Joining the Team

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 22, 2008 10:10 AM

Ten days ago, National Journal's Linda Douglass was on "Hardball," chatting about whether Barack Obama might pick Hillary Clinton.

The decision "is going to be up to him," Douglass said. "Does he believe that she's really going to campaign for him, but does he think that she's going to help him on the ticket? There's an argument, obviously, that she would, because there is, in fact, a very energized female vote out there that you can't ignore."

Now Douglass will find herself defending whatever decision the candidate makes--as Obama's spokeswoman.

After a three-decade career as a reporter for CBS and ABC, Douglass said yesterday she is signing on as a senior strategist and traveling press secretary for the Illinois senator. As the campaign unfolded, she said, "I thought to myself, 'I just can't sit on the sidelines this time.' "

Douglass, who has covered six presidential campaigns, said this is "an irreversible move" at this stage of her life. "Once you cross over to an advocacy role of this magnitude, you can't go back to being an objective journalist," she said.

Asked if she was commenting on the campaign while negotiating for a job, Douglass said the opportunity had arisen in the last several days--she spoke to Obama on Sunday--and that she stopped talking about him at that point.

"This is going to be an adjustment in all kinds of ways," she said.

Interestingly, on a "Hardball" appearance earlier this month, Douglass was asked why Hillary was staying in. "You never know what's going to happen to Barack Obama," she said. "Maybe Jeremiah Wright is going to come out and say something again. Maybe we will find some videotape evidence that he was sitting in the pew."

This is a classic general-election move: bringing a TV-savvy professional on board to deal with the ravenous press and go on talk shows. And if lots of Hillary-loving women are mad at you, it makes sense to hire someone like Douglass.

Marc Ambinder, a former colleague at ABC, calls Douglass "eminently fair," but says her appointment "will give media critics plenty of ammunition to attack the press." He also notes that her husband is a major Obama fundraiser.

Meanwhile, let the veeeeeeeepstakes begin!

This Adam Nagourney scoop, posted on the New York Times Web site yesterday afternoon, lets everyone into the pool:

"Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, on Friday is scheduled to meet with two Republican governors who have been prominently mentioned as potential running mates, according to Republicans familiar with Mr. McCain's plan.

"Charlie Crist, the governor of Florida, and Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana, have both accepted invitations to meet with Mr. McCain at his home in Arizona, according to Republicans familiar with the decision. One Republican said that Mitt Romney, a former rival of Mr. McCain for the presidential nomination -- is also expected to visit him this weekend."

There are two kinds of veep selection processes. One is conducted in secrecy, with potential running mates smuggled in under blankets in the back of a van. The other, seemingly in play here, is semi-public, with the names floated either as trial balloons or to flatter a particular constituency or a pol who's never going to get it.

Of this trio, Romney seems like the stronger bet to me. Is McCain going to turn to a 36-year-old freshman governor (Jindal) who two years ago wouldn't even have been eligible for the presidency? And insiders don't believe the perpetually tanned Crist is going to get the nod, even with the importance of Florida. But there are undoubtedly others on the list.

Charlie Black said the gathering purely social. Just a weekend barbecue. Right.

"Political analyst Larry Sabato said that from McCain's perspective the get-together makes sense for several reasons," the Boston Globe reports. "When picking a running mate, McCain 'needs to get to know them a little bit. But I think maybe they're trying to send a signal to the press so maybe the press will do some work for them' and scour the candidates' backgrounds."

Hey, when did he become our assignment editor?

Sabato also says this may be a head fake to distract us from the real contender. Politics is complicated.

What do you think this guy is running for?

"In the three months since Mitt Romney suspended his presidential campaign, the former Republican candidate has reshaped himself again, this time into a fervent supporter of former rival John McCain," says the Wall Street Journal.

"He is ramping up his political activities again as he seeks to build goodwill among Republicans around the country. He has created a political action committee with a staff of eight and set plans to help as many 40 Republicans running for office . . . Mr. Romney played down the notion that his vigorous support for Sen. McCain was part of an effort to win the vice-presidential nod."

Furthest thing from his mind.

Fred Barnes turns thumbs down on the much-debated Dem ticket:

"The last person Barack Obama wants as his vice presidential running mate is Hillary Clinton. But could she, with key assistance from her husband, former President Bill Clinton, force her way onto an Obama ticket? The answer: don't bet on it.

"Obama, once he locks up the Democratic presidential nomination, has numerous reasons for picking someone other than Clinton. The most important is that an Obama White House, with Clinton joined by Bill down the hall from the Oval Office, would be dysfunctional, a center of political intrigue, leaks, and rivalries. And there are legitimate doubts as to whether Clinton, with half the country regarding her unfavorably, would be his strongest partner in the fall campaign against Republican John McCain. A dream ticket? Not necessarily.

"There is, however, a plausible strategy for getting her on the ticket, one suggested (though not advocated) by Democratic consultant and Fox News commentator Bob Beckel. Here it is: Bill Clinton would convince dozens of Obama-supporting superdelegates at the Democratic convention to vote for Hillary for veep, and joined with her delegates, they'd be a majority. Obama would have to accede . . .

"True, Clinton passes the first test for a vice presidential choice: she's a plausible president. But the second test is what one adds to the ticket. Does she guarantee an Obama victory in a critical state that he otherwise would lose? The answer is no."

I'm sure the Obama team will be consulting Fred.

Roger Simon reports on a different downside:

"It is possible to muscle your way into a vice presidential nod: You have something the nominee wants, and he has to give it to you.

"The question is: Does Hillary Clinton have that kind of muscle?

