Clinton Throws Kitchen Sink

With their backs against the wall, the Clinton campaign has unleashed a barrage of attacks against Barack Obama on the eve of crucial primaries in Texas and Ohio. Unlike earlier Clinton forays against Obama and his adroit team, some of these blows appeared to land.

The "kitchen sink" strategy-Obama said at a press conference that Clinton was "throwing the kitchen sink at me"-has succeeded in knocking Obama off message and put him constantly on the defensive the past couple of days. Clinton has used the tactics to portray herself as a tough fighter and raise doubts about Obama among men and working class voters while at the same time trying to win sympathy as the candidate who has been abused by the press while Obama has largely avoided tough scrutiny.

At the last debate Clinton complained about being too frequently asked the first question and referred to a Saturday Night Live skit in asking whether Obama wanted another pillow. Obama responded that his campaign does not whine, but Clinton's approach may have resonated with women who feel the press may have been piling on the female candidate.

Clinton followed with the famous "3:00 A. M." security commercial that raised questions about Obama's ability to command in a crisis without referring to him by name. Obama fired back with a similar ad touting his judgment about Iraq versus her claim of experience. This seemed a quick and nimble parry.

The Clinton camp then raised new inferences about Obama's relations with Chicago real estate man and Obama friend and fundraiser Antoin Rezko, who faces corrution charges for bribery and kickbacks. These strike at the heart of Obama's clean image and his appeal as a practitioner of a new politics. Obama admitted erring in a land purchase from Rezko and promised to return money he had raised for the campaign.

Finally, Canadian sources reported a meeting between Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee and Canadian government officials in which Goolsbee allegedly assured them that his candidate's harsh criticism of the NAFTA trade pact was more about "political positioning" for the campaign than actual substantive objections to the policy. At first Obama denied the meeting had taken place but then corrected himself and said he had been unaware of it. The Obama camp then charged the Canadians with either distorting or at least failing to understand Goolsbee's true meaning. In NAFTA-hating Ohio this sequence of events cannot have done Obama any good at all.

They certainly aren't pretty but the successive salvoes may be having effect; a last-minute Zogby poll showed Clinton solidifying her lead in Ohio and narrowly regaining the edge in Texas. Clinton's numbers did not go up but Obama's went down and the undecideds grew by identical amounts. One poll may of course say nothing, or it may have captured a trend. There's little doubt the Clinton team came to the conclusion it was their last best chance. We'll find out Tuesday whether the old politics still has legs.

Mini Super Tuesday

Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont vote this Tuesday, March 4 to allot 370 pledged delegates in the latest round of the Democratic primary tussle. Tandem wins by Barack Obama in the big states of Texas and Ohio would end Hillary Clinton's effective chances of capturing the nomination and cause her withdrawal from the race. Twin victories for Clinton would revive her cause and extend the campaign at least seven weeks to the April 22 contest in Pennsylvania. A split decision might leave the door open to either scenario, but Obama would very much retain the upper hand. What lies in prospect?

In Texas Obama has caught up among likely voters and now leads an assortment of polls by an average of 1.2%. That's a razor-thin margin but the trend is clearly for
Obama. Clinton had an average 10-point edge two weeks ago. The delegate apportionment in Texas also favors Obama, since it's based on the Democratic vote in 2004. The African-American districts, where Obama is strongest, turned out in much greater numbers than the Hispanic districts where Clinton is most popular. That means he'll gain extra delegates in his base areas. There is also a caucus procedure that takes place after the balloting on Tuesday to choose about one-third of the total delegates. Don't ask me why; I have no idea for the reasons behind such an unusual system. Whatever the cause, Obama has an army of 155,000 volunteers in Texas and has demonstrated superiority in the caucus format the entire primary season. He's outspent Clinton on media buys about $10 million to $5 million too. Both candidates will spend all day here Monday. With all this considered I feel Obama will garner at least 104 delegates to 89 for Clinton in Tuesday's big prize, even if his percentage win is only 1%.

Ohio has 141 pledged delegates at stake. Clinton is stronger in this heavily white working class state, and leads the poll averages by 5.9%. That includes a Columbus Dispatch survey that has Clinton up by 16. That survey polled registered voters rather than likely voters, an important distinction, and is so far off all the other results I'm inclined to throw it out. The averages of the other six polls have Clinton up by 4.2%. Obama has narrowed an earlier 16-point deficit here, so he is probably closing to within this margin now. Obama has spent about $5.3 million on media buys in Ohio to Clinton's $3 million. Both candidates are stumping in Ohio all day Sunday and will leave things to their surrogates tomorrow. Clinton will probably hold on to win narrowly in the Buckeye State. A charitable delegate outcome for her would give her 74 to Obama's 67.

