John Edwards had three problems.

Bad Luck.  He ran the same year as Obama and Clinton.  Their two big suns in the sky outshone Edwards’ star.  Before this race, Edwards always had good political luck.  But this year his luck was to be a white guy when Democrats want to make history with the first black President or the first woman President.

Bad Strategy.  Edwards was one of the most conservative Democratic candidates in 2004.  This year he was one of the most liberal.  In 2004 he was Smiling John.  This time he wavered between Smiling John and Angry John.  His campaign clearly was torn between two conflicting strategies.  Edwards never made a clear choice.  There are even suggestions that he and Elizabeth Edwards were split on strategy.

Bad Press.  Because of the above – plus the mansion, the haircuts and the hedge fund – the media decided he was a phony.  That drove their coverage.  In a state race, you can buy enough TV to overwhelm that story line.  You can’t in a presidential race.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

Back in the early 1980s, Jim Hunt chaired a commission that changed the Democratic Party’s presidential-nomination process.

What he did then may matter this year.

Hunt’s commission – whose staff director was David Price, then executive director of the state party – created a class of “superdelegates.”  These are elected officials (Senators, Congressmen and Governors) and party leaders who are automatic delegates to the convention.  People like Ted Kennedy. 

The superdelegates are unbound by primaries and caucuses, free to follow their consciences – or their personal agendas.

There will be about 800 superdelegates among the 4,049 Democratic delegates.  It takes 2,025 to win.

Suppose Clinton and Obama split the remainder something like 1,800-1,400.

Will the superdelegates pick the nominee in a back room?  Smoke-free, of course.

 Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

John Edwards took it on the chin, again, in Florida and struck the flag.

What went wrong?  Where did his five year campaign go off track?

Well, it could be as simple as running against two larger than life candidates who just sucked all the oxygen out of the air.

But, beyond that, I suspect Edwards’ campaign suffered from a split personality.  There were two campaigns.  And two John Edwards.  One was the ‘nice guy’ John Edwards of four years ago, a moderate who – since 2004 – trumpeted platitudes about his personal war on poverty.  The other John Edwards – the new John Edwards – was an ‘angry man’ railing against the war, savaging Hillary, and attacking just about every other Democratic bug-a-boo.

Throughout his campaign Edwards vacillated back and forth between these two personas – like he didn’t know who he really was.  All this left the impression of an ambitious man with no bedrock beneath his feet – the paradigm of a candidate with no convictions, who changed stands whenever he thought it would get him votes.

And in the end his vacillations undid him, leaving him looking phony and insincere.  He wasn’t running to end poverty.  He wasn’t running to end the war.  He was a candidate with no agenda at all, who simply used whatever issue served his ambition of being elected President.    

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

Everyone expected ‘Impact Fees’ (Mayor Meeker’s political euphemism for higher taxes on new homes) to quadruple by now. But either the Mayor’s new handpicked City Council gridlocked or, else, the Mayor’s not the political wheelhorse he’s cracked up to be. Because nothing happened.

But, at last, the Council seems ready to address the Mayor’s pet issue. And double the taxes.

The problem is timing of the Mayor’s latest orgy of political posturing could not be worse. With a recession lurking around the corner, raising taxes on new houses will be like killing the goose that laid the golden egg. The Mayor and his amigo’s on the City Council Mayor Meeker are about to put the kibosh on a key part of Raleigh’s economy, when it is already on shaky feet.

According to the N&O, construction and real estate (including shops and restaurants) make up 25% of  Triangle jobs. And a recession will hit this sector of our economy hardest. In fact, lay-offs have already started. Raising taxes on new homes will only make a recession worse. And consider this: No matter how much Mayor Meeker raises ‘Impact Fees’ they do the city no good if there are no new homes to collect from. It’s the reverse of ‘supply side’ economics: Higher taxes mean less growth.

It’s time Mayor Meeker and his handpicked Council took a break from posturing against the evils growth and, instead of raising taxes, gave our economy a helping hand.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

When Barack Obama won the South Carolina primary, he announced it was a victory for change.  If so, it appears while African-Americans were overwhelmingly for change, other Democrat voters were not – because 80% of the African-Americans voted for Obama, while 75% of the white Democrats voted for Edwards or Hillary.

