It's 10:15 EST and the final Democratic debate just broke for commercial. I've been watching on and off. Each candidate has had good and bad moments but Clinton just made a huge unforced error.
Tim Russert asked a question tying Obama to Louis Farrakhan and Farrakhan's antisemitic comments. Obama denounced Farrakhan's antisemitism and spoke of how the Jewish community has supported Obama and his campaign. Obama took no shots at Clinton, and Russert's continual demand that Obama reject Farrakhan's endorsement left Obama just a little weaker. Nevertheless, Clinton took the opportunity to respond, highlighting how she's better at denouncing antisemitism than Obama and insist he reject Farrakhan's statement.
This enabled Obama to end the segment with a witty quip that if Clinton insisted that reject is stronger than renounce then he would concede the point and agree to reject Farrakhan's statement. Here Clinton managed to turn a strength into a weakness. The more this campaign continues the more she looks like she is political tone deaf and not nearly the quality of candidate that many thought she would be. I really think the story of this debate is not how effective Obama's message has been (it has been successful) but how poorly a campaign Clinton has run. She has lost this campaign far more than Obama has won.
A few quick comments regarding Russert's question:
It's nice that Russert asks tough questions, but his smug gotcha style is emblematic of one of the problems with today's media. On to the question - I'm no Obama fan, but the question, and Russert's continuous pushing were unfair. Obama's prior public statements and his choices in policy advisers run totally counter to his statement tonight, and do not indicate he is a strong supporter of Israel. That said, there is no evidence that Obama is antisemitic and Russert's attempt at guilt by association does not provide clarity to the primary race, it just plays on prejudice.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Is the Clinton camp dilusional or is it just arrogance?
The saying goes: pride comes before the fall. However, the fall of the Clinton campaign hasn't seemed to rid its leaders of their arrogance.
In the Fix - his blog on WashingtonPost.com - Chris Cillizza details the Clinton campaign's latest blueprint for victory. In a conference call, Howard Wolfson, Mark Penn, and Harold Ickes - a major portion of the Clinton braintrust - outlined the following "strategies" that will even things up between Clinton and Barack Obama.
Hmmm, okay, where's the battle plan, is a single actual strategy in there? No! Instead it is a list of hopes for future events to occur that will somehow magically shift the race. Most likely this "strategy" was presented to keep Clinton supporters from jumping ship and to energize donors and volunteers going into last ditch effort to save the nomination in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
However, the lack of critical self-assessment and even remote change in direction should dishearten anyone thinking of giving their time, money, or support to this campaign. Essentially Clinton's campaign strategists are saying, "even though we've been losing, now that the primaries move to bigger states and Obama will face more media scrutiny, voters will realize we've been right all along."
It's too late in the game for a wholesale change in tactics. But, if I were a Clinton supporter, I would certainly appreciate an acknowledgment that the current campaign message isn't getting through and that change is coming.
In the Fix - his blog on WashingtonPost.com - Chris Cillizza details the Clinton campaign's latest blueprint for victory. In a conference call, Howard Wolfson, Mark Penn, and Harold Ickes - a major portion of the Clinton braintrust - outlined the following "strategies" that will even things up between Clinton and Barack Obama.
1. Neither candidate will emerge from the primary fight with the 2,025 delegates needed to clinch the nomination.
2. Two Weeks is a Long Time in Political Terms.
3. Debates Matter.
4. Obama is the frontrunner = more scrutiny.
5. Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) emergence means national security will be the key issue of 2008.
6. Big States Matter More.
Hmmm, okay, where's the battle plan, is a single actual strategy in there? No! Instead it is a list of hopes for future events to occur that will somehow magically shift the race. Most likely this "strategy" was presented to keep Clinton supporters from jumping ship and to energize donors and volunteers going into last ditch effort to save the nomination in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
However, the lack of critical self-assessment and even remote change in direction should dishearten anyone thinking of giving their time, money, or support to this campaign. Essentially Clinton's campaign strategists are saying, "even though we've been losing, now that the primaries move to bigger states and Obama will face more media scrutiny, voters will realize we've been right all along."
It's too late in the game for a wholesale change in tactics. But, if I were a Clinton supporter, I would certainly appreciate an acknowledgment that the current campaign message isn't getting through and that change is coming.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
How Hillary Clinton can beat Barack Obama - an amateur's guide to victory
What Hillary Clinton needs to do to get strong wins in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania:
(1) The best defense is a smart offense:
Clinton needs to continue to attack Obama in order to bring down the messianic vision he has created of himself. Her problem so far has been that her campaign's attacks are more like blunt force trauma when they need to be precise, sharp, and to the point. Early attacks referenced Obama's admission of marijuana use many years ago and a kindergarten paper revealing his ambition to be president. These attacks were foolish and petty. They also made it easier to dismiss all future criticisms as desperate win-at-costs attacks from the Clinton machine.
Instead, she needs to offer direct, bite-sized criticisms challenging his rhetoric as empty and self-serving. Stay on the attack, but stick to attacks on his political substance and ability to govern and avoid cheap shots on his character.
(2) Highlight the difference between speaking and doing
Here again, Clinton's attempts have been botched and half baked. Minimizing the accomplishments of Martin Luther King, Jr. - whether intentional or not - when Clinton tried to claim that it took a president (LBJ) to pass the civil rights bill was poorly conceived, inaccurate, and just plain dumb. It alienated a lot of voters, sounded very arrogant, and minimized the accomplishments of an American icon. It also ceded Obama the role of MLK.
Instead, Senator Clinton needs to deny Obama that role. Martin Luther King wasn't simply a great speaker; his legacy is not simply defined by his speeches. Instead he acted - courageously and selflessly. He was wiling to suffer through police brutality and imprisonment in order to see his vision of a better society become a reality. Obama can borrow words from America's great leaders, but he has acted on any vision beyond his own ambition. Where is Obama's sacrifice? What is his vision of how to make America better, and what has he done / what is he willing to do to get there?
Obama talks about changing Washington? Clinton needs to get people asking what he's going to change it into, and most importantly, how is that change going to help Americans.
(3) Call out the difference between Obama's promises and what he will deliver
Building on (1) and (2), Clinton needs to challenge Obama on the difference between his actions and his rhetoric and challenge the gaps between his promises and what he will deliver. In doing this, Clinton must be careful to challenge what he will deliver and not claming he can't deliver. Democratic primary voters don't want to be told that their nominee can't get them what they want. Clinton won't win by scolding voters for being unrealistic. Instead, she needs to focus on the gaps between the ideas Obama talks about, and the actions he promises.
On health insurance for example, Obama promises "universal coverage" through a "build it and they will come" idealism. He claims, idealistically, that making health care cheaper will bring all Americans into the health insurance system - despite the fact that millions of uninsured Americans can afford health insurance, or qualify for government programs but aren't enrolled.
There's ammunition on other issues as well. Obama claims to be unaffected by money politics yet looks like he might go back on his decision to accept public funds in the general election.
Clinton should also agree to opt-in to public financing for the general election should she be the nominee - provided McCain does the same.
This will be hard for Clinton to do well. These criticisms need to be cordial and professional and avoid the personal negativity and fervor of her prior attacks. It will also be difficult because a lot of the difference between Obama's rhetoric and action lies in his partisanship. He claims he'll unite America and end partisanship yet he's consistently been one of the most liberal voices in Congress and is campaigning with Ted Kennedy a classic old-school liberal partisan. Clinton needs to find a way to claim bipartisan credentials without alienating too much of her party.
(4) Refine the message, use Obama's words against him
In a world of sound bites, Clinton's team has been very inept at using them. The most repeated sounds bites from her campaign so far are most likely those from President Clinton comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson, and referencing Obama's message as a fairy tale. Neither was a positive step for the campaign.
Clinton needs to use Obama's words against him. She needs to refine her message and her criticisms. Talk about how America needs hope and that hope is a good thing, but that we hope and dream for a better America. Convince them that Obama is only hoping to be president. She needs to convince voters that she doesn't just hope to change Washington, but to change government to better provide Americans with health insurance, better jobs, and economic growth. Convince Americans that she's not only hoped for, and talked about change, but worked towards it.
Obama tries to insulate himself behind the rhetoric of Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy, and FDR. Clinton shouldn't hide from this, she should use his words, his allusions, and remind voters that these men backed up their words with actions, that they dreamed of particular things - racial equality, and end to the depression, reaching the moon - and worked to get there.
(5) Less is more, evolve and get out of your own way
This is perhaps the hardest, yet most important for Clinton to accomplish. Obama is all ideas. It was an asset as a challenger, but should be exploited as a weakness now that he's the frontrunner. Being all about ideas allows people to interpret Obama's ideals as encompassing their own. It creates a connection between Obama and the voters. People don't know exactly what he'll do, but they hope as president, Obama will accomplish what they want.
Conversely, everyone knows what Clinton has done and will do as president. She's all policy all the time. Now, she needs to move away from her comfort zone and switch rolls. She needs to press Obama about policy specifics while making people believe she has hopes and dreams that the voters can be a part of. Most voters already know her policies, they know how smart she is. Voters understand how much Clinton knows about healthcare, they just don't translate this cold intelligence into passion. This is why Obama is pulling even in polls as to which one them would best handle healthcare. Obama is passionate about changing healthcare. Voters don't really know how he'll change it, so they insert their own ideas.
Clinton needs to convert a 15 minute conversation about the specifics of her healthcare policy into a 5 minute narrative about how much she wants to make it work. At this point, she needs to use her past experience to show she believes in it more than Obama, not that she knows more about it. If she can do this across the board she can put Obama on the defensive, forcing him to provide specifics.
