Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.

It’s McCain by a head

A bevy of political touts line the rails at a Washington conference to handicap the 2008 presidential race.

  • more
    • All Share Services

Unlike horses and dogs, presidential candidates offer no easy way for the betting man to turn a buck. It’s not that one can’t find a bookie to take the wager — the Internet long ago solved that problem. It’s just that candidates are, as a group, more poorly trained, more easily spooked and more prone to catastrophic stumbles than any 50-to-1 filly running at Pimlico on a muddy track.

With horses and dogs, the gambler can at least have faith that the turf accountants are in the ballpark when they set the odds. Racing animals tend to perform in patterns, echoing past achievements and reflecting their fine breeding. Presidential candidates, on the other hand, are far more likely to implode suddenly and for no good reason, like a drummer from Spinal Tap or a senator from Virginia.

Just one year ago, the Old Dominion’s George Allen was crowned the Republican front-runner of the 2008 presidential cycle by the prestigious National Journal, one of several costly pharmacies that political junkies use to feed their addiction. Today, there is not a handicapper in the business who would place Allen within 10 miles of the White House. And the man who said “macaca” is not the only one to have fallen.

Former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, once a leading Democratic contender, has bowed out altogether in the name of family. Sen. Russ Feingold, the great liberal hope from Wisconsin, decided this month to focus on his senatorial duties now that Democrats control Congress. The good doctor from Tennessee, Sen. Bill Frist, left the race on Wednesday, a victim of an insider trading investigation and his own dubious diagnosis of the bed-ridden Terri Schiavo. And Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, who fell just one state short of the presidency in 2004, has come up lame from the self-inflicted wound of a badly bungled joke last month.

But none of this tumult has prevented the handicapping class from simply posting the new odds on the giant chalkboards they keep in their newsletters and magazines. To facilitate this process, as part of the ninth annual American Democracy Conference, University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato and editors from the National Journal gathered together campaign advisors for 10 presumptive presidential campaigns for a five-hour conference on the 2008 election. Hundreds of overdressed political consultants, activists and journalists gathered Thursday in the wood-trimmed auditorium of the Ronald Reagan Building to watch the railbirds do their work. Because it was a federal building, cigar smoking was not allowed.

First Chuck Todd, the esteemed tout in chief of the National Journal’s Hotline news service, prodded a panel of Republican presidential advisors to name the new front-runner for the GOP nomination. An advisor to Arizona Sen. John McCain said that it was former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. An advisor to Frist said the front-runners were McCain, Giuliani and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. An advisor to Romney said it was either McCain or Romney. “I don’t think it really matters,” he wisely added.

“To quote Secretary Rumsfeld, there are so many unknown unknowables right now,” said Alex Vogel, the Frist strategist, who did not know as recently as last week that his candidate would drop out of the race.

Soon the conversation turned to how much money candidates in the coming cycle would need to raise. Vogel said he believed that top-tier candidates would need to bank at least $30 million by next spring, and that New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, if she wins the Democratic nomination, could raise as much as $500 million, about 50 percent more than Kerry raised in 2004. This prompted David Kensinger, an advisor to Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, to offer a metaphor so Delphic in its complexity that it seemed to mean something profound.

“A campaign is analogous to a power plant,” he said. “A power plant takes coal, it spins turbines, and then creates power, which is what they sell. A political campaign is in the business of making votes, so it can gain political power. Money is like coal, and communications, the things you buy with the money, are your turbine. If you are in a situation where there is more coal than there has ever been before, then the relative scarcity of coal is less; therefore the value of coal is less. If it takes more coal to move the turbine than ever before, then coal is less efficient and it becomes less valuable again, and if the substitute mechanisms available — natural gas or whatever — are lower than ever before, then coal is less valued.”

He was just getting warmed up. “If you were making an econometric function of how valuable is money, and you looked at relative scarcity, efficiency and the cost of substitute goods, I’ll make you the case that money, per se, especially early money — the bar is higher than ever before and the money is of less marginal utility than ever before.”

It was unclear what the natural gas was supposed to represent. “I thought I had a stroke there for a minute,” said panelist Rich Galen, an advisor to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who was sitting next to Kensinger.

A few minutes later, the Republican panel was replaced by Democratic advisors who represented five presidential candidates. No one came to speak for Clinton or Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, two of the presumptive front-runners, nor for Tom Vilsack, the former governor of Iowa who recently announced his candidacy. But that did not prevent the panelists from making bold predictions.

“I think people at their peril underestimate Tom Vilsack,” observed Doug Sosnik, an advisor to Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd’s presidential effort. Steve Murphy, a veteran consultant for New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, said healthcare would be the top domestic issue in 2008. “In my opinion, the Republicans have demagogued us on the national security issue as much as they can, and that dog is on the soft food now,” he said. Anita Dunn, a consultant for Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, warned the panel not to underestimate her candidate. “If you don’t win the Midwest heartland, the margins don’t matter,” she said, noting that Bayh had twice been elected governor of his home state.

