Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Fix Picks: Tired on the Trail

Every day the schedules of the presidential candidates arrive in The Fix mailbox. And every day we marvel at how much travel these men (and woman) are doing with 249 days still left before the Iowa caucuses. (You can follow the candidates yourself with our new campaign tracker.)

Make no mistake. Running for president has always been an incredibly rigorous process. But, the frontloading of the primary calendar -- with western states like Nevada and California joining eastern states like New Jersey and New York in scheduling early elections -- makes coast to coast flights a necessity. It's not the rule not the exception for candidates to be in Florida, California and New York in the space of a day or two.

Add to that the fact that cell phone cameras and other recording devices have become de rigueur on the campaign trail and it becomes clear that the candidates who will win their respective party nominations are not necessarily those who can give the best speech under ideal circumstances but rather the candidates best able to stay on message and disciplined even when he or she is dog-tired.

We've already seen what can happen to a candidate who loses focus even for an instant or two. Earlier this week in Richmond, Virginia Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) mistakenly said that 10,000 people had been killed in a tornado that wiped out an entire Kansas town. The actual number of deaths was 12. Later in the speech. Obama seemed to seek to explain away the blunder as a result of fatigue. "There are going to be times when I get tired," he said. "There are going to be times when I get weary. There are going to be times when I make mistakes." (View the video on our partner site, PrezVid.com)

My colleague Anne E. Kornblut penned a piece at the end of last month in the Post that appears prescient in light of the Obama incident.

Remember that these presidential campaigns are not a battle of who is the best candidate under ideal circumstances. They are a long slog that tends to reward the steady and consistent candidate over the candidate with high highs and low lows.

Watch closely to see how the campaign trail wears on each of the Big Six candidates over the next months. Do the candidates' handlers try to limit their access to the media or even skip a big event here or there to try and preserve their boss' strength for down the line? And if not, does a blunder made after a cross-country flight wind up seriously impacting one or more of their campaigns?

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 10, 2007; 12:51 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Parsing the Polls: Religion in Public Life
Next: Wag the Blog: Readers Sound Off on Segolene and Hillary

Comments

If Obama cannot even get his facts straight during the campaign because he is tired, what is he going to do if he is President? Does he think he is going to be getting a lot of rest then?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 13, 2007 12:49 AM | Report abuse

Bhoomes is like Saddam was - unpleasant, but largely contained by sanctions. The president has often attempted to link him to the Tarheel / Sandlea / Trotsky / Zouk "axis of evil," but so far without success.

Posted by: Rumsfeld | May 11, 2007 11:01 PM | Report abuse

Heh, heh, it's 'Beavis.' Yeah, 'Beavis.'

Posted by: Beavis | May 11, 2007 10:51 PM | Report abuse

Heh heh... not "Bhoomes." Heh, it's "Beavis." Yeah, "Beavis."

Posted by: Beavis | May 11, 2007 10:50 PM | Report abuse

"Bhoomes" is a quasi-legendary bogeyman, often used to frighten children. Neo-cons often try to associate him with the "King of Zouk," but while some of his followers have been seen in Zouk since the current embargo was put in place, he has never been conclusively linked to the secretive kingdom. However, knowledge of what goes on beyond its borders is extremely limited, due to the almost complete isolation of Zouk from outside news sources.

Posted by: Kim Jong Il | May 11, 2007 10:48 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes? I have no idea what that reference is to.

Posted by: JD | May 11, 2007 8:11 AM | Report abuse

I absolutely love it, Obama has made a number of gaffes now as well as having put in a relatively poor debate performance. What a shame!

the thing about all those true blue obama supporters is...

they actually don't know what they like about him! After all, they couldn't say what he stands for.

go hillary.

Posted by: thomas | May 11, 2007 2:52 AM | Report abuse

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

Posted by: anonymous | May 11, 2007 12:39 AM | Report abuse

proud - BTW the President is not CIC when it comes to non-military matters. He's simply our leader.

Maybe even the Decider or even Commander Guy, but not CIC.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 10, 2007 7:15 PM | Report abuse

HogGuy - They had to have been talking about credible news operations.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 10, 2007 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Barely reported--not picked up by any media outlets but the SF Chronicle...

Also Fox news.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271216,00.html

This is the second time today someone has said something wasn't covered or was barely covered and it was on FOX FOX FOX.


Posted by: Razorback | May 10, 2007 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Barely reported--not picked up by any media outlets but the SF Chronicle. Excellent legislation, LONG overdue:

'(05-10) 04:00 PDT Washington -- The Senate overwhelmingly approved a landmark drug-safety bill Wednesday, doubling the number of government scientists assigned to ferret out risky side effects in medicines already on the market.