The two smaller states look like easier picks. Rhode Island gets 21 delegates, and an average of three polls gives Clinton an average of a 10.7% lead in the Ocean State. If that holds give her 12 delegates to Obama's 9. Vermont appears strong for Obama. Two polls give him an average lead of 19%. He should get 9 delegates to 6 for Clinton.

The upshot of the four states looks to be a close win for Obama in Texas and a strong one in Vermont. Clinton should get a squeaker in Ohio and a more comfortable victory in Rhode Island. My estimate, which is pretty conservative, projects Obama to add 189 delegates to his total and Clinton to add 181 to hers. This looks like a pretty even split, and so it is. Clinton's problem is that she already trails by 155 pledged delegates and needs to make up ground, not fall farther behind. After March 4 there are only 611 pledged delegates left in 11 states and 2 U.S. territories. If Obama takes 189 Tuesday, Clinton would need to win 63% of these remaining pledged delegates to catch up. Given the Democratic Party's proportional distribution system it is highly improbable she can achieve that. Unless she rather strongly exceeds the performance I've outlined in this post you can expect to start hearing more frequent calls from Democrats for Clinton to suspend her campaign for the good of party unity beginning Wednesday.

What John the Plumber Thinks

I had a toilet that wouldn't stop running and needed a new garabage disposal installed. It was time to call John the plumber. When we first moved here nine years ago I asked a co-worker to recommend somebody for plumbing work. She told me to call John. It seems just about everybody around town knows John. He doesn't have a fancy ad in the yellow pages or a shiny new truck with a logo on the door. His business comes from word of mouth and he keeps his customers because he does good work, doesn't charge an arm and a leg and likes people. He'll carry on a nice conversation with you and even show you how to fix the problem so you can do it yourself next time without having to call him. He's a good guy.

I was pulling a couple of pipes out of the way under the sink to give John some room to put in the garbage disposal. He turned the conversation to politics, bringing up the presidential race. John told me he was a Republican, but he seemed more interested in talking about the Democratic race. As it turns out, I came away thinking that if he is in any way a typical example of the American voter in 2008 we are in for a pretty amazing election this year.

His view is that if John McCain is elected we'll basically get more of the same, and more of the same would be pretty awful. If Hillary Clinton wins we'll get constant political fighting and nothing will get done. But if Barack Obama is our next president he feels we'll have a great opportunity to move forward and start solving our real problems. "I'm so sick of the bickering," he said. "Obama reminds me of John Kennedy. He's so inspiring, doesn't care about all the political wars, and just wants to bring us together and do what's best for the country. I know I'll be voting for him."

I have to admit I was startled to hear this coming from a 60-year old white Republican small businessman. The Obama phenomenon may be tapping into something almost primal in people these days. We face so many major problems, so many of which have been apparent for years. People want decision, they want action, they want a third way. It seems a lot of people are ready to dare to hope and let Obama give it a try. Even people you would never have expected. Obama is putting out the call, asking a cynical country to dare to believe again. But can we? He says, "Yes we can. We are the ones we have been waiting for. Now is our time. Now is our moment." When guys like John begin answering that call it is hard to believe otherwise.

Assembly Candidate Connie Conway

Let's take time for a little local politics today. I stopped in at Connie Conway's headquarters Tuesday evening on Main Street in Visalia, where she was holding an open house to kick off her campaign for California's 34th Assembly District. Visalia is the largest city and county seat of Tulare County, which forms the heart of the district. Located in Central California's San Joaquin Valley and extending east into Sequoia National Park, Tulare County is the number two agricultural county in the United States.

Connie is bright and personable and took a good deal of her time to chat despite being in demand by her many supporters. Connie has a number of advantages in the race to replace Bill Maze, who must leave office after six years due to term limits. She is a Republican in a strongly Republican part of the Golden State. Up until 1996 the area was evenly split between the two major parties, but the registration tide has swung sharply in the GOP's favor since. In 2006 it was nearly 50% Republican, less than 36% Democratic and a bit under 15% decline to state. If she can gain the Republican nomination she will have a clear shot at the seat, which Maze won 2-1 over his Democratic opponent in '06.