Given the first real opportunity to elect a Black candidate President, it is no surprise African-Americans overwhelmingly supported Obama. But why white Democrats – the most liberal, ‘open-minded’, ‘enlightened’ of voters – cast their ballots almost equally overwhelmingly against him raises the issue of race in the oddest of places, a Democratic primary.

Let’s make the issue a bit more complex. The white Democrats in South Carolina who voted for Hillary and Edwards did not – according to the polls – dislike Obama.  They held no animosity toward him because of his race. They liked him; they simply preferred Hillary or Edwards.  But, still, forty-years after their Party lead the fight for Civil Rights, after four decades of steadfast support of affirmative action, and after repeatedly condemning Republican candidates for using race as a wedge issue, Democrats in South Carolina suddenly appear to have voted along racial lines.

What does this mean in future primaries?  More interesting, what conclusions do the Clinton campaign and the Obama campaign draw from the vote in South Carolina and how do they respond?

After Iowa pundit Dick Morris predicted on Fox News that Hillary would subtly start raising the ‘race issue.’  The host immediately asked, “Do you mean Hilary is racist?”  Morris said, “Absolutely not.  But she’s not above using race to win an election either.”  In that light, was Bill Clinton’s comment, “Well, Jesse Jackson won South Carolina,” a slip or a strategic harpoon?

 In a similar light, is Ted and Caroline Kennedy’s endorsement Obama’s counter to Clinton’s harpoon – a way to move the Democratic primaries away from polarization on race?

Whatever the answer – at least in South Carolina – race mattered.  We’ll see what conclusions Obama and Hillary draw from that in the next round of primaries.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

John Edwards’ withdrawal was an abrupt surprise – even to his closest supporters.

Monday afternoon, his campaign was telling reporters on a conference call that he was in for the duration.  Tuesday afternoon, they were sending out fundraising emails and laying on a full schedule through Super Tuesday. 

Clearly, this was a sudden decision.

Politically, Edwards was in trouble once he lost Iowa.  He bet the farm on winning there. 

Then came a series of third-place finishes.  He had to wonder at what point he would go from being a player to a pariah.

But Edwards was raising money.  He had a chance to accumulate delegates.  He could influence the nomination even if he didn’t win.

So this has to be personal in part.  His wife is fighting cancer.  They have young children.  At some point, you just decide to go home.

Edwards probably will endorse Obama now.  If Edwards’ voters are “change” voters, they’ll go to Obama.  If they are race voters, they’ll go to Clinton. 

The chatter is that Obama might consider Edwards for Attorney General.  That’s enough to give corporate America serious heartburn.

Also, Edwards is only 54 years old.  He’d be 62 in 2016, if you know what I mean.

Another presidential campaign is unlikely once you’ve run and lost twice.  But Reagan lost in 1968 and 1976.  One Edwards supporter even noted that Nixon came back eight years after losing.  That’s not a precedent I would cite.

A Senate race in North Carolina?  Been there, done that.  Terry Sanford did it in 1986 after running for President in 1972 and 1976.  But that was Terry Sanford.

Edwards’ exit from politics could be just as meteoric as his entrance.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

The battle is over.  Let’s ride down out of the hills and shoot the wounded:

• Big Winner? Barack Obama.  But he also faces a big racial divide.  The question next Tuesday is whether he can win white and Latino votes.

• Big Losers. The Clintons.  Hillary said she found her voice in New Hampshire.  Unfortunately, Bill found his in South Carolina.  Obama’s victory speech put the Clinton’s in their box: The Past.  They look so 1990s now. 

• Crazy Like Foxes?  The Clintons are feeling their short-term pain.  Ted and Caroline Kennedy endorse Obama.  The New York-Washington commentariat is in full cry because the Clintons allegedly played the race card.  But – as Pat Buchanan, of all people, pointed out – the Clintons may have put a big hole in Obama’s boat.  The Clintons have never cared much about what the Smart People say; they’ve fought those battles before and believe they can always go around the media and the political insiders.

• On to Denver!  Super Duper Tuesday looks like Super Duper Confusion.  Watch all three Democratic candidates claim victory next Tuesday. 

• The Third Man.  John Edwards’ strategy is not hopeless.  It would not be the first time two candidates destroyed each other and left a big hole for the third candidate to run through. 

• Calling Bob Shrum.  Obama’s speech put his finger on what got Edwards in third place:  Too angry.  Too rich versus poor.  Time to smile again, like in the South Carolina debate.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

What is it about South Carolina primaries?

