Uncivil War

The last Democatic debate was nothing if not entertaining and would have been more appropriately held at Fort Sumpter, given the divisiveness. The nastiness and hostility between Obama and Clinton was first rate political theater and the whole thing might have escalated (or devolved, if you prefer) into fisticuffs had John Edwards not been there. It is very clear that the Clinton strategy is to drag Obama into the mud with them, giving the perception that he’s just as sleazy as they are, destroying his fresh and clean image. Will it work? Probably. How damaging this is to the party is hard to say, as there’s a long way to go until the convention and if it doesn’t continue for months on end, it could fade into distant memory. Several points need to be made:
1) The whole Rezko thing is nonsense. Rezko was a hanger-on who liked to inflate his own importance and there’s no evidence Obama did anything for him politically. Compare that to the Clinton attitude toward Tyson in Arkansas, “travelgate”, and the Mark Rich pardon on the way out of the White House and which candidate is more corrupt is pretty clear.
2) Obama did say nice things about Reagan. He talked about some positive things he did and his denial of that is hollow. Obama’s problem is that he tends to actually think about things and then discuss them, without thinking about what the political ramifications would be. This is refreshing. This is also dangerous. Hillary made one slip regarding driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants and all hell broke loose. This should have been a cautionary lesson for Obama, but apparently he just likes to ruminate about things. Running against the Hillarybot 2008, which has vetted everything she’s going to say before she says it, he has to be better prepared.
3) Speaking of prepared – commenting that “I don’t know which of them I’m running against” got the expected response from HRC, regarding how wonderful Bill is and how the other candidates spouses are strong advocates for them. Obama was not prepped with the response he should have had, namely that Michelle Obama was not the ex-President, whose every word is newsworthy, and that being married to Bill Clinton is the reason HRC considers herself more experienced, while none of Obama’s qualifications come from whom he is married to.
4) Edwards was the best candidate out there, but it won’t matter much, I fear.

So what will happen tomorrow? I have a feeling a surprise is out there. Maybe not in the winner, but perhaps in the margin, or maybe with Edwards getting a larger than expected vote. ARG says Clinton is closing ground, losing white voters to Edwards, but taking older black women back from Obama. Zogby says Edwards is the one moving late. Public Policy says Obama is widening his lead. And my favorite poll comes from Clemson, which has Obama at 27, Clinton at 20, and Edwards at 17, with a whopping 36% undecided – frankly, that may be the most accurate representation of where people really are. But tomorrow, those undecideds will have to decide, and that could result in anything.