She n
Hillary Clinton will never excite voters the way Barack Obama does. He appeals to voter's hearts in a way that Clinton's personality prevents her from doing. However, she can soften her tone and invite people to join her, instead of telling them it's the only smart thing to do. This is not a battle between emotion and logic; hope and experience are not mutually exclusive. Clinton must convince voters that she has both, and that makes her the better candidate. She needs to show that Obama's actions - past and present - reveal his passion and promises to be a construct of good speech writing and oratory skills, and not core beliefs that will make him an effective champion of voters' ideals. Ultimately, she needs to convince voters that her experience and knowledge is not an alternative to Obama's passion, but is proof of her own.
(1) The best defense is a smart offense:
Clinton needs to continue to attack Obama in order to bring down the messianic vision he has created of himself. Her problem so far has been that her campaign's attacks are more like blunt force trauma when they need to be precise, sharp, and to the point. Early attacks referenced Obama's admission of marijuana use many years ago and a kindergarten paper revealing his ambition to be president. These attacks were foolish and petty. They also made it easier to dismiss all future criticisms as desperate win-at-costs attacks from the Clinton machine.
Instead, she needs to offer direct, bite-sized criticisms challenging his rhetoric as empty and self-serving. Stay on the attack, but stick to attacks on his political substance and ability to govern and avoid cheap shots on his character.
(2) Highlight the difference between speaking and doing
Here again, Clinton's attempts have been botched and half baked. Minimizing the accomplishments of Martin Luther King, Jr. - whether intentional or not - when Clinton tried to claim that it took a president (LBJ) to pass the civil rights bill was poorly conceived, inaccurate, and just plain dumb. It alienated a lot of voters, sounded very arrogant, and minimized the accomplishments of an American icon. It also ceded Obama the role of MLK.
Instead, Senator Clinton needs to deny Obama that role. Martin Luther King wasn't simply a great speaker; his legacy is not simply defined by his speeches. Instead he acted - courageously and selflessly. He was wiling to suffer through police brutality and imprisonment in order to see his vision of a better society become a reality. Obama can borrow words from America's great leaders, but he has acted on any vision beyond his own ambition. Where is Obama's sacrifice? What is his vision of how to make America better, and what has he done / what is he willing to do to get there?
Obama talks about changing Washington? Clinton needs to get people asking what he's going to change it into, and most importantly, how is that change going to help Americans.
(3) Call out the difference between Obama's promises and what he will deliver
Building on (1) and (2), Clinton needs to challenge Obama on the difference between his actions and his rhetoric and challenge the gaps between his promises and what he will deliver. In doing this, Clinton must be careful to challenge what he will deliver and not claming he can't deliver. Democratic primary voters don't want to be told that their nominee can't get them what they want. Clinton won't win by scolding voters for being unrealistic. Instead, she needs to focus on the gaps between the ideas Obama talks about, and the actions he promises.
On health insurance for example, Obama promises "universal coverage" through a "build it and they will come" idealism. He claims, idealistically, that making health care cheaper will bring all Americans into the health insurance system - despite the fact that millions of uninsured Americans can afford health insurance, or qualify for government programs but aren't enrolled.
There's ammunition on other issues as well. Obama claims to be unaffected by money politics yet looks like he might go back on his decision to accept public funds in the general election.
Clinton should also agree to opt-in to public financing for the general election should she be the nominee - provided McCain does the same.
This will be hard for Clinton to do well. These criticisms need to be cordial and professional and avoid the personal negativity and fervor of her prior attacks. It will also be difficult because a lot of the difference between Obama's rhetoric and action lies in his partisanship. He claims he'll unite America and end partisanship yet he's consistently been one of the most liberal voices in Congress and is campaigning with Ted Kennedy a classic old-school liberal partisan. Clinton needs to find a way to claim bipartisan credentials without alienating too much of her party.
(4) Refine the message, use Obama's words against him
In a world of sound bites, Clinton's team has been very inept at using them. The most repeated sounds bites from her campaign so far are most likely those from President Clinton comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson, and referencing Obama's message as a fairy tale. Neither was a positive step for the campaign.
Clinton needs to use Obama's words against him. She needs to refine her message and her criticisms. Talk about how America needs hope and that hope is a good thing, but that we hope and dream for a better America. Convince them that Obama is only hoping to be president. She needs to convince voters that she doesn't just hope to change Washington, but to change government to better provide Americans with health insurance, better jobs, and economic growth. Convince Americans that she's not only hoped for, and talked about change, but worked towards it.
Obama tries to insulate himself behind the rhetoric of Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy, and FDR. Clinton shouldn't hide from this, she should use his words, his allusions, and remind voters that these men backed up their words with actions, that they dreamed of particular things - racial equality, and end to the depression, reaching the moon - and worked to get there.
(5) Less is more, evolve and get out of your own way
This is perhaps the hardest, yet most important for Clinton to accomplish. Obama is all ideas. It was an asset as a challenger, but should be exploited as a weakness now that he's the frontrunner. Being all about ideas allows people to interpret Obama's ideals as encompassing their own. It creates a connection between Obama and the voters. People don't know exactly what he'll do, but they hope as president, Obama will accomplish what they want.
Conversely, everyone knows what Clinton has done and will do as president. She's all policy all the time. Now, she needs to move away from her comfort zone and switch rolls. She needs to press Obama about policy specifics while making people believe she has hopes and dreams that the voters can be a part of. Most voters already know her policies, they know how smart she is. Voters understand how much Clinton knows about healthcare, they just don't translate this cold intelligence into passion. This is why Obama is pulling even in polls as to which one them would best handle healthcare. Obama is passionate about changing healthcare. Voters don't really know how he'll change it, so they insert their own ideas.
Clinton needs to convert a 15 minute conversation about the specifics of her healthcare policy into a 5 minute narrative about how much she wants to make it work. At this point, she needs to use her past experience to show she believes in it more than Obama, not that she knows more about it. If she can do this across the board she can put Obama on the defensive, forcing him to provide specifics.
She n
Hillary Clinton will never excite voters the way Barack Obama does. He appeals to voter's hearts in a way that Clinton's personality prevents her from doing. However, she can soften her tone and invite people to join her, instead of telling them it's the only smart thing to do. This is not a battle between emotion and logic; hope and experience are not mutually exclusive. Clinton must convince voters that she has both, and that makes her the better candidate. She needs to show that Obama's actions - past and present - reveal his passion and promises to be a construct of good speech writing and oratory skills, and not core beliefs that will make him an effective champion of voters' ideals. Ultimately, she needs to convince voters that her experience and knowledge is not an alternative to Obama's passion, but is proof of her own.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Obama Does Not Represent a New Generation of Ideas
This discussion on washingtonpost.com further exams the myth that Obama is the candidate of new ideas. People argue he represents new ideas which move the Democratic party out of the 60s and past the baby boomer generation.
Obama is a greater speaker, who's message of hope and change certainly play well, especially among younger voters. However, this message is hollow. As this video shows, average voters struggle to name a single accomplishment he's had. As long as it's working, this is a good strategy. And of all the political sins, misdirection is hardly high on list. However far worse than hollow, his message of change and of bipartisanship is disingenuous.
A quick look at Obama's website clearly indicates that his stance on the issues - what should be the substance of a campaign - is straight out of the liberal 60s playbook. Obama proposes an immediate withdrawal from Iraq which appeals to the far-left liberals with romantic remembrances of the 60s antiwar movement. His stance on Social Security virtually ignores the inherent instability of the entire system, proposing a tax increase to cover upcoming shortfalls. On virtually every issue he proposes expanding the roll of the Federal Government and paying for it with tax increases. This is not a message of change and certainly not a break from the liberal ideology of the 60s, the baby boomers in government for the last 20 years, or the liberal establishment in Washington.
Obama is a greater speaker, who's message of hope and change certainly play well, especially among younger voters. However, this message is hollow. As this video shows, average voters struggle to name a single accomplishment he's had. As long as it's working, this is a good strategy. And of all the political sins, misdirection is hardly high on list. However far worse than hollow, his message of change and of bipartisanship is disingenuous.
A quick look at Obama's website clearly indicates that his stance on the issues - what should be the substance of a campaign - is straight out of the liberal 60s playbook. Obama proposes an immediate withdrawal from Iraq which appeals to the far-left liberals with romantic remembrances of the 60s antiwar movement. His stance on Social Security virtually ignores the inherent instability of the entire system, proposing a tax increase to cover upcoming shortfalls. On virtually every issue he proposes expanding the roll of the Federal Government and paying for it with tax increases. This is not a message of change and certainly not a break from the liberal ideology of the 60s, the baby boomers in government for the last 20 years, or the liberal establishment in Washington.
Is McCain's Ego Running his Campaign?
Anyone following the recent news from the Republican has seen McCain attacked from the right by Rush Limbaugh or James Dobson. While some of their noise is clearly designed to keep themselves relevant, the run up to Super Tuesday, and the election itself is telling some interesting stories as of 10:00 EST.
Starting things off, McCain campaigned in Massachusetts in the lead up to Tuesday's election. Beating Romney in (one of) his home state(s) would be a huge win. However campaigning there when Georgia and Missouri were in play and he would be a long shot to win in Mass. is foolish. It also looks like McCain made an emotional/angry decision to attack Romney in his home state.
This could be part of a larger strategy to leave Huckabee to win heavily conservative states like Missouri and Georgia, where as of 10pm EST, Huckabee is leading. McCain is in second so if that holds he'll have beaten Romney in both states so it may not matter.
However, there is some question about the general-election implications of McCain focusing so much on the NE, and relying on their delegates. These are states that are extremely unlikely to go Republican in November, even with a moderate like John McCain on the ticket.
Regardless of the final outcome tonight, one does have to wonder about McCain's temperament and how it will play in November should he be the nominee. One reason many conservatives (like Dobson) don't like McCain is not simply because they disagree on certain issues. McCain has a habit of not only disagreeing with people, but also demeaning his opponents position.
