Obama Endorsements Continue to Pour In

A sign of a good campaign is a good public relations strategy, especially when it comes to revealing endorsements of a particular candidate. Endorsements by themselves, may not make a difference in the overall scheme of a campaign (Al Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean, for example, in 2004, flopped and endorsements of Barack Obama by former Senators Bill Bradley and Gary Hart in the days leading up to the New Hampshire primary produced similar results) but some endorsements do send broader messages about a particular campaign and their timing can be crucial to "change the story" in today's word of soundbytes and 24-hour news-cycles.

Since his defeat in New Hampshire, Obama has attempted to (and in many ways has) changed this narrative away from Hillary Clinton's amazing comeback. And he's done so with the support of endorsement after endorsement after endorsement, and some actually, unlike many, may be able to help transform the race.

First, the night of the New Hampshire primary, Obama was endorsed by Nevada's Service Employees International Union and the following day, he got a big get (and perhaps decisive in Nevada), with the endorsement of Nevada'a Culinary Workers Union. With Nevada moving to a caucus for the first time, and nobody quite knowing who is going to show up and participate, the huge labor and turn-out-the-vote strength these two dominant Nevada unions have is a huge boost for the Obama campaign.

Yesterday, Obama rolled out three big Congressional endorsements, with South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson, California Representative George Miller, and perhaps most importantly, John Kerry. The endorsement of Miller, who most may not know, is interesting, because the veteran Congressman is the chief confidant of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and conventional wisdom believes he would not have endorsed Obama without her blessing, which is an indirect shot at Hillary Clinton, the potential first woman Present by the first woman Speaker of the House. And the Kerry endorsement, perhaps most important for his infrastructure in key states and ability to raise money, still provides Obama with an experienced ally firmly in the Democratic establishment. Though pairing with Kerry may be a bit off-message for Obama from his change ideal (as I think Mary Matalin pointed out on television yesterday) it's still a new positive for Obama and got a lot of coverage on newscasts and in newspapers across the country.

Then today, Obama announced the endorsement of Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano. Napolitano, a two-term Democratic Governor in a red state, is one of the most prominent women in politics not named Clinton or Pelosi, and was considered as a potential running mate for John Kerry in 2004. Her endorsement of Obama will not just help him in Nevada (nearby to Napolitano's Arizona and in her home state on February 5th) but will help try to show women that it's okay not to support Hillary Clinton.

Will all these endorsements end up meaning anything in the long run? Maybe actually. The labor endorsements in Nevada may be enough to win those states, and if nothing else, the endorsements of Kerry and Napolitano have allowed Obama to continue to ride a wave of positive (and at this time of year, maybe even more importantly, free) publicity nationwide with serious political figures endorsing Obama's message of change and hope. With an election as close as this race is going to be, every bit of help and added news coverage helps.

Reflecting on Hillary Clinton's Win in the New Hampshire Primary

It is a little over 12 hours since the cable news networks announced that Hillary Clinton had won, in stunning fashion, the New Hampshire primary. As I wrote last night, the win was as much or even more surprising than Brack Obama's triumph in Iowa, because nobody, even her own campaign, thought she could stay within single digits of the Illinois Senator, and instead, she won by just over three-percent. How could the polls be so wrong? How could so much change in 24 hours to turn a double-digit defeat into a victory? MSNBC's First read (a daily must-read) has some good thoughts:

One other question, as the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson raised on MSNBC last night: When you lose a lead like that, does anyone else think of what happened to Tom Bradley in California? Did race play a role in a double-digit or high single-digit lead evaporating over night? In fact, we can only think of three races in which the public polls and the final result were SO off, and they all involved African-American candidates: Bradley's '82 gubernatorial campaign in California, Doug Wilder's surprisingly narrow '89 victory for Virginia governor, and Harvey Gantt's surprise loss for North Carolina Senate. There is no poll question we can find that can truly measure this phenomenon. But African-Americans are thinking this, and the difference between Iowa and New Hampshire is a voting curtain: Democrats didn't have one in Iowa; they had one in New Hampshire.

