Hillary Clinton Goes For Corporate Sponsorship In Debate.

There has been lots of finger-pointing from each presidential candidate ---Senator Obama and Senator Clinton ---regarding fund-raising issues. Obama has accused Clinton of taking too much money from lobbyists and corporate interests. And Clinton has accused Obama on fudging numbers on how many actual donors he has.

But the Thursday night CNN debate revealed something troubling about Senator Clinton’s campaign fund-raising. The new issue in this race is "product placement".

Apparently, this might be a new way for a candidate to get their hands on corporate cash, but is it with the campaign finance rules? It is not a donation, per se----the corporate entity is getting some value out of the exchange, but is it kosher?

For those of you unfamiliar with ‘product placement’...

“Product placement advertisements are promotional ads placed by marketers using real commercial products and services in media, where the presence of a particular brand is the result of an economic exchange...Product placement occurs with the inclusion of a brand's logo in shot, or a favorable mention or appearance of a product in shot. This is done without disclosure, and under the premise that it is a natural part of the work. Most major movie releases today contain product placements."

When a TV sitcom family sits down for breakfast, and has a box of Frosted Flakes with Tony the Tiger’s face prominently displayed, that means that Kellogg’s gets a good plug.

Or, for example, in the movie, “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial”, the stranded alien gets hooked on Reeses Pieces, which increased sales of the candy’s sale by eighty percent. Sometimes it’s done rather inconspicuously as when a bag of Wise potato chips or empty diet-Coke can is placed on the table in the lunch room at the hospital on “E.R.”

Well, on the CNN debate between Obama and Clinton, it seems that Clinton may have engaged in some product placement dollars coming her way. This, from a well-known maker of copiers with the following exchange regarding her charge of plagiarism lodged against her opponent.

Obama: “…we’re starting to get in to the silly season of politics…”

Clinton: “…It’s not change you can believe in, it’s change you can Xerox.”

And the crowd may have contained more fans of the other photocopier companies---like Canon or Ricoh ---because they certainly booed Hillary.

What’s next for product placement in the presidential race? Nike Shoes sponsoring candidates walking in a New York City parade? Gerber’s sponsoring the kissing of babies? An underwear company sponsoring the popular campaign theme of ‘change’?

And it won’t end there—what if Hillary becomes president ---will Swanson's Dinners sponsor state dinners? Will Continental Airlines sponsor flights of Air Force One? Or maybe movie promos for the movie Air Force One on Air Force One?

It’s a slippery corporate slope, folks. Also, as a lawyer, Hillary should know not to use the trademarked term "Xerox" in such a generic manner.

Comeback? Oh, You kid.

The big watch word for the expectation game in the first two presidential contests is "comeback". 

Not as in "Come back, Little Sheba" or "Shane! Come back, Shane!" But as in the public thought a particular candidate was not going to win, and he/she showed'em!

It's an interesting strategy that has no down side. If the public does not expect much, and you give them more ---voila! They're fooled in to thinking you're all shiny now.

 It's what President Bill Clinton did in New Hampshire in 1992 with finishing second behind Paul Tsongas. It's what Bush did to Gore in the first debate.

Both Hillary and McCain declared themselves 'the comeback kids', for their showing in New Hampshire.

But now, back to Hillary and Barack: Here is what my good buddy Thurman Hart has to say about the whole deal. He expresses some insightful thoughts on the 'comeback' issue, much better than I can:

Delegate Check…and Reality

For whatever reason, Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary. Barack Obama was second with John Edwards making an honorable mention...

Going into New Hampshire, Hillary had 169 delegates, Obama had 66, and Edwards had 47. After New Hampshire, Hillary has 183, Obama has 78, and Edwards has 52. This means Hillary picked up 14, Obama picked up 12, and Edwards added 5. So the ultimate effect of New Hampshire was to add to Hillary’s delegate lead by two.

But let’s not get carried away. Despite the flurry of polling in the last 24 hours before the vote, this is not a comeback. Consider the following sports analogy:

A football team is favored by 17 points going into the game and at halftime they have that covered. In the third quarter, the challenger pulls even. Based on momentum, you could expect the challenger to win. But, lo and behold, the expected winner actually wins by a field goal. Did they launch a comeback? Or did they just manage to (barely) meet expectations of winning?
Something to think about, if you took the challenger at 17 points, you’d win your bet.

It wasn’t a comeback. Either the polls all had it very wrong or the over-anxious media coverage actually changed the actual votes. Either Obama’s supporters stayed home because they figured he’d win or people felt sorry for Hillary. Or maybe things just worked out that way for no particular reason.

But it wasn’t a comeback.

Real Message Out of New Hampshire: Vote Democratic

The real message out of New Hampshire was that people voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidates. This bodes well for November, whether the Democratic presidential candidate is Obama or Clinton or Edwards.

New Hampshire is an open primary state. This means that anyone, regardless of political party affiliation, can vote for anyone they choose. In a sense, a Barack Obama has as much to fear from a Hillary Clinton as he does from a John McCain.

But here are the numbers from the January 8th NH primary, with 91% of the districts reporting:

Democrats Vote %

Clinton 102,486---- 39%
Obama 95,263---- 36
Edwards 44,283---- 17
Richardson 11,943---- 5

Republicans Vote %

McCain 81,005 ----- 37%
Romney 69,132 -----32
Huckabee 24,364 -----11
Giuliani 18,763 -----9

As you can see, even with Obama in second place behind Hillary, he scored with enough New Hampshire independent voters to outpace McCain, the Republican leader. In 2000, McCain won New Hampshire, and his style still resonates with the independent thinking New Hampshirians. New Hampshirites? New Hampshirers?

Anyway you define them, the folks from the Granite State were rock solid for the Dems.

Don't Huck This Up

How will the assets and liabilities of the
candidates in Iowa pan out?

My prediction for Iowa:

Some candidate will become a noun and/or an adjective. You know, like, pull a "Howard Dean" ---the media created that one.

What and who will it be? Will it be [years from now] ----

"He certainly Hillary'd that race!" ---started out the leader, and then fizzled out at the end.

Or "He Hucked that up".

Or "Wow. Just like Obama."

"He was too Rudy for the South"

You get the drift.

Age before beauty

“Three out of five New Jersey voters are concerned about Sen. Frank Lautenberg's age and think it's about time for someone else to take his job, a new Rutgers-Eagleton poll released yesterday shows. It is the second poll this summer in which the incumbent's age emerged as a major issue with voters. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) would be 84 at the start of a new term.” (Donohue, Star-Ledger)

In the Senate race, 60% of the voters are concerned about Senator Lautenberg’s age [83]. Of course, he is more experienced, accomplished and energetic than people half his age. But the ‘age’ issue will weigh heavy in the election. For those on the Republican side of the aisle, who consider this an issue, here is your political doyen, Ronald Reagen on the issue of ‘age’:

In other news: Although the calendar reads 2007, 2008 is floating closer and closer in the minds of all New Jersey politicos, with 2009 not too far in the rear-view mirror.

The presidential races are in full swing and it is a two-horse race everywhere between Hillary and Obama, with John Edwards shouting “But what about me?” somewhere in the distance.

Me, I lean toward Bill Richardson, the candidate with the most experience in the race:
Clinton Administration Cabinet member. UN Ambassador. Governor. Congressman.

He does not have the best bank account or the best hair or was he the funniest on The Tonight Show. But he is the person I would like to see in charge on January 20th, 2009.