The bill also would create a computerized network to scan medical insurance and pharmacy records for signs of trouble with new drugs, and significantly expand the Food and Drug Administration's power to require drugmakers to reduce risks.

"This is unquestionably the biggest change in the FDA's regulatory authority in a very long time," said former FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan. "It is really a new era for the FDA that will start after this law is implemented."

The Senate bill was drafted in response to highly publicized safety lapses, including the belated withdrawals of the painkiller Vioxx and the diabetes drug Rezulin, as well as the FDA's tardy warning about the suicide risks of antidepressants. A tougher version is expected to emerge from the House in coming weeks.

The Senate bill also responds to consumer complaints about misleading drug advertising by setting up a voluntary program through which the FDA would review television commercials before they are aired.'

Finally, oversight. Congress does it duty. Thank God -- many lives will be saved.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 10, 2007 6:32 PM | Report abuse

'Drindl, I think you will find we are more interested in taxes, war, environment, poverty, education, justice, energy, etc.'

Have you just joined the democratic party, koz?

Posted by: drindl | May 10, 2007 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Drindl, I think you will find we are more interested in taxes, war, environment, poverty, education, justice, energy, etc.

We also want to win, so there will be some swallowing of pride as I am sure many Democrats will contemplate eventually. I think rudy can get a substantial chunk of the center. will the Dem candidate be able to do that, or will she risk losing the left? rudy is not racing to the right to get the nomination. He may pay dearly. If he survives he may be the only non-pandering pol left. that would be a good claim against certain opponents.

It seems the press and the Democrats are the ones interested in those topics. Gun control is not going anywhere fast. abortion is likewise stuck where it is for the forseeable future. these wedge issues are getting so tired.


If we're lucky, maybe he'll expand on his statement yesterday that we withdrew from the Middle East in the 90s."
I don't know what you are talking about. Try me again tomorrow.

It is actually quite pleasant on this blog when ignorant coward isn't shoveling his BS.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 10, 2007 6:09 PM | Report abuse

blarg notes
"If we're lucky, maybe he'll expand on his statement yesterday that we withdrew from the Middle East in the 90s."

Perhaps he's confusing decades & is remembering Reagan's cut 'n run from Lebanon.

Posted by: bsimon | May 10, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

I just heard that Rudy not only gave money to Planned Parenthood, he even spoke at one of their national events. Plus, he's also in favor of gun control and he stayed with two friends of his, a couple of gay men, afer he left his second wife. Not a problem for me, but how about the gop? Just wondering.

Posted by: drindl | May 10, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

I have friends who attended the rally in Richmond. They had nothing but great things to say about Obama, calling him inspiring, and left wanting to get more involved with his campaign. Cleary, a few verbal mishaps aren't going to stop his supporters, who are numbering more and more daily.

Posted by: lawstudent | May 10, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

"Abortion" as a legal issue is different than it is as a political issue, and Giuliani's response made more sense to me than to many of you. Why?

In Roe v. Wade, the arguing point that "persons born..." had rights which the states could not infringe was critical. Texas argued that a fetus was "born" at conception. Weddington argued that "born" meant, well, born. The Court split the difference and said that born meant born - or viable outside the mother. The legal argument is NOT about when "life" begins, its about who is BORN.

So when Giuliani said a strict constructionist Justice could go either way he was perhaps the first recent Rep or Dem who actually was not pandering and promising a litmus test, one way or the other.

He gets points from me for that.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | May 10, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

House Dems, GOP Face Off Over Homeland Security Bill

Leaders from both sides of the aisle in the House of Representatives clashed over legislation to authorize programs at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi hailed the measure, while a top Republican dismissed it as weak and flawed.

http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/house-dems-gop-face-off-over-homeland.html

Posted by: Anonymous | May 10, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Carter, Mondale, Kerry, Gore, Dukakis

the sole victory was when you abandoned the tax and spend and the surrender now mantra with clinton 1. I could have gone back much further to include the Eisenhower and Nixon era. so the fact is since about 1964, you have won three elections - one after watergate and the other with Ross perot taking out the middle. Are you proud of that accomplishment? In the same way you will be proud of losing in Iraq? do you like to lose?

Can't you Libs even count to five? I knew you were bad at math and econ but really, are the government schools near you really that bad?

In typical style you have ignored the main point I made and tried to discredit the idea with nonsense. No wonder you lose when anyone is paying attention. not like the last election when interest was low. the tax and surrender platform is a sure loser in 2008.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 10, 2007 4:52 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats have lost the last 5 elections?