So how did the polls get it so wrong? It's likely a confluence of events: 1) the emotional Clinton; 2) the ganging up factor from the debate; 3) the stubborn nature of NH voters to reject what Iowa recommends; 4) race; 5) more independents going to McCain; and 6) complacency among young voters. Could one of these factors erase a double-digit lead? Probably not. Could each of six cost two points each? Perhaps.

I think their analysis makes a lot of sense. I don't think you can discount the "Bradley Effect" (as discussed above, it reflects white voters telling pollsters they plan to vote for a minority candidate, in an effort not to sound prejudiced, but then using the secrecy of the ballot to vote for another candidate) because it wouldn't take a lot of voters, when combined with the other last second momentum Clinton silently gained to turn this election. Race has not been talked about a lot in this campaign (aside from mentions about the demographics of given states like Iowa and New Hampshire's 95% white population, or the heavy Hispanic population in Nevada and African American population in South Carolina) in large part for two reasons. The first is because people are uncomfortable talking about it, and that leads into the second point, that nobody, including the media, wants to admit that there still may be a racial element in our country that does not want to see an African American (or any minority for that matter) become President.

Hillary Clinton talks about breaking the ultimate glass ceiling by becoming the first woman to be elected President, and there's no doubt that would be a tremendous event, but Barack Obama is a trailblazer too. And sometimes people say "The US isn't ready for a black President" or "the US would never elect a black President" and you want to dismiss that, you want to say this is 2008 and while certainly racial inequities and racial discrimination has not disappeared, that we are a better country than that. So we ignore Obama's race, at least as far as it being a negative factor (we mention how it will help him attract votes in South Carolina, but we don't mention how it may hurt in all white states like New Hampshire) but should we? I've embedded a video of a discussion on race from Morning Joe this morning with Chris Matthews, where he says Obama can't complain about this "Bradley Effect" because it will hurt him more than help him (which I agree with) but that he should practically discount all polls which show him ahead. That's a pretty sad statement if Matthews predicate is accurate, but based on what we saw in New Hampshire, maybe it is. It's easy to sound tolerant in a poll and in a public caucus, but behind the secrecy of the voting booth, maybe some people vote differently. Ben Smith over at Poltico.com has an interesting post up on the Bradley Effect and what role (if any, he thinks it may have been minimal here) it played yesterday.

And as I said, combined with some of the other factors the MSNBC post above talked about, it wouldn't even need to be a large number of voters who feel and act this way. But in such a close primary election, they may swing the entire thing. They certainly could have in New Hampshire. And there were other factors too. Independents voting for John McCain (even more so may have because they saw Obama with such a big lead, they figured McCain needed their support more -- and if enough thought that way, Obama could have lost a lot of support quickly) and the influx of women voters to Clinton's camp in the past 24-48 hours. I've also read a great point somewhere that said that the increased turnout and great weather that New Hampshire had yesterday, which many theorized would help Obama, actually hurt him in the end. New Hampshire has one of the oldest populations in the country, and older voters are overwhelmingly Clinton supporters. While a big snowstorm or bad weather may have made it impossible for them to leave the house and get to the polls, with the nice weather, they had no problem voting, and voting in large numbers for Hillary.

This race is certainly not over. Nevada next week and South Carolina will be huge, and if Obama can win both, he'd have a lot of momentum going into February 5th and Super Tuesday. And he gave another great speech last night (another reason why I'm embedding the video of Morning Joe below because it showed part of his speech and his 'Yes We Can!' refrain which if it doesn't touch and inspire voters, nothing will) and if he does pick up the endorsement of the Culinary Union, that would be big.

