY: Democratic Strategist