I believe many of McCain's more liberal positions could be forgiven by conservatives if he showed greater respect for those that disagreed with him. Instead, often mimicking Democratic talking point, he attacked his opponents.
I firmly believe that come November, the vast majority of Republicans will set aside their differences and come out to fight the Democratic nominee. However, if McCain wins the nomination on the strength of moderate Republican and Independent voters and thumbs his nose at the conservative base he may be in trouble come November. If he continues is arrogant stand-off with the base, core conservatives may conclude that it's better to stay at home come November and pick up this fight again in the 2010 midterms and 2012 elections than suffer through a Republican presidency that does little to support Republican values.
Starting things off, McCain campaigned in Massachusetts in the lead up to Tuesday's election. Beating Romney in (one of) his home state(s) would be a huge win. However campaigning there when Georgia and Missouri were in play and he would be a long shot to win in Mass. is foolish. It also looks like McCain made an emotional/angry decision to attack Romney in his home state.
This could be part of a larger strategy to leave Huckabee to win heavily conservative states like Missouri and Georgia, where as of 10pm EST, Huckabee is leading. McCain is in second so if that holds he'll have beaten Romney in both states so it may not matter.
However, there is some question about the general-election implications of McCain focusing so much on the NE, and relying on their delegates. These are states that are extremely unlikely to go Republican in November, even with a moderate like John McCain on the ticket.
Regardless of the final outcome tonight, one does have to wonder about McCain's temperament and how it will play in November should he be the nominee. One reason many conservatives (like Dobson) don't like McCain is not simply because they disagree on certain issues. McCain has a habit of not only disagreeing with people, but also demeaning his opponents position.
I believe many of McCain's more liberal positions could be forgiven by conservatives if he showed greater respect for those that disagreed with him. Instead, often mimicking Democratic talking point, he attacked his opponents.
I firmly believe that come November, the vast majority of Republicans will set aside their differences and come out to fight the Democratic nominee. However, if McCain wins the nomination on the strength of moderate Republican and Independent voters and thumbs his nose at the conservative base he may be in trouble come November. If he continues is arrogant stand-off with the base, core conservatives may conclude that it's better to stay at home come November and pick up this fight again in the 2010 midterms and 2012 elections than suffer through a Republican presidency that does little to support Republican values.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Clinton Calculation
How can the media still not get it. Bill Clinton's South Carolina behavior was not an accident and more importantly, did not backfire. Clinton succeeded in making South Carolina about race, which provided the Clinton campaign an "excuse" for a primary they knew they would lose.
Furthermore, while there has been fallout, it's mostly focused among pundits and politicians and if the Clintons succeed in making the remaining primaries about race, the math indicates they'll come out ahead. This was certainly the goal of the Bill Clinton's "Jesse Jackson" comment. He wanted white voters to think that Obama is the black candidate only running for the nomination of "black America" and therefore wouldn't represent "white America" of he won.
This is identity politics at its worst. Personally, I think this is reprehensible. It also says a lot about what the Clintons will do to win and sheds new light on some of the dislike Republicans have had for the Clintons over the last 16 years.
Regardless, despite the opinion of some columnists that is based more on "h the facts, Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination. Sen. Kennedy's endorsement was just a slap in the face, not a game changer at all. Clinton still has double digit leads in the polls in California, New York, and New Jersey.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Shocking: Congress Wastes Tax-Payer Dollars
The Washington Post has an article today questioning the value of carbon offsets purchased by the US House of Representatives billed to the American tax payer.
Is anyone really surprised that Congressional Democrats are giving away money in the name of liberal special interests?
Is it a shock that people like Al Gore and former Goldman Sachs executive David Blood are championing carbon offsets when they are the ones taking the money?
If climate change is truly the problem that so many "the sky is falling" alarmists claim it is, let's have an honest debate about honest solutions. The first inconvenient truth is that is cost everyone a lot of money. It's not just corporations, or the rich who will bear the burden, it's everyone. Gas prices that are already hurting lower income Americans will increase, as will heating costs from natural gas.
Once average Americans learn that it is their actions that need to change, and their wallets that will be impacted, and not just ExxonMobile and George Bush, they'll take a better look at how real the problem is and the debate will move past ideological consensus to actual science.
If Congressional Democrats are truly concerned with global warming, wouldn't you prefer they change their behavior and spend their money and not your
Is it a shock that people like Al Gore and former Goldman Sachs executive David Blood are championing carbon offsets when they are the ones taking the money?
If climate change is truly the problem that so many "the sky is falling" alarmists claim it is, let's have an honest debate about honest solutions. The first inconvenient truth is that is cost everyone a lot of money. It's not just corporations, or the rich who will bear the burden, it's everyone. Gas prices that are already hurting lower income Americans will increase, as will heating costs from natural gas.
Once average Americans learn that it is their actions that need to change, and their wallets that will be impacted, and not just ExxonMobile and George Bush, they'll take a better look at how real the problem is and the debate will move past ideological consensus to actual science.
If Congressional Democrats are truly concerned with global warming, wouldn't you prefer they change their behavior and spend their money and not your
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Voter Turnout in South Carolina
Power Line has a new posting on the results from the Democratic primary in South Carolina. In it the author notes the much larger turnout for the Democrats versus the Republican primary in the state. He takes this as a sign that the trend continues in Democrats favor and may be a sign of things to come.
While in the abstract, there are positive signs for the Democrats, these aren't very transferable to the final match-up in November.
First of all, Republicans haven't made a clear choice in South Carolina or anywhere else. McCain, Romney, Huckabee, and perhaps Guiliani all appeal to different parts of the Republican coalition. All these candidates are also unappealing to each faction in-part as well. No candidate has been able to frame himself as appealing to the majority of Republicans as George Bush did in 2000. As a result, without a clear choice, Republicans are less excited about their candidates and less likely to vote in the primary. Most Republicans will unite behind the eventual winner, especially with a deft VP choice such as South Carolina's governor, Mark Sanford. Also, if Clinton is the Democrats nominee, she will serve to further unite and energize the Republican base.
On the Democrats side, primary voters are flooding to the polls in part due to the anger of the last two presidential elections. However, the biggest reason is likely Obama. He is a fresh face with a message of change that is really resonating with voters whose opinion of government (both parties) is at an all-time low.
If Clinton wins the nomination it is unlikely she'll be able to capture this excitement. She (and her husband) have begun running a very personal and negative campaign against Obama. This makes it likely she'll destroy the excitement of voters who have been drawn by Obama's image as an alternative to politics as usual. It is also likely that her tactics will leave many African-American voters with little desire to vote in the general election come November. Whether intentional or not, the Clintons personal attacks on Obama have a racists overtones that are seriously drying up the support for both Hillary and Bill Clinton among the African-American community.
All the indicators are there that would lead one to expect the Democrats to win the White House come November. However, when the competition changes from any Democrat v. any Republican to Clinton/Obama v. McCain/Romney both Republican candidates have attributes which hurt them in the primaries that are likely to help them in November.
While in the abstract, there are positive signs for the Democrats, these aren't very transferable to the final match-up in November.
First of all, Republicans haven't made a clear choice in South Carolina or anywhere else. McCain, Romney, Huckabee, and perhaps Guiliani all appeal to different parts of the Republican coalition. All these candidates are also unappealing to each faction in-part as well. No candidate has been able to frame himself as appealing to the majority of Republicans as George Bush did in 2000. As a result, without a clear choice, Republicans are less excited about their candidates and less likely to vote in the primary. Most Republicans will unite behind the eventual winner, especially with a deft VP choice such as South Carolina's governor, Mark Sanford. Also, if Clinton is the Democrats nominee, she will serve to further unite and energize the Republican base.
On the Democrats side, primary voters are flooding to the polls in part due to the anger of the last two presidential elections. However, the biggest reason is likely Obama. He is a fresh face with a message of change that is really resonating with voters whose opinion of government (both parties) is at an all-time low.
If Clinton wins the nomination it is unlikely she'll be able to capture this excitement. She (and her husband) have begun running a very personal and negative campaign against Obama. This makes it likely she'll destroy the excitement of voters who have been drawn by Obama's image as an alternative to politics as usual. It is also likely that her tactics will leave many African-American voters with little desire to vote in the general election come November. Whether intentional or not, the Clintons personal attacks on Obama have a racists overtones that are seriously drying up the support for both Hillary and Bill Clinton among the African-American community.
All the indicators are there that would lead one to expect the Democrats to win the White House come November. However, when the competition changes from any Democrat v. any Republican to Clinton/Obama v. McCain/Romney both Republican candidates have attributes which hurt them in the primaries that are likely to help them in November.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Might Republicans hold on to the White House?
It could just be my personal bias, but it's looking more and more likely that this country could have a Republican in the White House for at least another four years.
After tonight's Republican debate, Romney looks good and heading for a victory in Floria. Unless Guiliani comes back and wins the state, the race will be between McCain and Romney and both are looking good for the general election in November.
John McCain does well in early head-to-head polls due in large part to his appeal to Independent voters. His two biggest weaknesses in the general election would seem to be his inability to inspire passion in the conservative base and get out the vote and also his support for the war in Iraq.
McCain's weakness among core conservatives may be largely neutralized by the Clinton-factor -- core conservatives will show up to vote for almost anyone against Hillary Clinton. The impact of Iraq is less clear. The surge appears to be working. The new news out of Iraq rumors that, as early as July, there may be a deal in place to take US troops out of regular combat as Iraqi forces step in. The negotiation process hasn't yet started so it's unlikely large numbers of US forces will be coming home by year's end. However, even an announcement of plans to replace US troops with Iraqi forces in combat would be a huge boost to John McCain and a further vindication of his support for the surge.
If Romney is the Republican nominee, his appeal to Independents appears far more limited than McCain but given that he was elected Governor of liberal Massachusetts he'll make a good run at moderates. More importantly, his weaknesses will be diminished in the general election and his strengths more on display.