Of course, this is the state that gave us Pitchfork Ben Tillman, Strom Thurmond and Lee Atwater.  Not to mention secession and the Civil War.

Now South Carolina has given us two of the sleaziest presidential primaries in history: the Bush mugging of John McCain in 2000 and the Clintons’ sliming of Barack Obama this year.

Maybe South Carolina just brings out the worst in people. 

Now we know what Bill and Hillary learned from the vast right-wing conspiracy.  No tactic, no attack, no lie is too low.

Does Obama have you in a box on the Iraq war?  Say it’s a “fairy tale” he opposed the war.

Did Obama make a good point about how Reagan won the war of ideas in the 80s?  Say he was praising Reagan’s ideas.

Is Obama inspiring hope and idealism?  Say he was in bed with an inner-city slumlord in Chicago.

It may work.  We may get the Clintons for eight more years.

Why do I feel like taking a shower?

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

Imagine this. Two Democrats are arguing about John Edwards future. One says, ‘Why not? Why shouldn’t he do it? Here’s the scenario: Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid calls John Edwards, says, John, your running against Elizabeth Dole could mean Democrats keeping control of the Senate. Which could mean the end of the war in Iraq. Suddenly, we go from having an unknown state Senator and gay investment banker running against Elizabeth Dole to having the best candidate in North Carolina. John can out-fundraise Dole, match her national appeal and, who knows, he may even lead in the polls.’

Second Democrat (shaking his head): ‘He has safer options. Hillary or Obama may offer him a cabinet post to mend fences. Why risk being Secretary of HEW for a bruising Senate campaign he might lose?’

First Democrat (appalled): ‘Listen. John needs to add a little luster to his tarnished political star. He lost to Kerry, Obama, and Hillary. What he needs is to win an election and what we need is a Democrat who can beat Dole.’

Second Democrat: ‘It’s still too risky. You’re dreaming. It will never happen.’

First Democrat: ‘Forget the risk. If nothing else think of the sheer entertainment value. It would be another “thriller from Manila.” A Democratic heavyweight versus a Republican heavyweight. It would turn the Senate election from somnambulant to riveting: John Edwards versus Elizabeth Dole. A race like that doesn’t come along often.’

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

Hillary Clinton went hard after Barack Obama in Monday’s debate.  In front of the Congressional Black Caucus.  On Martin Luther King Day.  She even got jeered.

Why?

Because the Clintons’ strategy is to shake, rattle and roll Obama.  Take him away from the set-piece orations where he is a master.  Put him on the defensive.  Make him look too raw, unready and untested to be President.

It’s working.

The Clintons have given up in South Carolina.  Hillary is taking several days this week to campaign in other states.  But she left Bill in South Carolina to bedevil Obama.  And he’s doing a good job of getting in the news and getting under Obama’s skin.

Obama spent too much time in the debate on defense, not enough on message.

Even if Clinton loses South Carolina, she is planting doubts about Obama with voters in the 22 states that vote February 5. 

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

The worst wounds in politics are self-inflicted.

Beverly Perdue was starting to draw blood by linking Richard Moore to the Randy Parton fiasco.

Then The N&O got a copy of an email from one of her fundraisers soliciting $20,000 from the Parton crowd.

It’s easy to say somebody should have seen this coming.  As in:

“All right, Team Perdue, huddle up.  We’re going to put Moore in bed with Randy Parton.  Let’s make sure our hands are clean.  We don’t need any blowback.”

Or maybe somebody in the campaign should have realized that the fundraiser, Thomas Betts of Rocky Mount, might be dipping in the Parton well.

Or maybe the finance director and the media guru should share a cup of coffee now and then.

Or maybe it’s time people in politics learn that their emails could show up on the front page of The N&O.

But in a campaign it’s hard to know what every one of your supporters is doing.  Sometimes, you’re afraid to ask.

This hurts the Perdue campaign three ways:

• Whenever she brings up Parton, Moore has an easy reply: “Beverly, you tried to raise money from Randy Parton for YOUR campaign.”

• Betts was a member of the Board of Transportation.  Which gives gas to Moore’s argument that board members should not raise campaign money. 

• Her fundraising gets hurt just as her campaign is scrambling to match Moore’s millions of dollars in family money.

Perdue’s TV ads are good.  But she has yet to get off defense.  And her campaign looks snakebit.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

This presidential race will leave in its wake a long trail of losers.  One may be the myth of the unions’ voter-turnout power.