Nevada Democratic Debate

After several days of nonsensical race-based acrimony, last night’s Democratic debate figured to be a love fest, with the candidates seated close to each other and trying to cut down on negativity which had permeated the campaign. I suspect that this will not be the last time this devolves into personal infighting, as Clinton and Obama are remarkably similar politically and much of this campaign is based on who they are rather than what they stand for. As for the LBJ-MLK controversy, Clinton was right, much ado has been made over nothing, as it was over Bill Clinton’s “fairy tale” comment, and reflects an over-sensitivity which could completely backfire on Obama in the long run. I give Hillary credit for not backing off the premise of the statement in her subsequent discussions of it. Far too often politicians say something which is totally justifiable, then when they find out it upsets people, run away from it as fast as they can. Of course, the Clinton campaign is run in the classic modern manner, where the candidate stays a bit above the fray, while the surrogates say the most obnoxious things possible. Time and again Clinton’s surrogates say the kind of things, often about Obama and drugs, which are odious, yet somehow the campaign is doing nothing to stop them. Even after the departure of Bill Shaheen, there have been statements like Robert Johnson’s which carry disgusting implications with them. It is inconceivable to me that a responsible campaign has no stated policy regarding this, but then again, the Clintons are known for saying or doing whatever they have to in order to win, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Even yesterday, Charles Rangel was on TV saying utterly untrue things about Obama. It’s the Karl Rove technique – say enough bad things often enough and people will believe them.
As for the debate, once again Hillary proved to be the master (mistress?) of the form. Tight answers, with content and purpose, combined with complete command of the rhythm of things enabled her to dominate. The polls showed a tight, three-way race in NV, so she had to bloody John Edwards and did, with the Yucca Mountain exchange where she pointed out that he had voted for it not once, but twice, once to override a Clinton veto – a double-dip point which reinforced a Clintonian history of opposition. As for Obama, her pointing out his vote for the “Cheney Energy Bill” (a nice touch for HRC with that description), combined with his weak defense of it, was a knockdown punch. He fought back a bit by pointing out her using the “politics of fear” which was a Bush tactic, but in the end, I thought he seemed to be defending much more than anyone else throughout. Obama may have scored points against Edwards by claiming their small differences on Iraq were “distinctions without a difference”, but the fact that they were even discussing it left HRC above the fray on that issue, which has totally faded into the background in the Democratic debate. Obama also fails to attack Clinton’s readiness, which is a major problem for him. In fact, his weakest moment may have come when he defended his “the President doesn’t have to run everything, just provide a vision” statement. It was a weak defense and HRC attacked him effectively for it. He seems trapped in his own avowed political philosophy of uniting people. He only is able to counterpunch, not try and take the lead, which is why so much gets made of trivial Clinton statements, while not really going after her on big issues.
Edwards had a very good night, even if he got to talk less than the others. The format is okay, but would have been better with less formality. If you are going to have the candidates ask questions of each other, make sure you know the rules and make sure it’s fair. Edwards and Obama asked questions of each other but never got to ask one of Hillary. In fact, Russert refused to let Obama back off something that sounded like a question to Edwards. This was totally unfair. Clinton turned her question of Obama into a pro-Hillary statement which Obama had to agree with.
The real question with debates is who watched and what their reaction was. If enough NV voters watched, it could be big for HRC. But it’s possible that very few of the remarkably small percentage of Nevadans who will be caucusing watched, in which case, it matters far less. Obama is the better speaker, but fewer people see his speeches than see debates, and that is where Hillary shines. Overall, I thought Hillary won last night, Edwards was a solid second, with Obama third. Oh yeah, and it was really nice to not have Richardson and Kucinich there.

Numbers and Notes -- Iowa and Beyond

The Iowa Caucus entrance polls ended up being quite accurate in predicting the result, so that makes the underlying numbers very interesting to look at. Let’s look at the results.

Obama – A huge winner by any measure. Brought in new voters, both young and non-Democratic. This win, in a lily white state, will give him serious street cred among African-American voters – yes, he can get elected President. No troubling numbers exist, as those groups which weren’t his strength – older voters and low-income voters – are traditional Democrats who he can pick up in the Fall.
Key number: Among those voters who voted for change (52%), he won 51-20, which is devastating to Edwards and Clinton.

Edwards -- A loss is bad, a big loss to Obama on change is very bad. Strategy in NH is to go after Clinton and try to make it into a race between two different visions of how to accomplish change. How he executes that in tonight’s debate could be the key to his future.
Key numbers: Losing the change vote to Obama (51-20) and the union and low-income vote to Hillary was a two-front disaster. If he can get Hillary out, he could bounce back. This is easier said than done. Has become a “movement” candidate, which makes an early exit from the campaign far less likely. He lost the “Iraq war is most important issue” vote to both Hillary and Obama, getting just 17% there. Hard to figure that one.

Clinton – Iowa was a disaster, no matter how she spins it. This is clearly a change election and she is going to have trouble selling a Clinton revival as real change. The “Ready for Change” signs her people were holding up at her staged post-caucus address looked really desperate. Has to go after Obama while Edwards goes after her, leaving Obama free to be Presidential. A difficult task for Hillary. There is great irony in the way things have broken here. This compressed schedule and three-way race seemed set up for her. No time to eliminate someone and have the anti-Hillary forces coalesce meant that her money and organization would dominate, she would roll through February 5th and be the nominee before anyone could focus. Now she desperately needs time and a head-to-head race.
Key Number: 57% of caucus-goers were women, good for Hillary. She lost women to Obama 35-30...oops. In fact, she only beat Edwards by 7 among women. Her firewall wasn’t NH, it was her dominance in the dominant segment of the party, women voters. In spite of all the focus, in spite of Emily’s List’s economic and organizational support, she lost that demographic.

The other Dems are either irrelevant or gone – sorry to see you go, Joe and Chris, the race is poorer for your leaving.

Note: The older the voter, the more likely to vote for Clinton. The younger the voter, the more likely to vote for Obama.