Romney's biggest weakness so far has been his changing positions on social issues. So, while the Clinton (or Obama) campaign will make subtle hints that Romney is a flip-flopper, a Democrat won't win in November by telling the general public their opponent has a moderate/liberal record on social issues.
Moving on to more substantive issues, Romney would also benefit should the news in Iraq continue to get better. On the flip side however, Romney would have some room to maneuver should the news from Iraq take a turn for the worse. As a Washington outsider he could take a strong position of continued involvement in Iraq without inheriting all of President Bush's mistakes in Iraq over the past half-decade.
The other big looming issue is the economy. Based on tonight's debate, it is a big strength for Romney. Romney's stance on economic issues is more crisp and confident than other issues and he can continue to champion his business success as an indicator of his ability to manage the US economy.
Conversely, rather than run on personal expertise Hillary Clinton will likely rely on her husband's economic record and the decline of the current economy occurring on the Republican's watch. It is unclear how the first strategy would play out, the tough Democratic primary is an indication that not everyone is ready to simply reprise the 90s.
The economic situation may not be as dire as claimed. However, regardless of the outcome, Romney is unlikely to inherent all the blame for a poor economy that usually lands on the nominee of the President's party.
To start with, congress's abysmal approval rating is even lower than the President's indicating a widespread distrust and disappointment with government. This not only aligns with Romney's new mantra as an outside agent of change, but also may lead voters to look past party affiliation and vote for the candidate with the best solution to economic problems.
Also in Romney's favor is some indication that American's view lower taxes as an important part a good economy. Whether or not the Republican nominee can spin the expiration of Bush's tax cuts and a huge tax increase, it shouldn't be hard to convince voters that the only way either Obama or Clinton could pay for their litany of new programs is with tax increases.
Conventional wisdom tells us that with a war in Iraq, the economy make headlines, and the Republicans congressional loss in '06 the Democrats should be poised to retake the White House. However, when the race moves beyond the abstract and gets down to two candidates, the Republicans certainly look to have an advantage.
After tonight's Republican debate, Romney looks good and heading for a victory in Floria. Unless Guiliani comes back and wins the state, the race will be between McCain and Romney and both are looking good for the general election in November.
John McCain does well in early head-to-head polls due in large part to his appeal to Independent voters. His two biggest weaknesses in the general election would seem to be his inability to inspire passion in the conservative base and get out the vote and also his support for the war in Iraq.
McCain's weakness among core conservatives may be largely neutralized by the Clinton-factor -- core conservatives will show up to vote for almost anyone against Hillary Clinton. The impact of Iraq is less clear. The surge appears to be working. The new news out of Iraq rumors that, as early as July, there may be a deal in place to take US troops out of regular combat as Iraqi forces step in. The negotiation process hasn't yet started so it's unlikely large numbers of US forces will be coming home by year's end. However, even an announcement of plans to replace US troops with Iraqi forces in combat would be a huge boost to John McCain and a further vindication of his support for the surge.
If Romney is the Republican nominee, his appeal to Independents appears far more limited than McCain but given that he was elected Governor of liberal Massachusetts he'll make a good run at moderates. More importantly, his weaknesses will be diminished in the general election and his strengths more on display.
Romney's biggest weakness so far has been his changing positions on social issues. So, while the Clinton (or Obama) campaign will make subtle hints that Romney is a flip-flopper, a Democrat won't win in November by telling the general public their opponent has a moderate/liberal record on social issues.
Moving on to more substantive issues, Romney would also benefit should the news in Iraq continue to get better. On the flip side however, Romney would have some room to maneuver should the news from Iraq take a turn for the worse. As a Washington outsider he could take a strong position of continued involvement in Iraq without inheriting all of President Bush's mistakes in Iraq over the past half-decade.
The other big looming issue is the economy. Based on tonight's debate, it is a big strength for Romney. Romney's stance on economic issues is more crisp and confident than other issues and he can continue to champion his business success as an indicator of his ability to manage the US economy.
Conversely, rather than run on personal expertise Hillary Clinton will likely rely on her husband's economic record and the decline of the current economy occurring on the Republican's watch. It is unclear how the first strategy would play out, the tough Democratic primary is an indication that not everyone is ready to simply reprise the 90s.
The economic situation may not be as dire as claimed. However, regardless of the outcome, Romney is unlikely to inherent all the blame for a poor economy that usually lands on the nominee of the President's party.
To start with, congress's abysmal approval rating is even lower than the President's indicating a widespread distrust and disappointment with government. This not only aligns with Romney's new mantra as an outside agent of change, but also may lead voters to look past party affiliation and vote for the candidate with the best solution to economic problems.
Also in Romney's favor is some indication that American's view lower taxes as an important part a good economy. Whether or not the Republican nominee can spin the expiration of Bush's tax cuts and a huge tax increase, it shouldn't be hard to convince voters that the only way either Obama or Clinton could pay for their litany of new programs is with tax increases.
Conventional wisdom tells us that with a war in Iraq, the economy make headlines, and the Republicans congressional loss in '06 the Democrats should be poised to retake the White House. However, when the race moves beyond the abstract and gets down to two candidates, the Republicans certainly look to have an advantage.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Why McCain should be the GOP nominee
While I rely on the American press to remain as objective as possible throughout the political process, I refuse to do so. It is no secret that I am a fan of John McCain, but it is now that I lay out why I am such a fan.
Primarily, it is about having an independent minded conservative politician as the President of the United States. While people of the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Tom DeLay have bristled at the idea of a McCain presidency, there is no doubt that McCain is a bona fide conservative. He has consistently opposed wasteful spending, cut taxes, fairly but firmly executed US foreign policy, and values strong families and a strong economy. What people like DeLay are really angry about is that he "won't always do what's in the best interest of the Party." His motivation is always what is best for the country. That means that if he believes dealing with global warming is in the nation's best interest, he will take it on. If it means that we must have a troop surge because allowing Iraq to degrade into anarchy would be disastrous, it means that he backs that unpopular policy. It also means being the ONLY candidate from the GOP to correctly stand against the torture that is water boarding. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney hasn't found a position on an issue he doesn't like if it means it is popular amongst the people he is talking to.
Secondly, it is about breaking the cycle of 20 years of gridlock in Washington, DC. While everyone likes to talk about George Bush's polarizing politics, no one wants to admit his strategy is based upon a pattern established by the Clintons in the 90's. The savage lies and distortions now directed against Obama were commonplace in the (first?) Clinton Administration when dealing with the GOP in the 90's or the numerous women Bill harassed or assaulted. No other candidate in the GOP field will be able to weather and turn back the Clinton attacks; thus no other candidate fairs as well in hypothetical polls against the potential Democratic nominees. And there's a reason for this - McCain is the anti-Clinton. He has served his country, rather than having a 30 year strategy to get the country to serve him. He's against pork projects, while she is the Queen of Pork. With her treatment of Obama, it is clear that Hillary will say and do anything to become president. McCain will run a principled, tough campaign but won't lie and won't lower himself to win. And Hillary certainly can't play the experience card - he has 3 times the service at the national level compared to her and has a more principled stand on foreign and domestic affairs.
I don't agree with McCain on every issue. I think his principled stand on immigration needed to be matched with an equally principled stand on securing the border. But I don't ever have to worry about McCain making decisions on what is best for him, his cronies, or the Republican Party. I know his decisions are based upon what is right for the country. No other candidate does this, and thus no other candidate is qualified to be the leader of the United States. Ultimately, I believe John McCain is exactly what this country needs after 20 years of gridlock and 8 years of inept leadership.
Primarily, it is about having an independent minded conservative politician as the President of the United States. While people of the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Tom DeLay have bristled at the idea of a McCain presidency, there is no doubt that McCain is a bona fide conservative. He has consistently opposed wasteful spending, cut taxes, fairly but firmly executed US foreign policy, and values strong families and a strong economy. What people like DeLay are really angry about is that he "won't always do what's in the best interest of the Party." His motivation is always what is best for the country. That means that if he believes dealing with global warming is in the nation's best interest, he will take it on. If it means that we must have a troop surge because allowing Iraq to degrade into anarchy would be disastrous, it means that he backs that unpopular policy. It also means being the ONLY candidate from the GOP to correctly stand against the torture that is water boarding. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney hasn't found a position on an issue he doesn't like if it means it is popular amongst the people he is talking to.
Secondly, it is about breaking the cycle of 20 years of gridlock in Washington, DC. While everyone likes to talk about George Bush's polarizing politics, no one wants to admit his strategy is based upon a pattern established by the Clintons in the 90's. The savage lies and distortions now directed against Obama were commonplace in the (first?) Clinton Administration when dealing with the GOP in the 90's or the numerous women Bill harassed or assaulted. No other candidate in the GOP field will be able to weather and turn back the Clinton attacks; thus no other candidate fairs as well in hypothetical polls against the potential Democratic nominees. And there's a reason for this - McCain is the anti-Clinton. He has served his country, rather than having a 30 year strategy to get the country to serve him. He's against pork projects, while she is the Queen of Pork. With her treatment of Obama, it is clear that Hillary will say and do anything to become president. McCain will run a principled, tough campaign but won't lie and won't lower himself to win. And Hillary certainly can't play the experience card - he has 3 times the service at the national level compared to her and has a more principled stand on foreign and domestic affairs.
I don't agree with McCain on every issue. I think his principled stand on immigration needed to be matched with an equally principled stand on securing the border. But I don't ever have to worry about McCain making decisions on what is best for him, his cronies, or the Republican Party. I know his decisions are based upon what is right for the country. No other candidate does this, and thus no other candidate is qualified to be the leader of the United States. Ultimately, I believe John McCain is exactly what this country needs after 20 years of gridlock and 8 years of inept leadership.
