John McCain wins New Hampshire

Both CNN and FoxNews are calling the state for the senator from Arizona. Only 12% of precincts reporting, but he has a nine point lead over Mitt Romney. This isn't much of a surprise: after Iowa, the discrepancy between McCain and Romney grew. Still, if he can push his win into double-digits, this will be a commanding victory.

--Wyndam

Eagle Times endorses Richardson

Governor Richardson picked up the backing of another key newspaper in New Hampshire as the Claremont Eagle Times endorsed him for the Democratic nomination. The Eagle Times endorsed John McCain for the Republican nomination. Here is the full editorial:

Every new president has some degree of on-the-job training but the more experience they bring to the job in important areas such as international diplomacy and national security, the shorter the learning curve and the more effective the policy.

In Tuesday's presidential primary, Republican John McCain and Democrat Bill Richardson are the most qualified candidates in the areas that will matter the most to our country over the next four years.

McCain will bring the sort of experience and integrity to the White House that can re-establish our international standing and repair the polarization in Congress that has come to define the effects of the current administration.

Americans are, of course, tired of the war in Iraq and the easiest campaign promise is to bring the troops home now, regardless of the long-term consequences such an ill-advised move would bring. McCain, a prisoner of war in Vietnam, understands better than any candidate the need for victory in Iraq. Had the calls been heeded to leave when it appeared that no progress was being made on the ground, McCain has correctly stated that al-Qaida would have been announcing that it defeated America. That would embolden our enemies and make our friends less inclined to ever depend on us again. When many were saying leave Iraq, McCain pushed for an alternative strategy that would increase our military commitment and that strategy, commonly referred to as the "surge," has had outstanding results. It is that sort of leadership and understanding of how to win a conflict that our nation will desperately need.

Domestically, McCain's call for smaller government, fewer taxes, secure borders and market-oriented approaches to solving the problem of health care costs represent the positions that reject more government spending as a solution to a sluggish economy.

Voters looking for sound judgment, experience, courage and integrity should cast their vote for John McCain on Tuesday.

Democrats have a variety of choices before them Tuesday. None can match Richardson's experience.

He has served as a congressman where he was known for his ability to reach across the aisle and work with Republicans who respected him - though they often disagreed with his policies. He served as the United Nations ambassador and was secretary of energy in the Clinton administration, where he worked on policies aimed at reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

And he has for six years been governor of New Mexico where he has increased health care opportunities for children while balancing the budget every year.

Presidents of both political parties have called on him to negotiate with foreign leaders in tense times. He has worked with dignitaries in countries ranging from Great Britain to North Korea. On Day 1 of his presidency, he would be able to handle any crisis that comes before the administration.

In his trips to Claremont, he has impressed crowds with his knowledge of all kinds of domestic and foreign issues. He may lack the charisma of other candidates but none can top him in substance.

Voters will be lucky indeed if in November they have a choice between two intellectually honest, experienced men such as John McCain and Bill Richardson.

--Wyndam

McCain lays the smackdown on Hillary

From Lexington's column in this week's Economist:

"John McCain, who spent that late 1960s as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, has chided Hillary Clinton for earmarking one million dollars for a Woodstock concert museum ("I wasn't there...I was tied up at the time")."

I don't know how we missed it, but that's just about one of the greatest political put-downs I've heard in my lifetime, and certainly on par with the wit of many of Winston Churchill's digs. How do you come back from that?

Thanks to Mike for the heads up.

--Wyndam

Mitt Romney and his staff need to grow up

Mitt Romney has run perhaps the most negative presidential campaign of my lifetime, and we're not even to New Hampshire yet. He has attacked his Republican foes, from Mike Huckabee. to John McCain. Those are just a few of many ads--he also trashes his opponents every chance he gets. He even went after Barack Obama here, here and here--taunting of candidates in other parties is usually served for the general election, unless they are an incumbent for which the primary is nearly meaningless.

This is all fine. I don't approve of it because I think negative advertising brings down the country's political debate, but to each his own. But if you insist on defaming your opponents, you can't cry and claim the victim when they throw it back to you.

Apparently, there was a confrontation between John McCain and Mitt Romney's staffs after yesterday's debate.

...members of the Romney and McCain camps said the things their bosses might have been thinking but did not dare utter onstage.

McCain delivered “cheap shots,” said one Romney adviser. Another called McCain’s criticisms of Romney “snide remarks” and “name calling.” Yet another said they were “unbecoming.”

Again: this from the staff of the guy running the most negative campaign of the year. The hypocrisy is through the roof. This isn't terrible scientific, but look at Romney's YouTube page: he prominently features his latest attack ad, and the others permeate the rest of his videos. Anyway, at least someone called him out on his double standard:

All of which caused Mark Salter, McCain’s closest aide, to go off.