Based on her endorsements it looks like she has the support to do that. A county supervisor since 2001 and this year's chair, she has the support of local Republican Congressman Devin Nunes, all four of her colleagues on the Board of Supervisors, who all attended to show that support, and numerous local officials throughout the area. She has also been president of the California Association of Counties and has developed a strong network of backers among county supervisors in the region.

When I asked Connie what her main issues were she mentioned water, education, public safety and regional development, pointing to her Chairmanship of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley. Her campaign brochure lists her priorities under five headings: No new taxes, secure communities with strong families, free enterprise and private property, water and limited and effective government. She has a long history of active involvement and her themes are the kind that she feels should resonate with her largely conservative electorate. Indeed, the masthead of her brochure says, "Conservative. Committed. Connected."

In taking some time to go to this event I was reminded of how accessible our elected officials are at the local level. Though national issues often capture the big headlines, it's often possible for citizens to actually meet and have a word with their public servants closer to home. I was glad I went.

Last Democratic Debate?

A remarkable series of debates between the Democratic candidates began ten months ago with eight hopefuls on a South Carolina stage. The marathon came down to the final two contenders seated this evening at a table in the theater of snow-covered Cleveland State University. Was this the last act of a long-running drama? Yes, I think it was. The next such exchange of views will have to wait until six months from now, when John McCain and Barack Obama will meet with the presidency itself on the line.

Tonight's debate opened with health care and moved to the NAFTA trade pact. It then got into foreign policy and campaign tactics. It ended with an interesting question about each candidate's greatest regret. There was ample scope for Hillary Clinton and Obama to tout the strengths of their respective philosophies and policy points and to poke holes in each other's. As always, they both came across as extremely formidable debaters and candidates. But it was Clinton who needed to score a major coup to puncture the momentum Obama has been riding since mid-December, and this she was unable to do.

Hillary's plan was to stand as a resolute and tenacious fighter for average Americans. She would open by pinning Obama down on the differences between their health plans, a contrast she was certain would rebound to her benefit. From there she would make the experience argument once more, dazzle with her grasp of the intricacies of foreign and domestic policy, and close with an appeal to women. She had to stay on the offensive as much as possible without going over the line and seeming too mean. She did a good job on all counts, only once coming across as peevish by complaining about having to go first in the questioning too often.

Barack's plan was to demonstrate a credible mastery of policy details while referencing his "post-partisan" approach. Just as important would be his tone. He would appear unflappable and presidential, defending his positions, counterattacking softly and being as gracious as the exchanges allowed. He agreed with Clinton many times, complimenting her positions and minimizing their differences on health care. He would draw sharp contrasts only on her vote to authorize war with Iraq and on her NAFTA views, an issue of great import to their Ohio audience. It almost seemed as though his primary purpose was to heal rifts among Democrats in preparation for the general election.

When asked their greatest regret it was refreshing to see the candidates actually answer the question. Most politicians tend to dodge questions like that or mention a strength instead of a regret, such as saying they "work too hard" or some such tripe. Instead, Clinton foursquarely pointed to her Iraq authorization vote and Obama castigated himself for not standing stronger against congressional intervention in the Teri Schiavo right-to-die case. Good for them. It speaks well of self-honesty in both cases.

In the end, Clinton complimented Obama, summed up about her willingness to fight for those forgotten during the last seven years and touched on the historic implications of having a woman's perspective in the leadership role. Obama lauded Clinton even more highly but returned to his main theme that perhaps we have seen too much fighting and that he was the candidate best suited to bring the country together.

Clinton may have helped herself a little but Obama probably helped himself more. Every successive time he shows himself qualified to serve he removes more doubts about his being simply a gifted speaker without presidential gravitas. Some polls already show Obama having caught up in Texas and within five points in Ohio, and nothing that happened tonight is likely to alter his rising trajectory. Barring a stunning change of fortunes Hillary Clinton's realistic hopes of being the first woman to gain the presidential nomination of a major political party in the United States have exactly one week to live.

Charges Against McCain

Barack Obama previewed an attack on John McCain today, accusing him of being beholden to lobbyists. If a charge like that can be made to stick, it could really hurt McCain, who has cultivated a reputation for fierce independence of thought.

So what's the truth? Like many things about McCain, that's not always so easy to tell. For starters, his campaign manager Rick Davis and his chief political adviser Charlie Black are well-known and successful Washington lobbyists. Then too, the recent New York Times article, beyond its poorly documented insinuation of a romantic indiscretion, alleged undue response to lobbying pressure. A Washington Post article followed the same lead on McCain's letters in favor of a communications company without the sex angle. The stink hangs because McCain's campaign denied meetings between the Senator and the people in question, only to have evidence surface of McCain's earlier testimony admitting to meeting with them, though denying succumbing to their influence.