Mitt Romney - finding his footing
In addition to improving poll numbers, Mitt Romney looks like he might get a boost from the Republican Florida primary debate tonight. He'll also get a boost from Fred Thompson dropping out of the race and Mike Huckabee fading as primary voters focus in on the top tier of McCain, Romney, and perhaps Guiliani (pending the outcome in Florida).
If tonight's debate is any indication, Romney benefits as focus shifts from answering abstract questions to prove ones absolute adherence to the ideologies that make up the Republican Party to a more focused debate about specific fixes to specific problems.
On issues such as abortion and gun control, Governor Romney struggles to reconcile his stances taken as Governor of Massachusetts with his new positions as a candidate in the Republican presidential primary.
However when the talk shifts to the economy and even the war, Romney is more absolute and he's able to go on offense rather than play defense. Especially on the economy, his answers are solution oriented and crisp. The economy also plays to his big strength as a smart and successful business man.
On national security and Iraq he is sounding more like McCain and Guiliani as his attack on Hillary Clinton showed tonight.
Like McCain, I think Romney's biggest challenge may be winning the primary with the general election playing far more to his strengths than a Republican primary race does.
If tonight's debate is any indication, Romney benefits as focus shifts from answering abstract questions to prove ones absolute adherence to the ideologies that make up the Republican Party to a more focused debate about specific fixes to specific problems.
On issues such as abortion and gun control, Governor Romney struggles to reconcile his stances taken as Governor of Massachusetts with his new positions as a candidate in the Republican presidential primary.
However when the talk shifts to the economy and even the war, Romney is more absolute and he's able to go on offense rather than play defense. Especially on the economy, his answers are solution oriented and crisp. The economy also plays to his big strength as a smart and successful business man.
On national security and Iraq he is sounding more like McCain and Guiliani as his attack on Hillary Clinton showed tonight.
Like McCain, I think Romney's biggest challenge may be winning the primary with the general election playing far more to his strengths than a Republican primary race does.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Lending money to those who are broke
One of the cardinal rules in life is that you never lend money to friends, especially broke ones. I can't help but see the recently announced economic stimulus package as such a loan, just amongst 300 million of our closest friends. The $140+ billion is really just a loan to ourselves since we are running a deficit, all while we have a national debt that is worth 69% of the US GDP and three times the current federal budget. In a nation where thousands of homeonwers are losing their homes due to poor financial planning, the plan for getting the economy back on track is to count on continued poor financial planning by those on the lower end of the socio-economic scale - they are the ones most likely to spend and not save their rebate. Great - we all just took out a loan to buy crap we don't need instead of addressing the debt we are swimming in personally and collectively. I will personally contribute to the trade deficit by buying an iPhone.
On another note, I think that Fred Thompson should be considered as a potential AG now that he is out of the race. He clearly meets the Clinton requirements for any job as he not only hung around some AG's for his role on Law and Order, but he also played one on TV. That's at least twice the qualifications for the role of AG than Hillary Clinton has for being president.
On another note, I think that Fred Thompson should be considered as a potential AG now that he is out of the race. He clearly meets the Clinton requirements for any job as he not only hung around some AG's for his role on Law and Order, but he also played one on TV. That's at least twice the qualifications for the role of AG than Hillary Clinton has for being president.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
The trouble with identity politics
After another round of primaries and a caucus, it is time to comment on what seems to be the one consistent emerging theme: identity politics. While many in the press can't seem to give any Republican a chance to succeed W, we may be witnessing the disintegration of the various factions within the Democratic Party that are supposedly united in anyone but a Republican for President.
While New Hampshire was a harbinger of things to come, the Nevada caucuses and the barbs traded by the Obama and Clinton camps in the lead up to it have just deepened the divide. The latest casualty in this debate is Oprah Winfrey. Apparently, a good number of her fans feel she is traitor because she endorsed a black man and not the woman in the race. Feelings similar to this likely led to the large turnout of women voters that propelled Hillary to victory in Nevada. I guess it is just Obama's bad luck that he was born black (12% of the population), instead of a women (50%+ of the nation). This lack of focus on issues, combined with continual, counterproductive sniping by Hillary's husband, has led Obama to correctly question the Clinton campaign's strategy on Monday's Good Morning America. The question, which aggrieved minority group within the Democratic Party will win?
Contrast this with McCain's win in South Carolina. While he is no darling of the evangelical movement that has made up a good portion of the Republican party over the last several decades, he was able to piece together a coalition of conservatives and independents in South Carolina. Perhaps most encouraging is that McCain has been able to weather attacks from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Tom DeLay, who are incensed that he doesn't bow to their dogmatic beliefs of old-school conservatism, and still won in South Carolina. To listen to DeLay is to listen to a man who is angry that his hand got caught in the Abramoff cookie jar - an issue championed by John McCain. Limbaugh is probably angry that if McCain gets elected president, he won't be able to do his usual backslapping, propaganda filled "interviews" with a VP like Dick Cheney - that's because McCain would NEVER allow his administration to be associated with such a bombastic partisan as Limbaugh. The biggest sin by McCain, it seems, is his ability to appeal to more than one interest group. He thinks for himself, doesn't kowtow to party orthodoxy, and can find compromises that work for both parties involved. How dare he?!?!?!
While there are many primaries to go, it seems that identity and single issue groups may determine the course of the election. On the Democratic side, it may tear the party apart with two powerful groups - women and African Americans - doing battle. In the Republican Party, John McCain may have found a way to transcend the divisions within the party of the last 20+ years. We'll see which strategy fairs better once the primaries are done and the general election begins.
While New Hampshire was a harbinger of things to come, the Nevada caucuses and the barbs traded by the Obama and Clinton camps in the lead up to it have just deepened the divide. The latest casualty in this debate is Oprah Winfrey. Apparently, a good number of her fans feel she is traitor because she endorsed a black man and not the woman in the race. Feelings similar to this likely led to the large turnout of women voters that propelled Hillary to victory in Nevada. I guess it is just Obama's bad luck that he was born black (12% of the population), instead of a women (50%+ of the nation). This lack of focus on issues, combined with continual, counterproductive sniping by Hillary's husband, has led Obama to correctly question the Clinton campaign's strategy on Monday's Good Morning America. The question, which aggrieved minority group within the Democratic Party will win?
Contrast this with McCain's win in South Carolina. While he is no darling of the evangelical movement that has made up a good portion of the Republican party over the last several decades, he was able to piece together a coalition of conservatives and independents in South Carolina. Perhaps most encouraging is that McCain has been able to weather attacks from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Tom DeLay, who are incensed that he doesn't bow to their dogmatic beliefs of old-school conservatism, and still won in South Carolina. To listen to DeLay is to listen to a man who is angry that his hand got caught in the Abramoff cookie jar - an issue championed by John McCain. Limbaugh is probably angry that if McCain gets elected president, he won't be able to do his usual backslapping, propaganda filled "interviews" with a VP like Dick Cheney - that's because McCain would NEVER allow his administration to be associated with such a bombastic partisan as Limbaugh. The biggest sin by McCain, it seems, is his ability to appeal to more than one interest group. He thinks for himself, doesn't kowtow to party orthodoxy, and can find compromises that work for both parties involved. How dare he?!?!?!
While there are many primaries to go, it seems that identity and single issue groups may determine the course of the election. On the Democratic side, it may tear the party apart with two powerful groups - women and African Americans - doing battle. In the Republican Party, John McCain may have found a way to transcend the divisions within the party of the last 20+ years. We'll see which strategy fairs better once the primaries are done and the general election begins.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Great Minds Think Alike, Part 2
So back in November I posted a piece about how I beat one of my favorite columnists, Camille Paglia, to the punch on a topic regarding Hillary Clinton's behavior. It seems I have done it again! Miss Paglia was a day late in her analysis of Clinton's New Hampshire victory, how her polarizing personality would bring further gridlock to DC if she were elected, and the awful way she and her husband treat the people they supposedly care about. I don't always agree with Paglia's political views, but her analysis of politics is often dead on.
As for Cupid Shuffle's latest post thanking Fred Thompson, I must give him a hearty thank you as well. He is a useful loser in this instance, not really having a chance at winning in South Carolina but perhaps sucking off enough votes from Huckabee's evangelical base to help assure a McCain win. The scenario of McCain winning Michigan, South Carolina, and Florida prior to Super Tuesday is becoming more plausible with each passing day. While his campaign is re-invigorated, the one candidate going after the same GOP voters as him - Rudy Giuliani - is now asking staff to go without pay. Perhaps that strategy of waiting until Florida didn't work out after all. Meanwhile, Romney is drawing small crowds in his home state of Michigan. While he is out touting his parents burial plots and cynically appealing to auto workers with pipe dreams of getting their old jobs back, McCain is proposing real solutions like federal programs to help community colleges cope with the crunch of workers that need new training in rust belt states. Having just moved from Michigan after working six years there, I can tell you Romney is barking up the wrong tree. The conservatives of Michigan (who will be voting on the 15th) have been seeking economic diversification for decades, realizing that Big Three dominance was finished once the US auto market was opened up to foreign competition. It is now bad enough that even the rank-and-file of the unions recognize that the state must look to more than auto industry jobs for its economic future.
Perhaps the GOP may finally right the wrong that was done to McCain eight years ago, starting in Michigan next Tuesday.
