Inside Politics

Rough stuff

“Whenever longtime Democrats gather to note how the chemistry and calculus of the 2008 campaign seem to favor their party this year, one or another will always add some version of the following: ’Yeah, but we could screw this up before it’s over,’ “ Michael Duffy writes at www.time.com.

“After the past few days, the pertinent question to ask is, is the crack-up happening already? Far-fetched as it would have seemed a month ago, the seeds of self-destruction are being planted in the war of coded words about race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The bickering has exploded in the space of a week into Topic A in the Democratic race, supplanting for the moment the war and the economy and health care — and shows no sign of a quick resolution,” Mr. Duffy said.

“So yes, are the Democrats about to screw it up yet again?

“Both campaigns are stoking this fire — and worrying at the same time about what this could do to them in the fall. They ought to be concerned: Keep this up, and neither candidate may be able to marshal the votes from the various corners of the Democratic coalition that he or she will need in the fall. As pollster Andrew Kohut has noted, a party which found that it had at least two candidates who were seen as widely ’acceptable’ to its various factions just a few weeks ago could soon find that happy consensus has evaporated.”

Stopping McCain

“Since his win in New Hampshire, many have come to view John McCain as the Republican front-runner. He has a lead in the [Real Clear Politics] national average, and he is the favorite at InTrade’s future’s market,” Jay Cost writes at www.realclear politics.com.

“I think this talk is a bit hasty. Most obviously, McCain and Romney are tied in Michigan — and the polls over the last three weeks have been largely conditioned by who has won. So, who knows how the Michigan results will influence South Carolina and the rest of the nation,” Mr. Cost said.

“There is another reason I am hesitant about this bandwagon. I think that the problem that nearly destroyed his candidacy last summer is still there — and it could yet do him in. The problem? Conservative leaders do not care for his candidacy. …

“By themselves, conservative leaders cannot stop McCain. The liberalization of the nomination process has left the upper echelons of both parties less able to determine directly who wins. However, they have indirect power. They can influence which candidates are seen by the voters to be credible candidates.”

Hillary’s ploy

“It may not be easy to tell now, but Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have a lot in common,” Richard Wolffe and Karen Springen write in Newsweek.

“One example: they’re both strongly pro-choice. Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Rights Action League have awarded each of them perfect 100 percent scores for opposing abortion restrictions. So Democrats in New Hampshire might have been a bit surprised when Clinton began criticizing Obama for not being pro-choice enough. ’A woman’s right to choose demands a leader who will stand up and protect it,’ read a mailing sent out to Democrats in the state on the eve of last week’s primary.

“Without giving details, the flier knocked Obama for votes he cast years ago on several anti-abortion bills when he was an Illinois state senator. Along with a [bloc] of other Democrats, Obama had voted ’present’ instead of ’no’ — a maneuver intended to rob Republicans of fodder to use against them in campaign attack ads. (A vote of present essentially counted as a no, since a bill needed a majority of affirmative votes to pass.)

“The anti-abortion measures failed. Still, the Clinton mailing featured a sidelong picture of Obama alongside the words UNWILLING TO TAKE A STAND ON CHOICE; Clinton smiles sweetly at the camera. The mailing found its mark. Obama canvassers reported that people around the state had started asking them about the candidate’s record on abortion.

“In the days after his Iowa win, Obama and his advisers believed they could ride a wave of good will through New Hampshire and beyond. But they underestimated the power of Clinton’s war room in full crisis mode. Clinton didn’t win there simply because she teared up. Obama was outmaneuvered by her superior organization in the state, and overwhelmed by a barrage of carefully aimed criticisms intended to raise doubts about Obama’s central claim as a candidate — that he is a change agent, a lifelong reformer who will heal Washington by bringing together feuding politicians of both parties.”

Debate crasher?

Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio and NBC News are fighting over whether the Democratic presidential hopeful will be included in tonight’s candidates debate in Nevada.

NBC News said last night that it will appeal a judge’s ruling rather than include Mr. Kucinich, who has barely registered in polls and voting, the Associated Press reports.

“We disagree with the judge’s decision and are filing an appeal,” said Jeremy Gaines, a vice president for MSNBC, sponsor of tonight’s debate, adding that the parent network would seek an immediate hearing before the Nevada Supreme Court.

Hours earlier, Senior Clark County District Court Judge Charles Thompson ruled that Mr. Kucinich must be allowed to participate, otherwise he would issue an injunction to stop the televised debate, scheduled to be moderated by Tim Russert and Brian Williams.

Mr. Kucinich’s attorney had argued that MSNBC first invited him to participate, then last week reversed course and told him he could not. An attorney for the network said MSNBC decided to go with the top three candidates after the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries.

Judge Thompson called it a matter of fairness and said Nevada voters will benefit by hearing from more than just top contenders Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards.

Mr. Kucinich learned of the judge’s decision when he was handed a note during an interview with the Fox Business Network.

“Holy smokes. I just found out. I have to get off the phone now. I have to make plans to go to Nevada,” Mr. Kucinich said.

• Greg Pierce can be reached at 202/636-3285 or gpierce@washingtontimes .com.