On the other hand, McCain has a long history of taking on some of Capitol Hill's most powerful lobbies. He has stood against ethanol subsidies and tobacco interests. He took on the coal, oil and auto industries in the failed McCain-Lieberman Climate Bill. He angered many conservative advocacy groups by fighting for and passing McCain-Feingold on campaign finance. He's refused to ask for earmarks and supported open disclosure of them, to the consternation of many of his Senate colleagues. He strongly pursued the Jack Abramoff investigation, to the embarrassment of his party and the ruin of some Republican careers. He's saved several billions in cost overruns with strong oversight on military procurement contracts. He also famously took on some of the more vociferous of the religious right by calling them "agents of intolerance" in his 2000 run. And he stood up to a President of his own party and the anti-tax lobby by voting against Bush's 2001 tax cuts (though he now supports them.)

All in all, it's a record that matches up well in comparison to most who have been in Washington for any length of time. McCain does appear to be a politician with an independent streak who tends to vote his own judgment regardless of the institutional struggle it may cause him. That's one reason he's always been popular with independent voters and highly suspected by Republican loyalists. It would be surprising to me to find he'd been in the middle of an influence peddling racket. But then one comes back to the question: why are two lobbyists running his campaign? One thing is for sure, John McCain does not fit easily into a mold.

More Middle Class Squeeze

Thanks to some good comments on yesterday's post I decided to do some additional research. As Webfoot put it, "Is the middle class being squeezed because of the economics of the times or are they being squeezed by their own injudicious use of their own resources?" Mr. H. added, "I completely agree with Webfoot's comments about the middle class propensity toward instant gratification and consumerism. Most of the debt incurred is not necessary." On the other hand Don wrote, "I agree fully with your comments about the attack on our middle class, (see the book Nickeled and Dimed in America) but do you think the average citizen understands what is happening?" This discussion is important and deserves some investigation.

I looked into four cost components I feel are significant factors in the middle class standard of living and are rather essential for maintaining it: housing, health care, gasoline and college tuition. Here's what I found.

Home prices were an average of three times per capita income in the 1970s. This had risen to 5 times PCI in the 1980s and stands at 9 times today. In California and Florida these had risen as high as 13 times PCI, though the recent falloff has reduced that to 11. These figures come from the Wall Street Journal and the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. It is clear that housing costs have tripled as a share of income over the period in question.

Health care has risen from 5% of American gross domestic product in 1960 to 13% in 2000 and 16% in 2006. The cost per capita stood at $7026 in 2006. These data come from the Agency for Health Research and Quality and the American Medical Association. As in the previous example, U.S. resources devoted to this cost have tripled as a percentage of available resources. That is a direct cost to those middle class Americans who are self-employed or must otherwise buy their own coverage and an indirect cost to the salary compensation of those who are employed by others.

Gasoline prices in constant 2007 dollars stood at $1.50 per gallon before the first Arab oil embargo of 1973. They rose to $1.80 in 1974. They stand today at a national average of $3.31. These figures come from Z-facts and the American Automobile Association. The price rise in real terms in this case is 2.21 times the earlier cost, not as high as for the previous two categories but still a substantial drain on a family's discretionary funds.

College tuition and fees at public four-year universities cost, on average, 8% of annual per capita family income in 1975. By 2005 it had risen to 21%. For private universities the respective figures are 31% and 80%. Note that these figures considerably understate the full costs since they do not include books and living expenses or the effect of reduced scholarship availability for the middle class. Even so, what we see here has increased 2.63 times over its previous bite from the family income.

In sum, it looks to me as though the middle class squeeze is quite real. I grant that these are subjectively chosen markers but I would contend they are all expensive yet essential components of maintaining a middle class lifestyle. I, too look with amazement at people who are not wealthy yet buy non essentials like absurdly expensive sneakers, televisions, video game systems and motor vehicles. It would indeed be welcome to hear more voices advising the American consumer to exercise considerably more restraint and responsibility as a counterweight to the constant drumbeat to buy, buy, buy. One recalls President Bush's response when asked what Americans could do to help in the wake of 9/11, "Go shopping."

But with that all said, it is inescapably evident from these enormous increases in real terms that the economic facts of life make it far more difficult for people today to enter and stay in the middle class than it was for their parents and grandparents a generation ago. And I am quite convinced that if these trends are not reversed the societal effects will be profoundly destructive in a number of ways.