John Edwards bet his campaign on the union myth.  Then he lost Iowa, his must-win state.

Then came Nevada.  The TV talkheads told us Nevada was sewn up for Obama because he had the endorsement of the “Powerful Culinary Workers Union.”  I started to think “Powerful” was part of their official name. 

Oops.  Clinton won Nevada.

(Maybe that’s because Bill Clinton spent so much time pressing the flesh with the maids, cooks and, one assumes, showgirls.  Apparently, the campaign thought it wise to send Chelsea along to keep an eye on him.)

I’ve seen this movie before.  For more than 30 years, I’ve heard unions boast of their immense election-day machine.

I’ve never seen it.  I’m still waiting.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

This year’s Republican presidential primaries haven’t been debates about issues. They’ve been about character. Not character as in honesty and integrity. But character as in biography. Who you are. Not where you stand.

Mike Huckabee is an example. 

There are, roughly, three groups of voters in the Republican primaries: Evangelicals. Economic Conservatives. And Moderates. Huckabee is a Baptist minister. His biography gave him a natural base among Evangelicals.

Beyond Huckabee, to make a long story short, after stumbling and trying to be all things to all people, Mitt Romney (may have) found his base in Michigan with Economic voters and John McCain has captured the third group: Moderates. McCain also has one strength Romney and Huckabee lack: He’s a war hero – and the most outspoken candidate on the war on terrorism – a combination which cuts across all groups, pulling tiny blocks of voters to him from Huckabee and Romney.

Huckabee also faces a dilemma McCain and Romney don’t. Economic Conservatives and Moderates, to some extent, feel a cultural antipathy toward Evangelicals. Huckabee’s resume has given him a base, but it has also fenced him. That antipathy makes it harder for him to reach out to other voters. Huckabee’s other problem is geographic. As a southerner he might have reached out beyond his base in South Carolina. Instead he ran head on into Fred Thompson.   

The next big question won’t be answered until the Florida primary. Will Rudy Giuliani resurrect his flagging campaign? If so, Giuliani becomes a second moderate candidate – a big problem for McCain – splitting his vote.

Lastly, beyond biographies and demographics, there’s money. Filthy lucre. Romney just bought over a million dollars of TV in Florida and if he wants – if he digs deep enough into his own pockets – he can outspend McCain and Huckabee two or three or four to one. That doesn’t automatically mean a Romney victory. But sheer financial firepower can add three or four percentage points to Romney’s vote – enough to edge out McCain, a second time, in Florida.

Beyond Florida money matters another way. The Republican primary is turning into a slugging match. The mystery is which candidate can take the most punches and stay on his feet even with wobbly knees. Romney’s cash – as long as he’s willing to keep pouring it into his own campaign – means he cannot be ‘knocked out’. At worst, even if he loses Florida, Romney’s money allows him to ‘hang around’ and wait for a break or for Huckabee or McCain to make a mistake. At best, he could do a lot more than just endure.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

Last week’s Republican debate started out as a sleeper. No controversial stands. No sparring. No real debate at all. Fred Smith said he was best qualified because of his life experience. Pat McCrory said he was the man to deal with a crisis. Bill Graham said he’d listen to the people. Bob Orr explained he’s made tough decisions.

For a while it looked like the debate was going to be a cure for insomnia.  Consider this question from the moderator: How are you going to bring swing voters into the Republican camp this election?

Fred Smith: With barbeques (Actually his answer was a lot longer, but this boils it down to the essentials).

Pat McCrory: By forming coalitions with Democrats. (He must think he’s running in the General Election; Republican voters probably aren’t interested in his skill at forming coalitions with Joe Hackney and Marc Basnight).

It went on that way until Pat McCrory said he had sixteen years (I may be off by a year or two) experience running government as a Mayor and City Councilman; then Fred Smith sat up and said, Wait a minute. That’s all the experience you’ve got? Running government? That doesn’t sound too good.

It was like a breath of fresh air.  

And Smith wasn’t done. When McCrory said he wanted to change the State Constitution to make the Governor accountable for the quality of the schools, Smith retorted, That just shows you don’t understand government. The governor is accountable now. 

This time Bob Orr piled on, taking a backhanded swipe at McCrory too, saying, McCrory’s plan sounded so much like his own that for a moment he thought McCrory had ‘hacked’ into his computer.

Then Smith opened the window wider still. 