I see that zouk has stopped caring whether his distortions of history are subtle. If we're lucky, maybe he'll expand on his statement yesterday that we withdrew from the Middle East in the 90s.

Posted by: Blarg | May 10, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

(actually, it was WTC-7 not 3. Anyway, the decision was questionable, and it will no doubt be addressed in the campaign. )

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 10, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, I agree with AA in the spirit of his/her comment.

Strictly speaking, Greensburg Kansas has a population of 1800 so I doubt that was the 10000 number Barack was thinking of. He must have been thinking of some other thing that involved the number 10000. But who cares?

Normal people recognize that this type of slip is no big deal.

Frankly, you really have to be a liar at heart to be hinting that it is a big deal.

Posted by: Golgi | May 10, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

drindl, calm down- I didn't say anyhting about Rudy and the firefighters. I think he has some splainin' to do regarding his placement of the command center at WT3, with all the diesel fuel there and after the first WTC attack.

I'm not opposed to pointing out mistakes on the R side. My candidate-of-choice isn't either- note McCain's longterm and ongoing disagreement with Bush on the way the war has been waged in Iraq from the git go.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 10, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse

the anti-abortion thing isn't working for the GOP anymore. the middle voters are more numerous than the christian right and there are other issues which will bring them in nervertheless. It is a good trade for Rudy or whoever. And he doesn't have to flip-flop to do it. Maybe explain himself better.

When will the Democrats realize that they should consider abandoning the "raise taxes and lower defense" losing approach. they have only lost the last 5 elections because of this. Are they willing to lose more for fidelity to the most left of thier voters. Are these the same voters who think that bush knew about 911 beforehand? do you really want to move toward them? It seems the GOP is learning and the Dems are not.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 10, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

' but could it be indicative of a new direction for the GOP in eliminating the anti-abortion litmus test?'

Was wondering about that myself, bsimon... I don't like Rudy because I know him-- he's really a creep--but at least he's not pandering like Mitty Hairboy.

Just can't stop yourself, can you, proud to make moronic statements, can't ever stop attacking and smearing dems. You live to hate, don't you? The firefighters don't like rudy fir a number of reasons, one of them being that he endangered their lives on 9/11, but you wouldn't care about that, would you?

Posted by: drindl | May 10, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

As for the firefighters and McCain, it didn't warrant a mention because the Unions are in the back pocket of dems anyway. Or is it the other way around?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 10, 2007 3:57 PM | Report abuse

And AA is right, this 10,000 thing is nothing.

Its not like Obama was trying to slide by an exaggeration the way some advocates always exaggerate the extent of various problems when asking for public funds.

Posted by: Razorback | May 10, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse

"what do you think Bush's trip to Greensburg was all about? At least partially it was an attempt to 'unpin' Katrina from his legacy. "

Sure Judge, but it's also Bush's job as CIC to support the citizenry in times of natural disaster/crisis. That's part of what a President does.

Obama isn't the president yet, or even an elected official from Kansas, so his quick swoop into town is a lot more suspect with reagrd to motivation, imo.

Every extreme weather event should not be followed by a parade of presidential candidates harping about Bush and Iraq.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 10, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse

drindl says:

"The firefighters--and the cops -- hate Guiliani here in NY."

Maybe the firefighters, but not the cops. Many cops endorsed his campaigns for mayor.


Posted by: Razorback | May 10, 2007 3:44 PM | Report abuse

COME ON, PEOPLE!!! What is the big deal about Obama mistakenly saying that 10,000 people died in Kansas when he meant to say that 10,000 people lived in the Kansas town hit by the tornado. If this is the only "dirt" that can be found against Obama, Obama should easily win the presidency.

Posted by: AA | May 10, 2007 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Is it just me, or does it seem like the conservatives/republicans have given up on their own party and are now just settling for attacking liberals/democrats?

In another non-sequiter, I'm a little conflicted on Giuliani and Romney. On the one hand, I think neither man is the right one for the job of cleaning up after Bush, but on the other, I admire both for their nuanced positions on abortion - though Romney less so, for his obviously pandering flip-flop. Neither will get my vote (if either gets the GOP nomination), but could it be indicative of a new direction for the GOP in eliminating the anti-abortion litmus test?

Posted by: bsimon | May 10, 2007 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Obama has had a bad couple of weeks?

Not in terms of the people who vote. This man recruited 40 thousand new donors in April. Yep, April. The gaffe nazis can't derail this train.

Posted by: randall | May 10, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

MES, Iowa -- GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Wednesday reports that his wife donated $150 to Planned Parenthood in 1994 aren't surprising given his position on abortion at the time.