In total, the consultants prognosticated for two hours, but none of the talking shed much light on who will be the next two nominees for the presidency of the United States. In the current National Journal rankings, McCain and Romney are listed as the Republican favorites. For the Democrats, Clinton is listed with former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards. But the only certainty is that the rankings will change, that the unexpected will happen.

Back in 1990, two years before Bill Clinton won the White House, the leading Democratic contender was Mario Cuomo, the governor of New York. In 2002, none of the touts and tipsters could have foreseen Vermont Gov. Howard Dean’s surge along the outside rail into front-runner status. Few expected Sen. John McCain to mount a serious challenge against George W. Bush two years before the 2000 election.

At the start of the conference, long before the panelists took their places onstage, James Carville, the former Clinton advisor, reminded everyone how little they really knew. “In the long grueling, tired, freezing-cold, irritating fog of a campaign,” he said, “we just know many delicious things will happen.” One could see a mischievous glint in Carville’s eye, the same glint one sees in the eyes of a trackside gambler before the gates spring open. Not knowing the outcome, Carville was reminding the crowd, is what makes it so much fun.

Michael Scherer is Salon's Washington correspondent. Read his other articles here.

Bulletproof politics

In a powerful TV ad, Iraq and Afghanistan vets attack Republicans who voted against funds for body armor. GOP, beware. Dems, wake up.

  • more
    • All Share Services

Bulletproof politics

Rarely does an incumbent U.S. senator panic over the possibility that a new and little-known advocacy organization might broadcast a political attack in his home state. Yet the mere prospect of confrontation with VoteVets.org — a political action committee organized by military veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan — seems to have frightened Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., into launching his own preemptive attack on the group.

Two weeks ago the second-term senator, who faces a spirited but uphill challenge from state Democratic Party chairman Jim Pederson, charged into the Phoenix offices of the Arizona Republic, the state’s largest newspaper. He told the newspaper’s editorial board that he anticipated an imminent assault from VoteVets, which had started running a dramatic television ad in Virginia, accusing Sen. George Allen of failing to provide adequate body armor to thousands of American troops in Iraq. Four days later, the paper dutifully ran an editorial criticizing the ad as “deceitful.”

What Kyl accomplished, of course, was to provide precious free publicity to the veterans — and to encourage them to buy airtime in Arizona, where they never had any intention to advertise.

“The irony of it is, we hadn’t even planned on running an ad against [Kyl],” said Jon Soltz, the former Army logistics captain who serves as executive director of VoteVets. “But since he seems so eager to talk about this issue, we’ve reconsidered, and we’re releasing the ad on his votes against body armor for the troops so we can discuss it.” The VoteVets media team quickly arranged to send the ad to every newsroom in the state with a new punch line hitting Kyl.

Produced by independent media consultants Bill Hillsman and Bob Grossfeld, the ad (which can be viewed here) shows a young Army Reserve vet in the desert, firing an AK-47 into a pair of dummies wearing different armored vests. One vest stops the bullets, but the other doesn’t. The ad blames the Republican senators who refused to appropriate money for the newer and more effective armor. Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of Daily Kos called it “more relevant and hard hitting than anything else I’ve seen this cycle.”

Shortly after the ad’s first appearance in Virginia earlier this month, its claims were disputed by FactCheck.org, a “nonpartisan, nonprofit” Web site that claims to “reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics.” The FactCheck critique charged that the specific vote cited in the ad — an April 2003 amendment to the supplemental defense appropriations bill sponsored by Louisiana Democrat Mary Landrieu that was defeated on a party-line vote — had nothing to do with body armor. It went on to insist that the scarcity of adequate armor had nothing to do with funding, as the ad implies, but occurred only because of manufacturing and supply bottlenecks. The ad’s accusation against Allen and the rest of the Senate Republican majority, said FactCheck, was false.

Soltz and the media team at VoteVets responded nimbly to FactCheck. They corrected a minor mistake (about the vintage of the older vest in the ad), bolstered their argument by defending the reference to the Landrieu bill and cited further proof that Republican senators had voted against full funding for body armor — namely, an amendment sponsored by Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd in October 2003. The progressive media analysts at Media Matters entered the debate with a powerful rebuttal of the FactCheck critique and the Arizona Republic editorial.

Media Matters pointed out that although Landrieu had not mentioned body armor in her floor speech on the amendment, her press release the following day identified the items she meant to fund in the “Unfunded Requirement Lists” compiled by the National Guard and Army Reserve, including the “shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests.” Six months later, when Dodd sought a similar $300 million amendment, he clearly stated that he meant to ensure funding for up-to-date body armor.

On points the debate went to the vets, who held the moral high ground. The journalistic “fact checkers” looked more like nitpickers, and their intervention actually served to sharpen the veterans’ argument.