As for Cupid Shuffle's latest post thanking Fred Thompson, I must give him a hearty thank you as well. He is a useful loser in this instance, not really having a chance at winning in South Carolina but perhaps sucking off enough votes from Huckabee's evangelical base to help assure a McCain win. The scenario of McCain winning Michigan, South Carolina, and Florida prior to Super Tuesday is becoming more plausible with each passing day. While his campaign is re-invigorated, the one candidate going after the same GOP voters as him - Rudy Giuliani - is now asking staff to go without pay. Perhaps that strategy of waiting until Florida didn't work out after all. Meanwhile, Romney is drawing small crowds in his home state of Michigan. While he is out touting his parents burial plots and cynically appealing to auto workers with pipe dreams of getting their old jobs back, McCain is proposing real solutions like federal programs to help community colleges cope with the crunch of workers that need new training in rust belt states. Having just moved from Michigan after working six years there, I can tell you Romney is barking up the wrong tree. The conservatives of Michigan (who will be voting on the 15th) have been seeking economic diversification for decades, realizing that Big Three dominance was finished once the US auto market was opened up to foreign competition. It is now bad enough that even the rank-and-file of the unions recognize that the state must look to more than auto industry jobs for its economic future.
Perhaps the GOP may finally right the wrong that was done to McCain eight years ago, starting in Michigan next Tuesday.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
God Bless Fred Thompson
As a conservative that is not religious and someone who would like to see a Republican in the White House in 2008, I see Mike Huckabee as a disaster. His only "Republican" bonafides are his belief in God. Therefore, I want to wish a sincere thank you to Fred Thompson for attacking Huckabee head on in tonight's Republican debate.
Update: YouTube replay of this exchange.
Update: YouTube replay of this exchange.
Political Dishonesty on Oil Prices
For a good read, check out 5 Myths About Going it Alone on Energy. Not only does this challenge the prevailing wisdom of advocates for energy independence but it also brings to light the dishonestly on display by all the candidates running for president as they decry high oil prices but offer oil independence as the answer.
Bartlet for President!
Many West Wing fans, regardless of political affiliation, may long for a President like the West Wing's Josiah Bartlet. Martin Sheen's character is well spoken and always has the right response any situation.
However, I'm not referring to the fictional President Bartlet, I'm referring to Martin Sheen acting as President Bartlet because watching presidential hopeful Barack Obama speak, he certainly seems ready to act like a President but he has displayed very little that should make one believe he is ready to perform the duties of the President.
To paraphrase former President Clinton - something I didn't think I would find myself doing - Obama has created a "fairy tale" campaign. The Senator delivers moving speeches with the aid of a teleprompter - not unlike an actor - and talks of change, hope, and possibility. But by staying away from tough issues of the day, and decrying attempts to question his record as negative politics, one must wonder what he's hiding.
Nothing I'm saying is an attempt to suggest that Senator Obama is disingenuous, or intellectually hollow. Quite the contrary, my impression is that he is an intelligent, thoughtful person whose natural charisma and charm are tailor made for a run for president. However, he has designed his campaign to hide very real questions about his experience, and political and professional competency to be President.
One also has to wonder how his rhetoric of change and bipartisanship can ring true when his positions on domestic issues, as stated on his web site, seem to be cut and paste from traditional liberal interest groups and ideals. Whether you look at his desire to roll-back Bush's tax cuts to support more domestic spending, or a union-oriented voting record that gets it 96% right according to the AFL-CIO, Obama is not that different from Hillary Clinton. How can someone change the polarization of American government when he is so far on one side? Do informed votes really believe that Obama the candidate or Obama the President could be immune to the money and influence of lobbyists? If so, you shouldn't!
Maybe I should have titled this, Obama's magic, because so far his campaign is smoke and mirrors. Maybe he has focused on "hope, change, and yes we can" because a close look at his positions on the issues would reveal almost lock-step adherence to Clintonian big government domestic policy. And the biggest substantive difference between him and Hillary Clinton would be his naive foreign-policy.
In choosing between two candidates with virtually identical plans for domestic policy, and war with Iran only seconds away would the majority of Democrats really chose someone who wants to invade an American allies while talking to America's enemies who has stated his unwillingness to use all available options in protecting this country?
Probably not - time to talk about change, inclusiveness, and hope.
Update: Charles Krauthammer offers similar thoughts on how Obama can claim to be a "bipartisan uniter" when he ideology is "unwaveringly" that of a liberal Democrat.
However, I'm not referring to the fictional President Bartlet, I'm referring to Martin Sheen acting as President Bartlet because watching presidential hopeful Barack Obama speak, he certainly seems ready to act like a President but he has displayed very little that should make one believe he is ready to perform the duties of the President.
To paraphrase former President Clinton - something I didn't think I would find myself doing - Obama has created a "fairy tale" campaign. The Senator delivers moving speeches with the aid of a teleprompter - not unlike an actor - and talks of change, hope, and possibility. But by staying away from tough issues of the day, and decrying attempts to question his record as negative politics, one must wonder what he's hiding.
Nothing I'm saying is an attempt to suggest that Senator Obama is disingenuous, or intellectually hollow. Quite the contrary, my impression is that he is an intelligent, thoughtful person whose natural charisma and charm are tailor made for a run for president. However, he has designed his campaign to hide very real questions about his experience, and political and professional competency to be President.
One also has to wonder how his rhetoric of change and bipartisanship can ring true when his positions on domestic issues, as stated on his web site, seem to be cut and paste from traditional liberal interest groups and ideals. Whether you look at his desire to roll-back Bush's tax cuts to support more domestic spending, or a union-oriented voting record that gets it 96% right according to the AFL-CIO, Obama is not that different from Hillary Clinton. How can someone change the polarization of American government when he is so far on one side? Do informed votes really believe that Obama the candidate or Obama the President could be immune to the money and influence of lobbyists? If so, you shouldn't!
Maybe I should have titled this, Obama's magic, because so far his campaign is smoke and mirrors. Maybe he has focused on "hope, change, and yes we can" because a close look at his positions on the issues would reveal almost lock-step adherence to Clintonian big government domestic policy. And the biggest substantive difference between him and Hillary Clinton would be his naive foreign-policy.
In choosing between two candidates with virtually identical plans for domestic policy, and war with Iran only seconds away would the majority of Democrats really chose someone who wants to invade an American allies while talking to America's enemies who has stated his unwillingness to use all available options in protecting this country?
Probably not - time to talk about change, inclusiveness, and hope.
Update: Charles Krauthammer offers similar thoughts on how Obama can claim to be a "bipartisan uniter" when he ideology is "unwaveringly" that of a liberal Democrat.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Why the results from New Hampshire may pose trouble for our country
It's no secret that you won't find either myself or my compatriot on this blog to be fans of Hillary Clinton. I perhaps go even further in my dislike for all of the politicians in this election by stating there are only two of them that I can vote for - Barack Obama and John McCain. They are the only two politicians that are capable of breaking the cycle of oligarchy and a West Side Story-esque proxy war between the Bushes and the Clintons. Hillary's victory in yesterday's New Hampshire primary not only threatens to slide the Democratic primary system back into its bumpersticker, black-or-white partisanship of the last 20 years, but it also threatens to do the same on the Republican side and in the general election with the increasing likelihood she is the Democrat nominee.
What has been going on the last 20 years (1988 to 2008) has been an American version of the War of Roses between the Bushes (cultural conservatives) and Clintons (secular progressives). What started out as a Bush family jilted by the loss of George Sr. at the hands of a "philandering" scumbag (lack of quotes intention) and his "maniacal", power hungry wife (again, intentional) has blown up into a full out war. The undertone of the 2000 election wasn't just about sending George W in to clean up the White House, it was more about sending the son in to finish the father's work (much like in Iraq in 2003). Now that the supposedly dumb George W. is term limited (he did win two elections that should have been slam dunks for the Dems - how dumb could he be?), the Clintons are back on the scene to remind everyone how great the 90's were. The problem is that this isn't the 1990's.
In the 90's, Clinton was such a great president because he was smart enough to leave well enough alone. He let the economy expand on its own, and the few major reforms to government that he made - i.e. welfare reform - helped to put even more people to work and generate more wealth for the nation. Bill Clinton didn't have to do a whole lot, and the areas in which he really didn't do anything - as in terrorism - have been left for later leaders to clean up. Heck, there was even a time in the 90's when no one could do anything in government because it had shut down due to gridlock.
Fast forward to 2008, and things are very different. While we just now may be heading for our first recession since 2001, continued job losses in the middle of the country and continued pressure from competition abroad has led to a constant uneasiness about one's job. The dollar is at all time lows against foreign currencies, millions are still without health care, and employees are being asked to shoulder more of the costs that have traditionally been taken care of by their employers. All of these are not bad in-and-of themselves, but they do represent a changing world where the politics of yesteryear won't adequately address the challenges we face. We cannot afford a government where shutdown is a real possibility.
And here's where Hillary proves to be a problem. She is constantly reminding us of how much she (*cough*) and her husband did in the 1990's to help Americans. This is selective memory not just because of what I pointed out two paragraphs above, but also because after her HillaryCare debacle of 1993 she was unceremoniously shoved to the sidelines for the remainder of her husband's presidency. Saying that she is qualified to be president because she was married to one is like arguing a coach's wife is qualified in coaching his team in the state championship game. But it is also selective memory to forget how much bile, hatred, and disgust SHE, and not her husband, generated on the right. Whether we like it or not, this is not about her qualifications. It is about her partisanship, her divisiveness, and her inability to bring people together.
What we need going forward is someone who can jettison the boomer politics - pro-choice vs. pro-life, pro-gay vs. pro-marriage, pro-gun vs. pro-gun control, evangelical vs. secular progressive - that have gridlocked our country for 20+ years. Nothing would scuttle that goal faster than the Democratic Party getting nostalgic and selecting Hillary as their nominee. The GOP would do nothing less than nominate Huckabee or Romney to carry on the "holy fight" against the "godless" Clintons. God help us all if this becomes the choice in November 2008. We deserve better from both parties.