After Bill Graham waxed eloquent about his plan to cut government spending, Smith shot back, That’s not a plan that’s just talk.

After the debate the pundit’s generally gave McCrory or Graham the thumbs up. But my guess is the folks at WRAL – who generously gave an hour of free television time to the four candidates – were silently thanking Fred Smith for making the debate interesting. Here’s my abbreviated synopsis:

It’s not his fault but Bill Graham looks like an aging teenager. Gravitas is an over-used word but Graham needs more.

Pat McCrory’s talking to the wrong people – independents and swing voters.

The jinx was on Pat McCrory last week. When his campaign emailed out a press release and misspelled the word governor (spelling it governer) a little contrition would have solved the problem. But McCrory’s Campaign Manager, Victoria Smith, compounded the error with a second mistake, saying the misspelling was sabotage – they’d been ‘hacked.’

Then, minutes later, McCrory’s campaign made a third mistake. The reporter asked another spokeswoman. She said the misspelling was an error by an overworked graphics designer.

The reporter diligently called McCrory’s manager back; in the blink of an eye she made a fourth mistake. She said: The spokeswoman was new. She was wrong. They’d been hacked.

Then the jinx struck with a passion. While talking to the manager the reporter was also, apparently, looking at the sabotaged press release on a computer screen; in front of the reporter’s eyes, though the mysterious ways of the Internet, the error was corrected. GovernEr became governor. The startled reporter asked how that happened. McCrory’s manager said the hacker must have corrected it. (Fifth mistake.)

At the end of the day, when Pat McCrory finished explaining his vision for the state at his announcement he weighed in to clean up the mess. There was no hacker.

The moral? The next morning McCrory’s hacker made the front page of the News and Observer. McCrory’s announcement was in the second section and Gary, on behalf of Democrats, wrote a blog saying, ‘Pat, whatever you do hold onto that campaign manager.’

During his announcement Mayor McCrory said he was going to run a “garage band” campaign with no high-priced consultants and no one to tell him what to do. Maybe he’s carrying it a bit too far.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

There’s a point to Smith’s bluntness. Pat McCrory is largely known outside Charlotte.  Smith means to correct that.  By telling voters who McCrory is. Before McCrory does.

Now in a Republican Primary when somebody calls you a liberal those are fighting words. But McCrory didn’t put up much fight at all. He told The News and Observer he’s going to stay positive. Nice sentiment. Big mistake.

McCrory’s has the endorsements of former Governor’s Jim Holshouser and Jim Martin, $300,000 in the bank (left-over from his last Mayor’s campaign) and a base in Charlotte. But if Fred Smith tags him as a liberal none of that will matter.

Pat, next time Fred Smith calls you a “tax and spend liberal,” you’d better come out swinging.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

Forty years ago, the Democratic Party blew up over race.  Can it happen again?

In 1968, Richard Nixon and George Wallace invited conservative whites to leave the Democratic Party.  They did – in droves.

Today, Democrats seem at risk of fracturing over race again.

It got this bad: Some Democrats seriously suspect that Hillary Clinton and Bill – the so-called first black President – were playing the race card to deal out Obama.

At the same time, there was an outbreak of clumsy-foot-in-mouth disease.  Black and white Democrats alike could not seem to avoid racially charged words, rhetoric and metaphors.

This is a heck of a way to observe Martin Luther King’s birthday.

Here is what we don’t want to see in South Carolina: A poll showing that, say, 80 percent of African-Americans are voting for Obama and 80 percent of whites are voting for Clinton or John Edwards.

Obama and Clinton pulled back from the precipice in the last debate.  But with South Carolina’s primary a week away and the stakes growing, there could be another blowup.  Race is so central – and so sensitive – that it would not take much of a spark.

Can’t we all get along?

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

Hold the mayo on the John Edwards Is Toast Special.

It is unlikely that Edwards will win the Democratic nomination.  But this race has already seen five unlikelies – the rises of Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee and the resurrections of Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Mitt Romney.

Four reasons to watch Edwards:

• Money.  His campaign has it.  He probably wishes now he hadn’t resorted to public financing.

• Trippi.  Chief strategist Joe Trippi has spent his life running insurgent campaigns that lasted longer than expected.

• Message.  Edwards believes he wrote the music that Obama and Clinton are singing.  With some justification.

• Messenger.  Edwards often puts in the best debate performances.

