Pure Horserace: Out-Foxed?
For the second time in the campaign, Democratic presidential hopefuls are giving Fox News Channel the brush-off by declining invitations to participate in debates co-sponsored by the cable news channel.
Fulfilling a role he played last month, John Edwards was the first candidate to say no thanks to the debate — which is scheduled for September and co-sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton followed suit on Monday, leaving the future of the event up in the air.
Edwards received a great deal of applause from Democratic activists when he was the first to back out of a debate last month that was to be co-hosted by Fox and the Nevada Democratic Party. That entire event ended up cancelled after Democrats took umbrage at comments made by Fox News head Roger Ailes about Barack Obama — but it appears the underlying dynamic is much larger than that.
As Edwards' deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince explained in a statement about the Fox-CBC event: "There's just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending to be objective." That's a theme being sounded by Democratic bloggers and activists online, many of whom have been calling for candidates to boycott these Fox News events.
Aside from gaining the favor of those in the party who see Fox as, in Prince's words, pushing a "right-wing agenda," there's another interesting benefit for top-tier candidates to spurn these debates — injury avoidance.
Edwards, Clinton and Obama have little interest at this point in the campaign of filling up their schedules with debates or joint appearances with the entire field. Putting 10 candidates on a stage provides lesser-known (and much lesser-funded) candidates an opportunity to be heard. But for well-oiled machines that already get plenty of free media attention, it can be a diminishing experience.
Such debates sometimes force front-runners to take on issues they'd rather play down — or even expose them to missteps they'd rather not make. The DNC has announced that it will sanction a series of six debates for the primary season. Throw in a few more politically sensitive events and that's plenty for the big three in the field. In 2004, Democrats seemed to move from one joint appearance to the next, much to the delight of some — and the frustration of others.
Turning down the Fox debates is something of a win-win for the three Democrats consistently leading in the measurable campaign categories of polling and fund-raising. It lets them satisfy a segment of activists while helping to keep a lid on debate proliferation.
A First Among Firsts: Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman to appear on a major-party's presidential ticket, has endorsed the candidate with perhaps the best shot ever at winning the top job. Ferraro is backing Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, and the 1984 vice presidential nominee said her support is based more on the gender of the candidate.
"By electing Hillary Clinton, we can smash the ultimate glass ceiling once and for all," Ferraro said in a statement released by the campaign, adding that, "in doing so, we will be electing the most qualified and experienced candidate for President."
This is the tone we're certain to hear repeated often over the course of this campaign, a combination of sisterhood and qualifications. The message: Sure, she could become the nation's first woman president, but gender is in many ways secondary to her ability to do the job.
It's certainly no surprise that Ferraro would be backing Clinton in this race — just as it's not been shocking that the New York senator has compiled a hefty list of establishment support. But it has been a bit jarring to have so many endorsements so early in this race. The backing of high-profile political figures sometimes has more impact coming at crucial times — right before a debate or primary in a strategic location, for example.
The early backing given for 2008 may be of more value given the crush of early — and big — primaries that will be held early next year. Having all that support means Ferraro can be dispatched to work the New York circuit, Tom Vilsack can hold down Iowa and Bill Shaheen can step in for New Hampshire purposes. And, of course, Bill Clinton can be a surrogate just about anywhere, at least for the primaries. Having a big team could allow Clinton to wage a far more energetic effort without requiring her to be in many places at once. For once, these endorsements may have real value — maybe.
Quick Take: Clinton and Rudy Giuliani continue to lead in the latest Gallup poll. Both have increased their leads since last month, with Clinton ahead of Obama 38% to 19% and Giuliani in front of John McCain 38% to 16%. McCain and Obama both dropped from 22% in the March poll, with McCain falling a little further.
Does Anyone "Run For Second?" Obama has raised about $25 million for his presidential campaign, and he's gotten as much coverage, if not more, than any other potential candidate in the race. And, get this: He's not running to be the vice presidential nominee.
Yes, that was the big news coming out of Obama's appearance on David Letterman's "Late Show," where he proclaimed he is not running "for second" when the host raised the possibility of a Clinton-Obama ticket. Seems like a silly issue. Would any candidate ever say they were?
Editor's Note: Pure Horserace is a daily update of political news as interpreted by the political observers at CBSNews.com. Click here to sign up for the e-mail version.
By Vaughn Ververs