Huckabee – Easy win on the shoulders of the evangelicals, who comprised an amazing 60% of the vote. NH will be a tougher case, but there is a bounce happening and a solid third there will certainly be considered a victory of sorts. The party establishment hates this guy and won’t go quietly.
Key Number: Only got 14% of the votes among those not born-again. This finished fourth behind Romney 33%, McCain 18%, and Thompson 17%. He must find a way to reach those voters or he won’t win anything.

Romney – The best-laid plans often fall apart worse than you could have imagined. In spite of spending $238 for every vote he got, Mitt finished a bad second. Now he must win NH or get branded a loser, heading for southern primaries where he is weaker. His “silver medal” analogy was cute, but finishing second in the Olympics isn’t great if you entered the favorite, and he did.
Key Number: Mitt only lost the male vote to Huckabee 29-26, women voted for Huckabee 40-24. Is it because women like Huckabee so much, or dislike Mitt? Well, I had a neighbor who used to refer to slick, well-dressed guys who would hit on her in bars with only a quick roll-in-the-hay on their mind and no intention to ever call her again as “striped shirts”. In the political sense, Romney is the ultimate “striped shirt” and women spotted that. You go, girls.

Thompson/McCain – Finished with a couple of hundred votes of each other, due to Thompson actually spending a week there. This is bad for McCain, as it might keep Thompson in the race through SC and McCain had to hope to pick up his support by then. Worse for McCain was the tremendous appeal Obama had for independent voters. If Obama takes too many of them away in NH, McCain could be in trouble and he must win NH. Whoever loses in NH, McCain or Romney, is in serious trouble.
Key Number: Of the 33% of GOP voters who thought illegal immigration is the most important problem, only 4% voted for McCain – this will be a big problem if he gets head-to-head with anyone. Not key, but interesting. Thompson got 16% of men, 10% of women Women don’t trust “striped shirts” or men with trophy wives.

Ron Paul – Got 10%, raised more money than anyone, was not invited to Fox News debate. Fascists don’t want to hear from Libertarians, so the house organ of the GOP has no interest in hearing from Ron.
Key Number: Paul got 21% of the voters under 30, third behind Romney’s 22%.

Rudy Giuliani – 3%? I know he wasn’t trying, but jeez. Don’t they care about 9/11 out there? Still, if McCain wins in NH, then Huckabee and Huckabee and Thompson run 1-2 in SC, this could make Rudy’s strategy look brilliant.

Mike Bloomberg – Huckabee’s big win is just what he needed. Obama, on the other hand, could be a problem.

Guessing Iowa

Predicting the Iowa caucuses is somewhere between hard and impossible, with all the reliability of predictions based on animal entrails. Still, punditry demands these kinds of things, so here goes.

Democrats
1. Edwards
2. Obama
3. Clinton

A few days ago this would have been different, with Obama in third. The Des Moines Register poll changes that, not because I think it’s all that accurate, but because it has created a perception about the race which benefits Obama. Perhaps there will be, as the poll shows, a 33% increase in first-time voters, perhaps there will be a huge turnout of Independents and Republicans voting for Obama, but I wouldn’t bet on those two happening. Still, in politics, perception is reality, and the perception that he is surging late and has broad appeal could well lead to that happening or just adding a few points by other means. I still think Edwards wins the caucuses on second-choice votes, but Obama could win the entrance polls and that could really confuse things. The key is the margin – 30-29-28 is meaningless, 34-29-24 is very meaningful, with the story split between the winner and the loser. If it should be Edwards with 34 and Obama with 24, this race would be turned on its head. The other way around eliminates Edwards, and would give Obama a huge boost. A bad third by Clinton would puncture her inevitability balloon and leave this wide open. The Kucinich “endorsement” of Obama might be worth a point or two and that might prove significant. A significant Clinton win would depress far too many people to even think about.

Republicans
1. Huckabee
2. Romney
3. McCain
4. Paul

I included Paul because I think he’ll get to 10% and Thompson won’t. The question here is whether Romney’s all-out assault on Huckabee worked. If it didn’t, it is a major blow to Romney. The key number here is McCain’s vote total. If he gets to 15% or more, without really having a campaign in Iowa, it will be treated as a victory by the media and will get him a bump in NH. Big Prediction Alert....if McCain gets 15% or more and Huckabee and Clinton win, John McCain will be the next President. Even without the Clinton win, I wouldn’t bet against McCain if the other two happen.