"Her victories in states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia and her strength with women and white working-class voters have fueled the argument that Barack Obama must put her on the ticket if he wins the nomination and wants those states and those votes in the fall." But Simon quotes a senior Obama adviser (Linda Douglass, maybe?) as saying: 'You don't want your vice president taking away anything from the ticket, and she does.' The adviser cited 'the number of voters who consider Clinton "dishonest" and the "baggage" Clinton brings with her.' "

Other than that, she's a home run.

Why has the Hillary Surge fallen short? It's all in the timing, says National Review's Byron York:

"Clinton has made a huge comeback in the fourth quarter. Beginning with her victories in Texas and Ohio and going through last night's win in Kentucky, she has won 6,505,231 votes to Obama's 5,983,422 -- a margin of 521,809 votes. That number will likely grow after the remaining contests in Puerto Rico (where she has a significant lead), South Dakota, and Montana. At the moment, counting all four quarters, Obama has a popular-vote lead of 123,033 votes. By the end of the day on June 3, Clinton might well be ahead.

"If that happens, she will be the Al Gore of the Democratic primaries: the winner of the popular vote who lost the election. But unlike Gore, who lost the 2000 presidential race because of the constitutional requirements of the Electoral College, Clinton will lose because of the Democratic party's arcane -- and changeable -- rules of delegate allocation."

Everyone's taken a whack at Hillary's biggest mistakes. John Judis takes his turn in the New Republic:

"Critics within the campaign have singled out Clinton's decision to run in 2007 as the heir apparent. That was important, but nothing compared to the way she handled the issue of the Iraq war and the possibility of war with Iran. During the campaign's first year--before the Iowa caucus in January--the principal, and perhaps only, way that her opponents (particularly Obama) could undercut her candidacy was through criticizing her support of the resolution authorizing the Bush administration to use force against Iraq.

"At the time, the issue of the war overshadowed all other concerns. This was especially true among the party activists who would staff the campaigns and go to the caucuses, and among the Internet donors who would, as it turned out, fund Obama's effort. John Edwards, who had actually been a member in absentia of the Intelligence Committee and had acted far more irresponsibly than Clinton, cut off criticism of himself by apologizing for his vote in favor of the resolution. But Clinton--looking ahead, perhaps, to the general election--refused to apologize. That reinforced an impression that, on an issue as central as the war, she was willing to put politics before principle, and, in so doing, she sustained Obama's campaign at a time when he was making little headway in national polls.

"Still, Clinton, who regularly voted in 2007 for resolutions to set a deadline on the war, looked poised to put the issue behind her--until September, when she backed a resolution introduced by Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman and Republican Jon Kyl directed at Iran's 'destabilizing influence' in Iraq and at its Revolutionary Guard . . . Of all the Democratic candidates, Clinton alone voted for it."

Kos isn't buying Clinton's delegate math. I mean, really not buying it:

"One of the wonders of this primary season has been the ability of the Clinton campaign -- including Hillary herself -- and their supporters to engage in some of the most patently ridiculous and bald faced lies, knowing that everyone else knows they are engaging in patently ridiculous and bald faced lies.

"Chief among those lies is the fiction that Clinton leads in the popular vote.

"Clinton is 'leading' the meaningless popular vote, but only if:

"You count the unsanctioned contests in Florida and Michigan, where candidates were not allowed to campaign;

"You give Obama zero votes in Michigan's Soviet-style election, where Clinton was essentially the only name on the ballot; and

"You don't count the caucuses in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington.

"In reality, Obama leads by over half a million votes, for whatever that's worth (not much). But don't worry, the Clinton argument is so asinine, it has gotten little traction among super delegates."

At Red State, Pejman Yousefzadeh sees a double standard in the coverage of Obama's recent losses:

"After John McCain clinched the Republican nomination, the press and Democrats tracked with glee primaries and caucuses where he beat Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul by a mere 50 points or so. Surely--the reasoning went--if John McCain, the Republican nominee was not collecting nearly all of the vote after having secured the nomination, then one could supposedly deduce that the Republican party was not united behind McCain and he will be doomed in the general election fight as a consequence.

"Assume that thinking is correct for a moment. What then does it say about the likely Democratic nominee that he is getting blown out at this late stage by 35 points in the late primaries?"

Speaking of McCain, who sought the endorsement of the Rev. John Hagee, how much longer can he stand by a pastor who, the Huffington Post reports, said Hitler was a "hunter" sent by God to have Jews reestablish the state of Israel? There's audio. Will the media give him the Jeremiah Wright treatment?

At Crooks and Liars, Steve Benen salutes Mark McKinnon--sort of--for quitting Team McCain:

"Now he's leaving the playing field to watch from the sidelines, because he just likes Obama that much. To get a sense of his perspective, consider that McKinnon told NPR last year, 'I would simply be uncomfortable being in a campaign that would be inevitably attacking Barack Obama. I think it would be uncomfortable for me, and I think it would be bad for the McCain campaign.'

"I guess McCain deciding to stay positive and not attack Obama wasn't an option.

"I have to say, this is just not normal. I can't think of a comparable example of a major candidate's key advisor stepping down because he or she liked the other party's candidate so much. I suppose this leads to two questions:

"1. Why would McCain hire a media advisor who was prepared to quit if Obama became the Democratic nominee?

"2. Why would McKinnon go to work for McCain if he were prepared to quit if Obama became the Democratic nominee?

"I suspect the answer to both is the same: they assumed Clinton would get the nod and this wouldn't be an issue.

"I guess kudos to McKinnon are in order."

We're all conditioned to believe that nobody in politics does anything for principle, ever.