What has been going on the last 20 years (1988 to 2008) has been an American version of the War of Roses between the Bushes (cultural conservatives) and Clintons (secular progressives). What started out as a Bush family jilted by the loss of George Sr. at the hands of a "philandering" scumbag (lack of quotes intention) and his "maniacal", power hungry wife (again, intentional) has blown up into a full out war. The undertone of the 2000 election wasn't just about sending George W in to clean up the White House, it was more about sending the son in to finish the father's work (much like in Iraq in 2003). Now that the supposedly dumb George W. is term limited (he did win two elections that should have been slam dunks for the Dems - how dumb could he be?), the Clintons are back on the scene to remind everyone how great the 90's were. The problem is that this isn't the 1990's.
In the 90's, Clinton was such a great president because he was smart enough to leave well enough alone. He let the economy expand on its own, and the few major reforms to government that he made - i.e. welfare reform - helped to put even more people to work and generate more wealth for the nation. Bill Clinton didn't have to do a whole lot, and the areas in which he really didn't do anything - as in terrorism - have been left for later leaders to clean up. Heck, there was even a time in the 90's when no one could do anything in government because it had shut down due to gridlock.
Fast forward to 2008, and things are very different. While we just now may be heading for our first recession since 2001, continued job losses in the middle of the country and continued pressure from competition abroad has led to a constant uneasiness about one's job. The dollar is at all time lows against foreign currencies, millions are still without health care, and employees are being asked to shoulder more of the costs that have traditionally been taken care of by their employers. All of these are not bad in-and-of themselves, but they do represent a changing world where the politics of yesteryear won't adequately address the challenges we face. We cannot afford a government where shutdown is a real possibility.
And here's where Hillary proves to be a problem. She is constantly reminding us of how much she (*cough*) and her husband did in the 1990's to help Americans. This is selective memory not just because of what I pointed out two paragraphs above, but also because after her HillaryCare debacle of 1993 she was unceremoniously shoved to the sidelines for the remainder of her husband's presidency. Saying that she is qualified to be president because she was married to one is like arguing a coach's wife is qualified in coaching his team in the state championship game. But it is also selective memory to forget how much bile, hatred, and disgust SHE, and not her husband, generated on the right. Whether we like it or not, this is not about her qualifications. It is about her partisanship, her divisiveness, and her inability to bring people together.
What we need going forward is someone who can jettison the boomer politics - pro-choice vs. pro-life, pro-gay vs. pro-marriage, pro-gun vs. pro-gun control, evangelical vs. secular progressive - that have gridlocked our country for 20+ years. Nothing would scuttle that goal faster than the Democratic Party getting nostalgic and selecting Hillary as their nominee. The GOP would do nothing less than nominate Huckabee or Romney to carry on the "holy fight" against the "godless" Clintons. God help us all if this becomes the choice in November 2008. We deserve better from both parties.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Maybe Dr. Paul is on to something
Like a robot, Ron Paul's answer to every question in this evening's debate kept coming back to monetary policy. Deficit spending forces the government to print more money, which leads to all of the ailments we face: spiraling health care costs, stagnant wages, outsourcing of jobs. Due to the 1 minute time limit on responses, his arguments require a good bit of background on the part of the listener that I suspect most Americans don't have. Even though I buy a number of his arguments, I fear he is coming across as a crazy old grandfather that wears tin hats when he is not on stage.
After reading this article, perhaps Dr. Paul is on to something. While the UK has certainly improved economically in the last decade or two, a large reason for it passing the US in quality of life has to do with the fall of the dollar and rise of the pound. The next generation of US leadership will have to tackle US economic decline. Perhaps they should be listening to Dr. Paul for one facet of their economic policy.
After reading this article, perhaps Dr. Paul is on to something. While the UK has certainly improved economically in the last decade or two, a large reason for it passing the US in quality of life has to do with the fall of the dollar and rise of the pound. The next generation of US leadership will have to tackle US economic decline. Perhaps they should be listening to Dr. Paul for one facet of their economic policy.
Seahawks 2, Skins 0
Sadly, my fellow blogger's Skins are now Oh-for-Two over the last three years in the playoffs against my Hawks. In what may have been one of the more boring playoff games of recent memory (except for 3 minutes in the 4th quarter where the Skins rattled off 14 points and briefly took the lead), the Hawks defense made up for a poor offensive effort. Now it is back to the scene of Hasselbeck's "We want the ball, and we're gonna score gaff" from 2003 to play the Packers. Here's hoping something Romo-esque happens in Green Bay!
Friday, January 4, 2008
What is Mainstream Conservatism?
Power Line has an interesting take on the Iowa results, citing mainstream conservatism as the real loser on the Republican side. I'm wondering what mainstream conservatism is. Current conservatism in this country is an odd forced marriage of religious voters, fiscal and small government conservatives, and believes in strong national security with anti-immigrant voters throwing their weight around holding a position that is dangerously close to xenophobia.
Paul at Power Line laments that if only Congress and President Bush performed better and adhered to these values George Allen or Bill Frist would have a chance be president - putting these two forth as examples of true mainstream conservatives. The problem is that it is exactly because some Republicans identify conservatives as those who can check all the boxes (man of faith, fiscally responsible, anti-immigration, etc.) that we end up with "conservatives" that have failed us in the ways Hassert's congress and Bush's White House have failed us.
On a quick note, it is Allen frequent gaffes and inability to show any flashes of deep political thoughts that lost him his seat and a shot at the White House, not anyone else's failures. Frist's downfall began when he lost himself trying to please Christian Conservatives abandoning all sense of reason and made a medical diagnosis via cable TV in the case of Terry Schiavo.
Huckabee's flaws and positions make his victory a set back for the Republican Party, that hopefully will be limited to Iowa. However, Romney, Guiliani, and to a slightly lesser extent McCain represent what mainstream conservatism is, or at least must be. Rather than blind adherence to the varying doctrines of the conservative factions, true mainstream conservatism is about limited government, fiscal restraint, and individual choice as guiding principles.
Republicans don't need a conservative John Edwards or Nancy Pelosi, paying lip service and declaring absolute allegiance to the sacred cows of the extreme wings of the party.
Paul at Power Line laments that if only Congress and President Bush performed better and adhered to these values George Allen or Bill Frist would have a chance be president - putting these two forth as examples of true mainstream conservatives. The problem is that it is exactly because some Republicans identify conservatives as those who can check all the boxes (man of faith, fiscally responsible, anti-immigration, etc.) that we end up with "conservatives" that have failed us in the ways Hassert's congress and Bush's White House have failed us.
On a quick note, it is Allen frequent gaffes and inability to show any flashes of deep political thoughts that lost him his seat and a shot at the White House, not anyone else's failures. Frist's downfall began when he lost himself trying to please Christian Conservatives abandoning all sense of reason and made a medical diagnosis via cable TV in the case of Terry Schiavo.
Huckabee's flaws and positions make his victory a set back for the Republican Party, that hopefully will be limited to Iowa. However, Romney, Guiliani, and to a slightly lesser extent McCain represent what mainstream conservatism is, or at least must be. Rather than blind adherence to the varying doctrines of the conservative factions, true mainstream conservatism is about limited government, fiscal restraint, and individual choice as guiding principles.
Republicans don't need a conservative John Edwards or Nancy Pelosi, paying lip service and declaring absolute allegiance to the sacred cows of the extreme wings of the party.
Let's Party Like It's 1999!!!
As I watched Hillary Clinton's Iowa concession speech, I couldn't help but think of the eponymous Prince song that everyone waited 16 years to come appropriately use. Flanked by her husband and former Clinton administration members Wesley Clark and Madeleine Albright, her message of "rebirth" sounded more like "let's go back to the good old days and fight about the meaningless stuff we boomers used to fight about prior to 9/11. Let's go back to 1999!" Same old time warp rhetoric being espoused by Mrs. Clinton, even when it causes her to lose in Iowa. Perhaps that is because she has nothing in her own record to run on?
But then again, perhaps Bill actually wants to go back to 1992 as evidenced by his attempted spiking of the loss by noting his trail to the White House in 1992. Anticipating his wife's third place showing, Bubba tried to remind everyone that he didn't win a primary until they got to Georgia in 1992. In typical Clinton fashion, this is all selective memory. In the intervening 16 years, the primary system has become so compressed that losses in Iowa and NH can spell doom for a candidate, especially the presumptive front runner. Perhaps we are witnessing the Dean flameout of 2008?
Who knows what NH will have in store for us in the coming 5 days. We just know it is a whole new ball game after Iowa.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Iowa Part II: Who is Hillary Clinton Running Against
Watching Hillary Clinton's post-caucus speech in Iowa I was left wondering who her audience was. Flanked by beltway insiders Wesley Clark (Bill Clinton's NATO commander in Kosovo) and Madeleine Albright (Bill Clinton's Secretary of State) Hillary Clinton gave a speech that seemed much more appropriate for the hyper-partisan halls of the US Senate or the op-ed page of the New York Times than on the presidential primary trail.
Mirroring her campaign to date, she attacked specific positions of the Bush administration and stressed her ability to "restore the image of America" abroad. While Barrack Obama certainly hasn't shied away from attacking President Bush - this is the Democratic Primary after all - he has focused on how he will make things better and move forward, contrasting Clinton's desire to continue partisan fights of the last 8 years. Even when he attacks policies enacting by the Bush administration, he doesn't call out the President by name, he simply states how he'll perform better on that issue.
If nothing else, this just highlights her biggest weakness - she is completely tone deaf and unable to relate to the voters around her. Her speeches are about her - what she has done, what she helped (or watched) her husband do, and what she knows. Obama talks with people, not at them. Even looking at the little things, Clinton just doesn't get it.
Obama began his Iowa victory speech by clapping for his supporters and their victory, seeming very comfortable with the excitement in the crowd. He also had a very savvy line about how his supporters didn't "do this for him, they did it for them and the country." Clinton by contrast seemed uncomfortable with her supporters. She spoke far more about herself, and how she could/would win the Presidency while Obama talked about what they (he, his supporters, and the country) could accomplish together.