But Can He Win?

For those of you who might be offended, the subject of this does not ignore Hillary, we all know she can win. The question many primary voters have to answer is “I like this guy, but I don’t want to waste my vote – can he actually win this, or should I go to my second choice?” I am going to attempt to answer this, based on polling data and my own spectacularly fallible ability to read the political entrails.

The “Not Really” Tier

Joe Biden: In a better political world, Biden would be battling for the lead in the polls, as he is far more qualified than those at the top. He is also far more experienced than the candidate in his party running on her experience. But he has little personal popularity and his unchanging poll numbers mean he has no chance. This is an indictment of our political system.

Chris Dodd: See Joe Biden, in spades.

Bill Richardson: No, but he has a great chance of being the VP nominee. He, Biden, and Dodd, would make a much stronger top tier than the one we have, but that’s the way things go.

Dennis Kucinich: Yeah, right. Won’t win but will keep cluttering up the race until the end.

Duncan Hunter: Will stick around until the first votes are counted or until his campaign funds run out.

Ron Paul: No, but he is on a mission and his supporters are marginally insane. Look for him to get a shocking number of votes in either Iowa or New Hampshire. Also look for the media to totally ignore the votes he does get.

Fred Thompson: His campaign never caught fire. While his polling numbers have put him in range of the others, he really doesn’t seem to have any sort of momentum or personal drive to get him over the top.

The Contenders - Democrats

Hillary Clinton: Hell yeah. Still the favorite to get the nomination, and still a marginal favorite to become President. The unfortunate assassination of Benazir Bhutto may actually help her...or at least the mainstream media thinks it will, and since they are on her side anyway, they will keep repeating it until the public believes it. Make no mistake, she is who the MSM wants to be President and they will do whatever they can.

Barack Obama: Yes, he can. But if his people aren’t troubled by his national poll numbers, they are fooling themselves. Has money and a national organization, but something may be missing here and a defeat in Iowa could be disastrous, depending on how big.

John Edwards: Yes, but he has to get the nomination and that’s the hard part. A win in Iowa (which I think is at least as likely as anything) and the race turns upside down. The MSM has done everything it can to marginalize him (haircuts? he’s late to rallies?) in an attempt to get a Clinton-Obama showdown, but they can’t ignore actual results. It’s not easy, but at some point Dems may focus on the big picture – he is easily the most electable Democrat.

The Contenders – Republicans

Mitt Romney – Is he the establishment candidate? Does turmoil in Pakistan hurt him (and Huckabee)? Has to be considered a genuine contender, but his plans have gone awry. It was a simple plan : win Iowa, win New Hampshire, narrow the race to himself and Rudy, then roll. Well, what if he loses Iowa and NH? They then head to South Carolina, far less hospitable for him. Has money, has organization, but without momentum, that Mormon thing could prove fatal. Even if he gets the nomination, not a great bet in November.

Rudy Giuliani – Was the leader, may still be the leader, but with everyone under 20%, leadership means little. The sleaze is starting to pile up, and much of his strength in the race comes from his electability, which, while a bit better than Mitt’s, is just not closing the deal. Failures in Iowa and New Hampshire could put him in a difficult position.

John McCain – Rudy’s worst nightmare. The single most likely winner in November, more and more of the GOP establishment are starting to realize that. His resurgent poll numbers reflect the softening of Rudy’s support base. A good third in Iowa followed by a win in NH could make him the top candidate. If Hillary seems to be the Democrats nominee, look for many to rally around the most likely winner – which is him. Will beat any Democrat except Edwards in November.

Mike Huckabee – Included in this group because he can get the nomination. He won’t get elected President. His lack of international experience, his insane tax policy, his extreme religious views, and the many weird things he has said, will overcome his likeability and crush his candidacy should he be the nominee.

No Trouble With The Nomination

Michael Bloomberg – He wants to run, a lot. But he’s not stupid and won’t spend the money without a real chance. A race where Huckabee is the GOP nominee gives him that chance. Not sure whether he would prefer Clinton or Obama on the Dems side, but against Hillary he gets the independents and maybe a third of the GOP, who would be scared by Huckabee. We’re a ways from him making his decision, and if the GOP can’t make a decision and it goes until the convention, that might kill his chances. Absolutely won’t run against McCain or Edwards.