“Come on, Mitt, tighten up your chin strap,” Salter, standing just a few feet away from the Romney team, told reporters. “Of all the ludicrous suggestions – Mitt Romney whining about being attacked, when he has predicated an entire campaign plan on whoever serially looks like the biggest challenger gets, whatever, $20 million dropped on his head and gets his positions distorted. Give me a break. It’s nothing more than a guy who dishes it out from 30,000 feet altitude and then gets down in the arena and somebody says, O.K. Mitt, gives him a little pop back, and he starts whining. That’s unbecoming.”

And what, you might ask, was the reason for the staffs' confrontation? Negative campaigning...by Mitt Romney!

What had McCain aides particularly heated was Romney’s exchange with McCain on the issue of McCain’s immigration proposals and the question of amnesty. “The fact is, it’s not amnesty,” McCain said during the debate. “And for you to describe it as you do in the attack ads, my friend, you can spend your whole fortune on these attack ads, but it still won’t be true.”

“I don’t describe your plan as amnesty in my ad,” Romney answered. “I don’t call it amnesty.”

With that, the issue became not whether McCain’s plan was or was not amnesty but whether Romney had or had not called it amnesty. And jaws dropped at McCain headquarters.

“What got us all going was when Governor Romney said, ‘We never called what you did amnesty,’“ said McCain confidante Sen. Lindsey Graham said. “Look on TV. Look in your mailbox in New Hampshire. John’s been pounded by Governor Romney with that charge. I was just dumbstruck.”

Indeed, after the debate, McCain aides produced a Romney mailing which said “John McCain: Supports Amnesty.” An e-mail from the Romney campaign earlier in the day referred to McCain’s “amnesty plan.” And a new Romney TV ad featured Romney supporters saying McCain “supported amnesty for illegal immigrants” and “wrote the amnesty bill.” In light of that, it is hard to see how Romney was being straight when he said he didn’t “describe [McCain’s] plan as amnesty.” After the debate, Romney’s spokesman, Kevin Madden, choosing his words carefully, said McCain favored “an amnesty-like approach.”

Add "liar" to "hypocrite." There's a reason you're dropping in the polls, Mitt.

--Wyndam

Final Iowa results

With 100% of precincts reporting...

Democrats
Barack Obama 38%
John Edwards 30%
Hillary Clinton 29%
Bill Richardson 2%
Joe Biden 1%

Republicans
Mike Huckabee 34%
Mitt Romney 25%
Fred Thompson 13%
John McCain 13%
Ron Paul 10%
Rudy Giuliani 4%
Duncan Hunter 1%

Richardson Picks up Key New Hampshire Endorsement

Bill Richardson received a belated Christmas present today: the endorsement of the Conway Daily Sun, a newspaper in the Mount Washington Valley area of New Hampshire.The full editorial is below--overall, it touches on his foreign affairs experience and political clout at home and abroad.

--Wyndam

Bill Richardson, the only heavy-weight in bout for Democratic nomination

Sen. Joe Biden, a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, said in a recent interview that if it weren't for Iowa and New Hampshire, the candidate with the most money would always win.

Retail politics works. And it's not overstating it to say that because N.H. voters see, hear and meet the candidates in person, we are better informed than voters in the rest of country, who rely primarily on electronic media.

The result: N.H. voters often pick winners, and if not winners, candidates who, in hindsight, should have won. How much better off would the Republican Party-and the United States-be today if the rest of the country had followed New Hampshire eight years ago and elected

Sen. John McCain?

In 2000, the Sun was the only newspaper in New Hampshire to endorse McCain in the Republican primary. In 2004, we supported Gen. Wesley Clark over Sen. John Kerry in the Democratic primary. Granted, neither won, but we feel as good about those selections today as we did then.

We live in a world where Russia's leader may rewrite his country's constitution to maintain power, and where violence is often the political tool of choice, as in much of the Middle East. It is remarkable, and a testament to the strength of this country, that the next leader of the free world understands the real power of this country is in its people, and the path to the White House includes running the gauntlet at little N.H. newspapers like the Sun.

The editorial staff of the Sun is extraordinarily fortunate to have had exclusive access to the candidates. Without handlers at their sides or the national media butting in, most of the candidates have given our eight writers and editors an hour to engage in freewheeling question-and-answer exchanges.

Our staff takes seriously its bit part in selecting the next president. It is impossible to completely discount the "electability" factor and screen out mainstream media, but each of us weighs heavily what we observe in these editorial board interviews.

In our opinion, this year's Democrats are stronger than we've ever seen, and out of three that we believe could be good presidents, we endorse N.M. Gov. Bill Richardson.