This is all anecdotal, but clearly Clinton's opportunity to win does not lie with her ability to connect with voters. Instead she'll need a top down approach relying on her connections to the Democratic political elite to organize and get voters out for her. Her beltway-insider rhetoric would certainly seem to play much better with this crowd.
It seems that to many of the DNC elite this election is a continuation of the fight against Bush from 2000 and 2004, with 2008 being a final chance to settle the score. This is certainly illustrated by the conduct of the Democratic Congress. After partially running on a platform of bipartisanship and civility, the new majority continued the dirty tricks that the GOP majority had used. While this brand of politics may appeal to some, it is clear that Obama's "politics of hope" resonate much better with the rank and file.
Clinton is banking on support from political insiders from her husband's administration, and those that hope to be insiders in her administration. Her problem is that as Obama gains more momentum, and appears more likely to win the nomination, the less likely DNC power hitters are stand behind Clinton.
What I find interesting is that the Iowa caucus is all about connecting with voters. It is very personal. Political capital and political operatives have far less of an impact than personality and "the politics of hope." This was true for both parties as Huckabee's brand of "the politics of hope," and his personal appeal to the Iowa Republican voters trumped Romney's money and well organized team.
Therefore, why didn't Clinton skip Iowa? One of her advisers certainly thought it was a good idea. In addition to her inability to connect with voters, her politics don't match the local sentiment in Iowa either. Leaving Iowa would certainly have dented the image she has tried to present that she has been anointed the next President of the United States, but certainly her third-place finish isn't going to help either.
One last interesting note. Clinton has always promoted herself as the most electable candidate in a general election and subtly reiterated this assertion in her "concession" speech Thursday night in Iowa. MSNBC polls from Iowa do give Clinton the edge over Obama among voters for whom electability with the top issue (Edwards got the highest marks in this category). However only 8% of caucus goers fell into this category while the majority stated that change was the most important issue, and this majority overwhelming voted Obama. Also, while it could be limited to Iowa, Obama had a big lead among Independents and first time caucus goers indicating that he is generating excitement which could attract swing voters and get people to the polls in a general election.
Mirroring her campaign to date, she attacked specific positions of the Bush administration and stressed her ability to "restore the image of America" abroad. While Barrack Obama certainly hasn't shied away from attacking President Bush - this is the Democratic Primary after all - he has focused on how he will make things better and move forward, contrasting Clinton's desire to continue partisan fights of the last 8 years. Even when he attacks policies enacting by the Bush administration, he doesn't call out the President by name, he simply states how he'll perform better on that issue.
If nothing else, this just highlights her biggest weakness - she is completely tone deaf and unable to relate to the voters around her. Her speeches are about her - what she has done, what she helped (or watched) her husband do, and what she knows. Obama talks with people, not at them. Even looking at the little things, Clinton just doesn't get it.
Obama began his Iowa victory speech by clapping for his supporters and their victory, seeming very comfortable with the excitement in the crowd. He also had a very savvy line about how his supporters didn't "do this for him, they did it for them and the country." Clinton by contrast seemed uncomfortable with her supporters. She spoke far more about herself, and how she could/would win the Presidency while Obama talked about what they (he, his supporters, and the country) could accomplish together.
This is all anecdotal, but clearly Clinton's opportunity to win does not lie with her ability to connect with voters. Instead she'll need a top down approach relying on her connections to the Democratic political elite to organize and get voters out for her. Her beltway-insider rhetoric would certainly seem to play much better with this crowd.
It seems that to many of the DNC elite this election is a continuation of the fight against Bush from 2000 and 2004, with 2008 being a final chance to settle the score. This is certainly illustrated by the conduct of the Democratic Congress. After partially running on a platform of bipartisanship and civility, the new majority continued the dirty tricks that the GOP majority had used. While this brand of politics may appeal to some, it is clear that Obama's "politics of hope" resonate much better with the rank and file.
Clinton is banking on support from political insiders from her husband's administration, and those that hope to be insiders in her administration. Her problem is that as Obama gains more momentum, and appears more likely to win the nomination, the less likely DNC power hitters are stand behind Clinton.
What I find interesting is that the Iowa caucus is all about connecting with voters. It is very personal. Political capital and political operatives have far less of an impact than personality and "the politics of hope." This was true for both parties as Huckabee's brand of "the politics of hope," and his personal appeal to the Iowa Republican voters trumped Romney's money and well organized team.
Therefore, why didn't Clinton skip Iowa? One of her advisers certainly thought it was a good idea. In addition to her inability to connect with voters, her politics don't match the local sentiment in Iowa either. Leaving Iowa would certainly have dented the image she has tried to present that she has been anointed the next President of the United States, but certainly her third-place finish isn't going to help either.
One last interesting note. Clinton has always promoted herself as the most electable candidate in a general election and subtly reiterated this assertion in her "concession" speech Thursday night in Iowa. MSNBC polls from Iowa do give Clinton the edge over Obama among voters for whom electability with the top issue (Edwards got the highest marks in this category). However only 8% of caucus goers fell into this category while the majority stated that change was the most important issue, and this majority overwhelming voted Obama. Also, while it could be limited to Iowa, Obama had a big lead among Independents and first time caucus goers indicating that he is generating excitement which could attract swing voters and get people to the polls in a general election.
Iowa . . .
What do tonight's results mean?
Looking at the results since '76 the winner of the Iowa caucus does have a good chance to go on to win.
On the Dem side - Since '76 only Harkin in '92 and Gephardt in '88 won Iowa but not the nomination. However, both had a big home field advantage with Harkin representing Iowa and Gephardt coming from neighboring Missouri.
On the GOP side - Bob Dole beat George HW Bush in '88 but Bush was the sitting VP giving him an edge overall and Bush only narrowly edged out Reagan in 1980.
However, given the craziness we have already witnessed in this election cycle, it seems unlikely that there are any great lessons to learn from Iowa. While Obama may go on to win the nomination, Clinton has way too many loyalists among the liberal political elite for them to simply follow the popular sentiments of Iowas friendly farmers.
Despite the unprecedented number of political operatives on the ground in Iowa, the caucus still gives the appearance of a civic and personal affair as Iowans focus on civility and personality. As the primaries go national, Clinton will raise the stakes with more hardball politics that will play better among the political elite of New Hampshire, California, and NY.
In Iowa, Obama beat Clinton with personality, positivity, and constructive optimism on how to fix the problems affecting Iowa voters. Clinton ran a far more Washington campaign with a large political machine, a focus on numbers and experience, and repeated inside-the-beltway style partisan attacks on President Bush's policies. While this strategy will play better in NH than Iowa, Obama's momentum and more positive message could easily carry him to victory.
On the GOP side, Huckabee's campaign seemed ideal for Iowa. He is affable, has an everyman quality and appealed to the evangelical Christians that early numbers indicate dominated the polls. While the primaries Southern swing will also benefit Huckabee, he's in for a much rougher ride for numerous reasons.
To begin with, his rise in popularity occurred late and was focused on his down-to-earth personality. This sparred him the media scrutiny suffered by Romney and Guiliani. Going forward there will be a much greater focus not only on who Huckabee is but also what his record is. Already, Rush Limbaugh has attacked Huckabee's conservative credentials. It is likley that this will only get worse as the party elite that backed Bush's 2000 run worry about the political agenda Huckabee will bring with him. While the Iowa voters are mostly concerned with values of faith, this alone will not be enough to carry him if he has a weak grasp on foreign policy, and seems unlikely to recommit Republicans to fiscal restraint and a furtherance of President Bush's conservative economic philosophy and tax cuts.
Looking at the results since '76 the winner of the Iowa caucus does have a good chance to go on to win.
On the Dem side - Since '76 only Harkin in '92 and Gephardt in '88 won Iowa but not the nomination. However, both had a big home field advantage with Harkin representing Iowa and Gephardt coming from neighboring Missouri.
On the GOP side - Bob Dole beat George HW Bush in '88 but Bush was the sitting VP giving him an edge overall and Bush only narrowly edged out Reagan in 1980.
However, given the craziness we have already witnessed in this election cycle, it seems unlikely that there are any great lessons to learn from Iowa. While Obama may go on to win the nomination, Clinton has way too many loyalists among the liberal political elite for them to simply follow the popular sentiments of Iowas friendly farmers.
Despite the unprecedented number of political operatives on the ground in Iowa, the caucus still gives the appearance of a civic and personal affair as Iowans focus on civility and personality. As the primaries go national, Clinton will raise the stakes with more hardball politics that will play better among the political elite of New Hampshire, California, and NY.
In Iowa, Obama beat Clinton with personality, positivity, and constructive optimism on how to fix the problems affecting Iowa voters. Clinton ran a far more Washington campaign with a large political machine, a focus on numbers and experience, and repeated inside-the-beltway style partisan attacks on President Bush's policies. While this strategy will play better in NH than Iowa, Obama's momentum and more positive message could easily carry him to victory.
On the GOP side, Huckabee's campaign seemed ideal for Iowa. He is affable, has an everyman quality and appealed to the evangelical Christians that early numbers indicate dominated the polls. While the primaries Southern swing will also benefit Huckabee, he's in for a much rougher ride for numerous reasons.
To begin with, his rise in popularity occurred late and was focused on his down-to-earth personality. This sparred him the media scrutiny suffered by Romney and Guiliani. Going forward there will be a much greater focus not only on who Huckabee is but also what his record is. Already, Rush Limbaugh has attacked Huckabee's conservative credentials. It is likley that this will only get worse as the party elite that backed Bush's 2000 run worry about the political agenda Huckabee will bring with him. While the Iowa voters are mostly concerned with values of faith, this alone will not be enough to carry him if he has a weak grasp on foreign policy, and seems unlikely to recommit Republicans to fiscal restraint and a furtherance of President Bush's conservative economic philosophy and tax cuts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)