Numbers and Notes -- Useless Polling Edition

(With apologies to Meredith Wilson)

We’ve got trouble, right here in River City
With a capitol T and that rhymes with P and that stands for Polls.
We’ve got trouble, right here in River City
Reporting nonsense that’ll suck your brains like a big lack hole.

And soon your kids’ll be using words
Not good words like “tax policy” or “health care reform”
But words like “momentum” (gasp)
Or “trend lines” (gasp)
Or “margin of error” (TROUBLE)

You ever hear of FDR talking about “trend lines”?
Ever hear Ike talk about “margin of error”?
I should say not.
My friends, useless numbers are the devil’s tools.

We’re two weeks from the Iowa caucuses and over the last three days there have been three polls released in which a)each of the candidates has been first b)each has been second and c)each has been third. The media breathlessly announce the numbers like they came down on tablets from Mt. Sinai, often because they themselves sponsored the polls. And the poll they sponsored is the one treated as holy writ, debated like it really means something. In fact, they mean next to nothing. No, I’m not saying Joe Biden or Bill Richardson is going to win Iowa or come close, but the top three are not truly distinguishable by polls. Personally, I think Edwards organization (he’s organized in all 99 counties of Iowa) and experience (his people have done this before) will end up winning the day, especially in terms of delegates. Still, that’s something of a guess, and if you told me he would win the delegates and lose the popular vote to Obama, I wouldn’t dispute that.
The one thing I am hoping for is that the Hawkeyes see clearly enough to punish the Clinton campaign for the filth they have spewn. Usually, dirty tactics wait for when a candidate is in trouble, but the Clintonites see no point in waiting. Besides the silliness over Obama’s kindergarten essays – and rest assured, the Clintonites see that as probitive – they also hinted at his selling coke. That’s the way they play the game, attack first, apologize later, but leave the attack out there. I can’t prove that the John Edwards’ pregnant mistress story came from the Clinton campaign, but it has Clinton conduit Matt Drudge’s fingerprints on it and on Thanksgiving, I was wearing my Edwards button and a Clinton campaign person asked me if I would still support him when stories about his mistress hit the media in a couple of weeks. Now the Enquirer broke the story before that, so he may have gotten it from there, or it just may have been a plan they had. Of course if Edwards did have a mistress – and that would give him a Clinton connection and the kind of experience Hillary is familiar with – this would be huge. It would also have been investigated by a better source than the Enquirer by this time and confirmed by them.
We have two weeks to go, until then, the Dems will battle for every voter and the Republicans will battle for Jesus – more about them later.

Nevada Debate -- The Empire Strikes Back

The most notable part of last night’s Democratic debate was how slanted it was toward Hillary Clinton. Wolf Blitzer started out by asking her questions that helped her, then he asked negative questions of Obama and Edwards. He had no control and randomly chose who got to answer what, always making sure she got a shot. On driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, Hillary simply said she was against it – now a real moderator might have pointed out that this is a different position than she had last time, but not Wolf. The Clinton campaign leaked to the Drudge Report (Matt Drudge apparently is thrilled to carry Hillary’s water these days) how much they loved Blitzer. Then there was the audience – packed with Clinton supporters, they cheered her lines on cue and booed anyone who said anything bad about her or even disagreed with her by name. One Clinton thug actually yelled out something while Obama was speaking, as if trying to shout him down. Blitzer’s reaction? Nothing. No admonition to the audience at any point at all. Then, to wrap up a Presidential debate, Campbell Brown, having been pretty decent throughout the evening, earned her CNN cash by asking Hillary the fluffiest question possible, designed to mock those who question her waffling: “pearls or diamonds?” It was a pathetic exhibition by the former news giant.
In the debate itself, Hillary did well, I guess, if you like whining. You see, whenever anyone had the temerity to attack her, she immediately accused them of doing the Republicans job by “slinging mud” -- then she attacked back. The Wicked Witch of the East was in peak form, using every technique from the Karl Rove text. She didn’t plant any questions, although with Blitzer there, she didn’t have to.
I’m getting tired of these debates. The one last week had some merit, in that Matthews and Russert made some effort to pin people down and not coddle Hillary. But it’s getting harder and harder to watch them without wishing it was time to vote.
My ratings after this one:
1. Edwards: Fighting hard but the mainstream media has no desire to have him in the race, since two people are all they have time to cover
2. Dodd: Didn’t get to say much, still solid, but ultimately irrelevant.
3. Biden: Still knows his stuff, but still has no traction at all. He and Dodd are the guys who would be solid Presidents and have little to no chance.
4. Obama: Weak performance, bungled the driver’s license question. Seems to be seeking a middle ground politically which may end up hurting him because he seems to be taking the unpopular route on many issues. Personal story and charisma will have to overcome his unsteadiness.
5. Richardson: Not exciting, can’t see anyone voting for him in the long run.
6. Kucinich: Right on many things, wrong on others, at least he’s honest.
7. Clinton: The stench is rising and the question is whether it fills enough noses to defeat her before it’s too late. My guess is that it won’t, which will be a disaster for the party and the country.