"I was effectively pro-choice at that time," said Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, during a campaign stop in Iowa.

Romney insists that while he took a pro-choice stand until a couple of years ago, he has always personally opposed abortion. He added that his wife's donations say little about his positions on the matter.

A sign of the sensitivity surrounding Romney's abortion stance: An anti-abortion group's decision to give an award to Romney is drawing protests from those on both sides of the issue.

--an award for what? hypocrisy?

Posted by: for it before he was against it -- at the same time | May 10, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

The firefighters--and the cops -- hate Guiliani here in NY. that's because they know him. He's a major jerk.

And McCain's 'bomb Iran' -- that was either absolutely senile, or irresponsible pandering. It stank either way.

Posted by: drindl | May 10, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

I'll say McCain's "Bomb Iran" was a mis-step. He said it was by the Beach Boys, when it was in fact originally done by The Regents.

(that is intentional irony, by the by)

Posted by: Anonymous | May 10, 2007 3:09 PM | Report abuse

And if the IAFF's opinion means anything I'd say Guiliani is toast: "Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) was noticeably absent from the forum. The firefighters' union was set to send a letter to its members just prior to the forum blasting the mayor for what it said were callous and disrespectful actions following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The letter was never sent, but The Hill obtained a copy just before the forum was set to kick off."

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 10, 2007 3:09 PM | Report abuse

"Obama blundered while hastily trying to exploit the tragedy in Greensburg for political purposes. "

Aww c'mon, Proud, what do you think Bush's trip to Greensburg was all about? At least partially it was an attempt to 'unpin' Katrina from his legacy.

Neither individual is behaving in a surprising way by involving Greensburg. However, only Obama is trying to 'exploit' it while Bush is probably an angel of pure, heavenly mercy in your eyes. I expect more cynicism from you than that!

And as far as the IAFF is concerned "Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) failed to win the hearts or minds of the International Association of Fire Fighters at its presidential forum in mid-March, according to a survey taken at the time, IAFF President Harold Schaitberger told The Hill." (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/sens.-mccain-and-obama-fail-with-firefighters-union-2007-05-09.html)

Should we attribute your half-truth to fatigue or just rabid partisanship?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 10, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

A simple slip of the tongue or fatigue/confusion gets blown into 'exploitation' by miss proud to be slimeball.. figures. That's the R meme today... Democrats 'politicizing' tragedy.

Bush and Cheney and the whole party NEVER STOP politicizing 9/11. And everything else.

Posted by: Shaun | May 10, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

'Is anyone else sensing that this is the 21st-century version of Al Sharpton: more polished, more inspirational, more articulate, but with no more accurate handle on the facts.'

what an extraordinarily racist thing to say.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 10, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Callie369 says:

"Ron Paul leads in the MSNBC polls. What is with the media (including MSNBC) ignoring him?"

Is this the vote as many times as you want computer poll. All of the anti war libs voted for Paul, the same way all of the Repubs (myself included) declared Kucinich and Gravel as the OBVIOUS winners of the Dems debate.

Get real Callie369. Like with McCain (bomb iran), its hard to tell if that is serious, a joke or some of both.

Posted by: Razorback | May 10, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Judge- The difference, as I see it, is that McCain's quip was trying to diffuse a not-so-funny question posed to him by a VFW guy.

Obama blundered while hastily trying to exploit the tragedy in Greensburg for political purposes. He was so intent on pinning another Katrina-like indictment on George Bush; I don't think it should be attributed to fatigue as much as rabid partisanship.

Add to that his heavy-handed takeover of a supporter's MySpace website, and that the International Association of Fire Fighters now state that Obama was thought to be "less on-point on our issues," came across as too "somber," and "just didn't fire them up." and he certainly has had a bad couple of weeks.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 10, 2007 2:36 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe we are even talking about this. It's so obvious he misspoke. Hasn't everyone? He didn't misspeak in any psychologically revealing way (a la George "Macaca" Allen); he simply said the wrong number. He obviously hasn't tried to argue that he meant what he said.

Posted by: THS | May 10, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

I predicted long ago that Obama would start making amatuer mistakes like this. they will contine and they will dog him. He is not a seasoned politician that is used to measuring each word before pronouncing it. this has its pleasant aspects too but in the end, the sound bite lazy media will doom him because of this. It might help if he actually released something substantial to discuss.

the McCain bomb comment was intentional and may be bad humor, but it wasn't a slip. It is not comparable. Attempts at humor have been the downfall of many politicians.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 10, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Chris writes
"They are a long slog that tends to reward the steady and consistent candidate over the candidate with high highs and low lows."