It boils down to this: Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards are clearly highly principled people of integrity, and in another race the Sun would have supported one of them.

While Obama and Edwards have the big media budgets, neither has the experience of Richardson. And as for Hillary Clinton, this is what fringe candidate and straight-talking former Sen. Mike Gravel says.

"The Clintons should read the Constitution, eight years is all they get."

A handful of years as senator for each of them simply does not stack up to Richardson's powerful resume as a former congressman, energy secretary, U.N. ambassador, and now, governor of New Mexico.

Like our own Gov. John Lynch, Richardson is a big hit in his home state, where he is considered one of the nation's most environmentally-conscious governors. In New Mexico, he has raised the minimum wage, given all children under 5 access to health insurance, cut taxes and is pro-business.

On the national level, his experience negotiating with bad boys like Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro and the North Koreans is world-renowned. Richardson gained the reputation as Pres. Bill Clinton's top international troubleshooter, and during the '90s humorously referred to himself as the "undersecretary of thugs." His success as a negotiator also earned him four nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Richardson has heavyweight credentials for a heavyweight job; Obama, Edwards and Clinton, by comparison, have barely found their way into the ring.

The knock against Richardson is that he doesn't have the dynamic personality of Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton, although in person he's funny and engaging. Asked about this rap and to compare himself to Bill Clinton, Richardson says, "Yes, Clinton can electrify a room, but I can get it done." We're convinced he can, and we ask you to join us in voting for him.

Thompson "not particularly interested in running for president"

A few days ago, I watched an old episode of "Law & Order" that starred senator-turned-actor-turned-presidential candidate Fred Thompson as District Attorney Arthur Branch. In it, he was smart, lively and darkly sarcastic--even though he was only on screen for about five minutes of the hour-long episode, he stole the show.

As the 2008 presidential race began, there was no front runner in the Republican primary that had reasonable policy goals while maintaining a deep, Christian moral conviction. Mitt Romney was stigmatized because he's a Mormon, and because he seemed to flip-flop on abortion and gay marriage; Rudy Giuliani was pro-choice and pro-gay marriage; Mike Huckabee, a former minister, had the necessary Christian credentials, but ridiculous initiatives (ahem, FairTax). Duncan Hunter was popular amongst the leading conservative Christians, but as a congressman practically unknown outside of California, he was at the bottom of the Republican pool.

And so the GOP turned to Thompson, who had recently issued a clever rebuttal to comments made by filmmaker Michael Moore. His overt personality and stage presence was appealing, as was his semi-celebrity status by way of "Law & Order." Plus, as Carpetbagger Report writes, "He’s plenty conservative; he’s never flip-flopped on key issues; and he’s not a member of a religious minority that the GOP base finds offensive. Simply as a matter of process of elimination, this guy should be huge."

Thompson soon left "Law & Order" and entered the presidential race, considered by many to be a viable choice for conservative Christians. But what happened? Contrary to his television persona, Thompson has been remarkably boring at the debates and campaign stops, and never seemed into the race. His poll numbers dropped into the teens as Romney and Huckabee's rose. It was an unexpected turn of events...but now, apparently, they are telling of a larger trend: Thompson has no interest in the race. He said, "I’m not particularly interested in running for president" at a recent campaign stop.

It seemed from the beginning that the GOP was begging Thompson to get involved to satisfy their religious base. And Thompson, being a good soldier, complied. But it's a tough road to the presidency, and for someone not completely into it, the wear and tear can show.

Everything seems to be taking its toll on Thompson. In the polls, he continues to fall in the early states as John McCain gains ground. His campaign is not over, but his stunning admission will go nowhere toward invigorating his base.

--Wyndam

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: Thompson gave a 17-minute long closing speech in Iowa today in which he explained why the people of the Hawkeye State should vote for him. It is being praised by conservatives as appealing to both the conservative base of the Republican party, and to moderate Democrats as well. Thompson may have some life in him yet...

What can be gained by a third place finish in Iowa?

David Yepsen wrote a piece yesterday for the Des Moines Register in which he examines the benefits and disadvantages of a third place finish in Iowa.

Yepsen opines that in the Democratic race, a third place finish would be bad. The top three candidates (Barack Obama, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton) are all within a point or two of each other, based off recent polls. Eventually, the primary race with narrow itself down, and no one wants to be left behind. A third place finish for Clinton or Obama, who are perceived as the two front runners in a more general sense, would weaken their chances in the later primaries against each other, and such a result would be particularly disasturous for Edwards because, as Yepsen writes, "He's already seen as a bit of a one-trick pony who has a great campaign in Iowa and little elsewhere."