And what’s to lose by staying in?  Obama or Clinton could implode.  Or destroy each other.

Even if they don’t, Edwards could hold the balance of power.  He could nail the door shut on Hillary today if he endorsed Obama.

Or he could get 15 percent in some states and collect delegates.  Then he could go to Obama (or, less likely, Hillary) – now or at the convention – and say: Here’s the nomination.  And here’s the price: Put me on the ticket.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

Dear Pat:

Victoria Smith is doing a fine job as your campaign manager.  Don’t let her go.

You’re the Democrats’ biggest worry in the Governor’s race.  You’re the only Republican who is moderate enough to give us a run in November.

North Carolinians may elect Senators in the mold of Jesse Helms (Fred Smith) or John Edwards (Bill Graham).  But they elect Governors like Jim Hunt, Jim Martin and Mike Easley: moderates who are both pro-business and pro-education.  Business-like people who can run a government with competence and vision. 

You concern me, Pat, because you fit that model.

So I hoped you would be done in by Smith and Graham.  I hoped they’d spend some of their millions trashing you for your transit tax.

I hoped for a rerun of 1996.  I was running Hunt’s (fourth) campaign for Governor.  Richard Vinroot, another moderate Charlotte mayor with a good record, scared me. Fortunately, Robin Hayes and the right-wingers headed Vinroot off at the pass.  Hayes was the perfect opponent for us.

But now, Pat, your own campaign turns out to be your biggest obstacle.

Never has a campaign staffer done a better job of upstaging the candidate on announcement day.  She managed to make your campaign look both incompetent and dishonest.

She is definitely a keeper, from where I sit.

P.S. Please let us know when she finds the hacker who misspelled Governor.  It may be the same nefarious villain who puts the typos in my blogs.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

Now Beverly Perdue’s new TV ad talks about her support for Smart Start.

I take great pride in this.  Not that I had anything to do with Governor Hunt developing the program.  But I did come up with the name.

I didn’t steal it from the cereal.  Our Smart Start came first.  In fact, I’m thinking of suing Kellogg’s for copyright infringement.  I’m sure I stole it from somewhere else, but I don’t remember where.

Anyway, it’s now 16 years later.  Seven years after Hunt left office.  And Democrats are still bragging about Smart Start.

That’s brand power.

Over 16 years, I wrote millions of words for Hunt.  Speeches, papers, op-ed articles, statements, news releases, etc., etc. 

Those are the best two words I wrote.

A footnote: Hunt always said watching his grandchildren grow up showed him the importance of early childhood programs.  Carolyn Hunt is said to have retorted that, if he’d been home when his children were growing up, we might have had Smart Start his first term.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

Jack Nichols, running for State Senate in Wake County, has an interesting strategy.  He has been running TV ads on cable news during busy political times.

His consultants, Mike Davis and Perry Woods, say the ads are aimed at high-information primary voters.

The strategy makes sense.  So does the message: Jack is a progressive who played a key part in Smart Start in Wake County.  (If only the ads said, “Jim Hunt’s Smart Start program.”)

The question is: Will the ads run past Tsunami Tuesday, February 5?

If you’re going on TV, stay on TV.  Otherwise, voter recall slips. 

Josh Stein, who’s also running in the primary, says he has raised $133,000.  How long before he goes on TV?

The first campaign I worked in was 1976.  Jim Hunt’s first race for Governor.  Joe Grimsley, the campaign manager, had a sign in his office that said “GOTV.”  I thought it meant “Get On TV.”  Turned out it was “Get Out the Vote.”

I still like Get On TV.  The candidate who does first usually wins.  If he or she stays on.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

All I know about the Moore-Perdue debate is what I read in the N&O.  And I see three points for Perdue:

• At first her attack on Moore for the Randy Parton-Local Government Commission looked like a reach.  The N&O wrote that it was an overreach.  But this dog may bite.  At the least, anybody who lay down with it may have fleas.

• Her “Main Street versus Wall Street” line has legs.  Especially with the money Moore raised from Wall Street.

• And did Moore really mean to suggest there is something wrong with her being born in Virginia? 

Does he know how many voters were born in other states? 

Does he think that somebody who was in the legislature for 14 years and Lieutenant Governor for seven somehow is not a real North Carolinian? 

Does he suspect she’s a Manchurian candidate, waiting to get into the Governor’s Office to betray our secret plans to her scheming masters in Richmond?

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.