This theory explains how Kerry defeated Dean for the 04 Dem nomination. However, it would also seem that its not entirely accurate, as it only measures a limited span; the ultra-low-frequency waves may appear as 'consistent' but really just be the slow up or downs of a seriously monster wave. For instance, President Bush (& the GOP) is in one hell of a trough right now...

Posted by: bsimon | May 10, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse

C'mon guys, anybody who's really serious about running knows that facts about numbers of deaths from a tornado is simple.

For him to, shall we say, "exaggerate" that number by a factor of a thousand, is a major gaffe. Gee, if he's "tired," maybe he should give up those cigarettes, or whatever he's smoking.

Is anyone else sensing that this is the 21st-century version of Al Sharpton: more polished, more inspirational, more articulate, but with no more accurate handle on the facts.

His bail-out of U.S. automakers on their legacy healthcare costs is a nonstarter with me, and shows how out of touch he is.

Posted by: pacman | May 10, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

I think the new schedule doesn't so much punish anyone for a mental slip like Obama's, as it rewards candidates that are totally insulated. President Bush is the king of this, in the way that he only talks to favorable crowds and limits his exposure when not on stage to almost nothing.
In the current crop of candidates my impression is that Clinton and Guiliani are following this strategy too. Make a few speaches to show regular folks your out there and attend private parties to raise money from the big wigs. Then you can take that money and run tv ads on every television in the country. Its almost impossible to screw up your message on a well made TV ad.

Posted by: Andy R | May 10, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

"But Chris did mention the Bomb Iran comment. Made an entire post about it." Yes, I remembered that as well but thought it would be appropriate to bring it up here. McCain might've been tired when he tried to make this 'joke;' at his age who knows? We aren't machines; biology catches up to everyone at some point.

"Obama is pulling the tired card so early." I guess I'd wonder what his schedule has been like. Pretty grueling I suspect. Unfortunately, how much sleep everyone gets is neither documented nor is it a matter of public record. I wish it was.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 10, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul leads in the MSNBC polls. What is with the media (including MSNBC) ignoring him? I know...........the media has picked their candidate and are bsuy brain-washing the public.

Posted by: Callie369 | May 10, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

JD: Yes, Bush isn't running but it's just extremely annoying to see one specific molehill made into a mountain when the landscape is covered over with molehills many of which are larger than Obama's.

You called me 'Crater,' which reminds me of 'bhoomes.' Coincidence?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 10, 2007 1:31 PM | Report abuse

But Chris did mention the Bomb Iran comment. Made an entire post about it. First place where I read about it. So I don't see where the bias is in that. And saying 10,000 people died when only twelve did is a pretty big slip up. Imagine if he made the same mistake on Iraq, saying over 3 million American soldiers had died over there. How many times do you think you would see a video clip of that in commercials by his opponents? So I think it's valid to bring it up in this context.

Posted by: Jeff | May 10, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Although no-one can expect candidates to be perfect all the time, isn't it a bit worrying that Obama is pulling the tired card so early on - after all, he is running for an extremely tiring job where getting figures right (and not confusing south American capitals, ala Reagan) is important - if he is tired now, does he really have to stamina for a national campaign if he becomes the nominee?

Posted by: camguy | May 10, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Crater, give it a rest. Chris' blog has been mostly focused on the presidential candidates for many weeks now, and Bush ain't running.

Your McCain comment is fair though.

Posted by: JD | May 10, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and Obama's verbal miscue doesn't even come close to McCain's "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 10, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Funny how Chris didn't bring up George 'Macaca' Allen as the most obvious example of "a blunder...seriously impacting one or more of their campaigns." Or the hundreds (thousands?) of verbal blunders Bush has made over the past few years, none of which he covered in his blog.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 10, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Obama really has had a tough couple of weeks. I was right that he'd pull close to Hillary in polls and fundraising within 3-4 months of declaring simply for what his campaign represents. Now is when he needs to make the sale, though, and he's had a couple of major policy speeches... but contrary to my expectations he doesn't seem to be generating much more movement. If anything he's going in the opposite direction. Nor do I feel enthusiastic about the campaign right now. Hmmm...

Posted by: Nissl | May 10, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Anyone surprised a massive Iowa schedule for Richardson hasnt been released to roll out the new ads. Imagine that Obama will do so when he buys the first round...

http://www.richardsonforpresident.com

http://www.obamaforpresident.com

Posted by: iowa tracker | May 10, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Funny how quick the press is to jump on Obama at every opportunity.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 10, 2007 12:54 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company