But Yepsen says that for the Republicans, finishing in third place could be a good thing. Instead of a "Big 3," there is currently only a "Big 2," Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. Since both have double digit leads over the second-tier candidates, it's unlikely that either will finish third. That means that for Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani (who leads in general election polls), Ron Paul and John McCain, a third place finish solidifies them as the top candidate of the second-tier, and is a potential spring board to greater things in New Hampshire and further.

Yepsen describes Governor Richardson as such: "Polls also show there is so much distance between the top three and the bottom tier of Bill Richardson, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd that their hopes for a third-place showing would seem to be dimming."

This is a perfectly valid statement: in the recent polls, Richardson is at 5% in Iowa, over 20% behind the three front runners. And he has dipped off in recent weeks, so much so that he is no longer the clear top-of-the-second tier candidate: Joe Biden has begun to catch up to him.

To hear Richardson describe it though, 40% of Iowa voters are undecided with many make up their minds in the last week before the caucus. He also has a history of defying huge poll deficits.

So, although we may think we know the governor's rank, the truth is, we have no idea. And while Richardson will of course aim for victory, it is not likely--even second place would take a small miracle. A third place finish, though, is not entirely out of the question. It's a (very) long shot--even I can admit that. But it's not as hopeless as Yepsen and the rest of his ilk make it out to be. And let's just say it does happen. What then?

Obviously, it can not be a negative for the governor, who has stated several times that third place (or higher) finishes in the early caucuses are necessary for a successful campaign over the long term. If Richardson could pull a third place finish, then Yepsen's scenario for the Democrats gets rewritten, and it would almost resemble that of the Republicans.

But I think such a finish for Richardson would have a greater effect than that. Whereas one of the second tier Republicans (Thompson, Giuliani, etc.) is expected to finish third, Richardson is not. The momentum gained by the Republican third-place finisher would likely come at the expense of other second tier candidates (read: not that much) and Romney and Huckabee, who are the front runners in New Hampshire and Michigan as well, would continue to reign supreme over the Republican primary.

But if Richardson finished third, he could potentially pull support from one of the three current Democratic front runners, since one would have to finish fourth in order for Richardson to do so--such a result would throw their campaign in shambles, and all but end it. The voters he could siphon from them would be of much greater quantity than the Republican third-place finisher could pull. Even Edwards, whose numbers drop off significantly after Iowa, would give Richardson a large contingency of voters. A Clinton or Obama debacle in Iowa would be the best possible result of the governor.

Of course, no matter who falls to let Richardson in, it is all but guaranteed that some of their supporters will go to the two remaining front runners. But by establishing himself as a legitimate alternative in Iowa, Bill Richardson has an excellent chance to win over more voters and gain the momentum he needs going into New Hampshire and beyond.

--Wyndam

An Unnecessary Endorsement

Michael Lipkin chimes in on Governor Richardson's "celebrity" supporters.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, so it’s pretty much a given that the contributors and editors of the Richardson Campus are supportive of Bill Richardson, and I count myself up there with the most devoted of them. But I have a bone to pick with the good governor.

If you haven’t heard, the latest in the long line of celebrity endorsements came out and the good news is that someone besides Martin Sheen has stepped forward to support Richardson. The bad news? It’s Judge Reinhold.

Judge Reinhold, you ask, who’s that? Well, without his picture I wouldn’t be able to tell you either. He’s a bit actor from the ‘80s who’s pretty much faded from the public eye. He’s relocated to New Mexico, which is where I’m guessing he came into contact with Richardson.

Now I’m not trying to say that Rienhold should go back home and leave us all alone, but what does he think he is accomplishing? Someone like Sheen is well known to America—and in his case, many young people—and his support of Richardson puts a favorable news story into the cycle, which gives credence to what Richardson is fighting for.

But Reinhold? All his support does is associate Richardson with a fuddy-duddy has-been. Sure it draws attention to Richardson, like any celebrity endorsement would, but in a negative light. When celebrities like Chuck Norris, Oprah, Kevin Bacon and Curt Schilling lend their name to a candidate, they give credence to a candidate because people associate these celebrities with desirable traits or judgments. People think Chuck Norris is bad-ass, so Mike Huckabee becomes a little more cool too. People who idolize Curt Schilling may just give John McCain another look. And Oprah's support can go a long way toward securing the female vote for Barack Obama. But what do people associate Judge Rienhold with? Fast Times at Ridgemont High? In lending his name to the campaign, I fear it does Richardson little to no good.

Richardson is of course compelled to accept Reinhold’s support. (The alternative would be to publicly reject it, which would be terrible PR.) But there are tons of these second-rate endorsements in the ’08 campaign: Chuck Yeager for Duncan Hunter, Bay Buchanan for Tom Tancredo and dare I say it, Robert Bork for Mitt Romney. I’m sure these celebrities think they’re doing well, but it just might be hindrance as election day nears.