One thing is for sure though. There will be no confidence in any of the opinion polls heading into the elections in the next few weeks.
1:30 Update:According to ABC News, Barack Obama has received the endorsement of the Culinary Workers Union, which is a huge boost to his campaign, and should help to soothe the sting of last night's loss. The "conventional wisdom" of the mainstream media, at least in the past few days, was that the endorsement of the Culinary Workers Union could decide the Nevada caucus, so this is no small endorsement, and not only that, but it should get a good amount of publicity, and help Obama stop any momentum Clinton has after Iowa. I also found an embeddable video of the full version of Obama's speech from last night, it's worth watching. Just as good as his Iowa victory speech, if not a bit better because of the "Yes We Can" refrain.

Clinton Wins New Hampshire -- How Did Everyone Miss It?

In what may be just as stunning of a victory as Barack Obama's five-days ago (and, wow, does it not seem like that Iowa victory and amazing Iowa victory speech was a lifetime ago, when in fact less than a workweek has passed since Obama's victory) Hillary Clinton has won New Hampshire, defeating Barack Obama and John Edwards. Going into tonight, most polls had Clinton down at least 7 or 8 points, with some having her down double-digits, but something obviously changed in the 24-hours leading up to the polls (perhaps her humanizing moment when she lost her composure a bit at a lunch yesterday) and suddenly the Democratic race is back in flux -- again.

So where do we go from here? Hillary Clinton almost assuredly will not skip South Carolina and Nevada now (largely because she has a good chance at winning them), a strategy floated early in the day. The large Culinary Union in Nevada, which was set to endorse of Obama (or so the reports were when Obama was poised to win New Hampshire going away) may now endorse Clinton, adding fuel to her comeback story, and almost assuring her victory in that state. High noon may come in South Carolina in two weeks, but how February 5th turns out is a mystery at this point.

I think today was an example of a misstep of Obama's campaign, perhaps because of it's inexperience in these types of national campaigns. Whether they got a little too cocky after Iowa, or they were fooled by the polling data it seemed everyone was looking at, they allowed expectations to get way out of control. Even if Obama had won by four or five points, instead of losing by that margin, it likely would have been spun as a Clinton victory (I wrote about that fear yesterday). Clinton's campaign, on the other hand, real or not, spent the day leaking stories of a campaign overhaul and panic in the campaign and worry about a double-digit loss. They lowered expectations to the point where almost anything they did could be considered a victory, and a real victory stuns the political world and jump-starts her campaign again. Even if it was unintentional, the panic and leaks and desperation from the Clinton campaign, and the over-exuberance of the Obama campaign, led to a change in expectations, and a situation where Obama became almost inevitable, and tonight, we learned he isn't.

This is a big blow to Obama because his campaign is supposed to be more than just a campaign, it's supposed to be a movement. A movement of independents and even Republicans as well as Democrats, and tonight, in a state full of independents, he wasn't able to defeat Clinton. It takes the air of his sails as he heads to Nevada and South Carolina. Even if he loses Nevada (and should he still get the Culinary Union's endorsement, that would take the sting out of tonight's loss and change the news-cycle away from his loss) he can still win South Carolina. And that's the last primary before Super Tuesday, where I'm becoming more and more convinced California will decide the race on that day. Clinton will take the Northeast and probably Arkansas, Obama the South and states like Missouri. And then California may decide it.

Another stunning night tonight, in a series of them in this Democratic campaign, and one practically nobody saw coming. And we'll see where it goes from here.

Rich Rodriguez on Ryan Mallet: "I think he's going to transfer."

University of Michigan Football coach Rich Rodriguez is being interviewed on the Jim Rome Show right now and he just said, when asked about the future of Ryan Mallett, that "I think he is going to transfer." He said that Mallett has not told him that personally, but that Mallett has apparently let people know in the program that he is planning on leaving, and Rodriguez sounded as if he was prepared for life with a new quarterback.

Whether that's prep-superstar Terrell Pryor, or somebody currently on the roster (like Georgia Tech transfer Steve Threet, high school quarterback-turned-wide receiver Junior Hemmingway) remains to be seen.