Now an improved version of the ad is not only up and running against Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania but will soon begin airing in Montana against Conrad Burns.

But the more salient question is not whether VoteVets won the argument, but why the ad scared Kyl so much. The veterans’ new brand of political activism — which also includes support for several Democratic veterans challenging Republican congressional incumbents — shows that the GOP can no longer take for granted the support of the next generation of military families. Many of today’s soldiers and officers are angry at the cynicism and incompetence that led them into the quicksands of Iraq, and infuriated by the treatment they receive from the government when they return home.

“I think there’s a feeling among the men and women who fought on the ground in Iraq that the leadership has been poor,” Soltz says. “But Republicans have not done a lot to recruit veterans of the Iraq war into politics, and neither have Democrats. That’s why we’re here, to give these troops the support they need.” If Democratic leaders have any foresight — an arguable proposition at best — they will get behind these veterans, their ads and their candidates, and lift the Vietnam-era “anti-military” stereotype from their party.

Continue Reading Close

Joe Conason blogs in Salon several times a week and writes a weekly column for the New York Observer. His latest book is "It Can Happen Here: Authoritarian Peril in the Age of Bush."

Hillary’s sex life, Frist’s gorilla surgery and Christopher Dodd

The mainstream media has its priorities.

  • more
    • All Share Services

The mainstream media sometimes tells us more than we want to know about some U.S. senators. Earlier this week, the New York Times informed us that Hillary Clinton has spent time with her husband on 51 of her last 73 weekends but on only one day in February 2005. And just this morning, the Washington Post walks us through Bill Frist’s early-morning bathroom routine — shower, hair dryer, the whole bit — by way of telling us that he sometimes performs heart surgery on gorillas at the National Zoo.

It’s all very interesting, we’re sure. But what about Christopher Dodd?

Now, granted, the Democratic senator from Connecticut — the other Democratic senator from Connecticut — isn’t the subject of sex-life obsessions and has neither operated on a primate nor diagnosed a brain-dead woman from the Senate floor. At least as far as we know. But Dodd did announce earlier this week that he’s going to “do all the things that are necessary to prepare to seek the presidency in 2008,” which would seem to put him in the category of senators about whom Americans might like to learn a little more.

The editors at the Times seem to know better. The paper’s 300-word report on Dodd’s announcement says virtually nothing at all about who Dodd is or what he has done in 25 years as a U.S. senator. The sum total of the background the Times provides: “Senator Christopher J. Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat … has a considerable amount of money — roughly $2 million … considered running for president in 2004 … but … chose to run for re-election instead, winning his fifth term by a wide margin.” His votes? His political leanings? Alliances he has made? Stands he has taken? Nada.

The Washington Post, which gives Frist’s gorilla story 1,000 words and an online photo essay, relegates Dodd’s news to a 162-word digest item that covers the same sparse ground as the Times’ piece does. What sets Dodd apart from the 10 other senators who may be running in 2008? Well, he has less money than some of them, the Post says, and he’s a “long shot” candidate starting from “a near-dead stop when it comes to fundraising and organization.”

We don’t doubt that that’s true. But we wonder: Would it really have been so hard to report on something beyond the horse race aspect of Dodd’s announcement? With a half an hour of Web work behind us, we can tell you a few things about Dodd. It’s not a complete picture, but at least we’re taking the camera out of the drawer.

Dodd served in the Peace Corps, the Army Reserve and the House of Representatives before he was elected to the Senate in 1980. He gave a nominating speech on behalf of Bill Clinton in 1996, and he voted against Clinton’s impeachment in 1999. He voted for the confirmation of John G. Roberts and Condoleezza Rice, but against Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Alberto Gonzales.

Dodd voted in favor of the Brady bill in 1993. After the 2000 presidential election, he helped to write the Help America Vote Act and worked hard to get it through Congress. He voted against a late-term, or so-called partial birth, abortion ban in 2003. Although Dodd voted for the use-of-force authorization for Iraq in 2002, he has since accused the Bush administration of going to war on “false premises.” In November, he supported a Senate amendment that would have required the president to establish a timetable for the phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Dodd’s Senate Web site touts him as “a respected legislator who works in a bipartisan fashion to better people’s lives.” In the National Journal rankings for 2005, Dodd checked in as the Senate’s 22nd most liberal member, putting him in the middle of the pack of Senate Democrats with a score that’s almost identical to Hillary Clinton’s.

Rankings like those — not to mention 25 years’ worth of Senate votes — may be susceptible to all sorts of misuse and distortion, but we’d submit that they’re at least as important, and maybe even as interesting, as the fact that a hard morning of gorilla surgery has Frist “reeking of silverback testosterone.”

Continue Reading Close

Tim Grieve is a senior writer and the author of Salon's War Room blog.

Page 12 of 12 in Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.