Democrats Debate in Philly – Would You Buy a Used Car From This Woman?

This is a quick take, more depth to follow. For the first time the other candidates took on Hillary and kicked the living crap out of her. The only question is whether enough Democrats saw it to understand what a duplicitous piece of crap she really is. I called her Richard Nixon a few months ago and she was Nixon tonight, minus the flop sweat. It is time for the main stream media, which has fawned over her and anointed her as if she was anything other than the American Evita, to raise the real issues and treat her like the fraud she is.
Several of the candidates were surprising tonight and this is the order I would vote for them based on what I saw and their own histories:

1. Chris Dodd – A shame he’s not being taken seriously. Right on the war, right on the Iran vote, right on Hillary, and most importantly, right on driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants. He also has the guts to talk about decriminalizing marijuana.
2. John Edwards – Took it to HRC in a big way. Tough enough, smart enough, and for the first time, made himself look like he really belonged in the top tier.
3. Joe Biden – Still the smartest guy in the room, also the funniest. Went after HRC on her benighted Iran vote, complete grasp of every issue. Given the field, his poll numbers are sad.
4. Barack Obama – Formed a one-two punch against the wicked witch of the East and scored big. Still tends to wander a bit, strong on geopolitics, but the immigration issue is not strong for him or Edwards.
5. Bill Richardson – Strong on Iraq, doesn’t equivocate on most issues. He’s been a Governor, in case you didn’t know.
6. (tie) the Loon and the Liar – Kucinich is right on a lot of things, handled the UFO thing with humor, is in favor of impeaching the scum in the oval office. Still off the charts in too many ways.
The other L word was Hillary, who ducked and dodged and slipped and hopefully, fell. Her defense of her Iran vote was ludicrous and, as I said in my last post, either a lie or a serious ignorance of the middle east. And, as if to prove the point that everyone else made about her duplicity, she took a simple question about driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants and answered it at least two different ways. Anyone who trusts this woman is a fool.

Democrats Debate in NH -- Are Tides Shifting?

Last night’s Democratic candidates debate was yet another visit to the same topics, although Tim Russert’s questions were the sharpest and most focused they have faced and I give him credit for pushing for actual answers to the questions. There weren’t a lot of topics covered considering the length of it, but that wasn’t a bad thing, as we didn’t bounce around as much.
The early part of the debate was focused on Iraq, and some key positional differences are starting to emerge. The top tier of candidates seem reluctant to make absolute statements about pulling troops out completely. The big three refused to promise to have troops out by the end of 2009, or even 2013, the end of their presumptive first term (and if they don’t have troops out, their only term). Edwards seemed most aggressive on troop withdrawal, promising an immediate removal of half our forces, yet still saying a residual “non-combat” force might have to be left behind to protect our embassies and bases. Obama and Clinton were much less aggressive, talking about troops left behind to fight terrorism. This is troubling to me, as I believe our troops are part of the problem, The Clinton/Obama position was even more troubling, as it still does not focus the Iraqis on solving their problems and still leaves our forces at the mercy of events not in their control. We need to set a date when we will leave. Any other solution, any promise to bring in regional powers for negotiations, or any half-assed withdrawal, will not “end the war”. No matter how much Hillary promises to end the war, without the willingness to commit to an end date, it’s all Clintonian bullshit. Obama’s stance is not quite as disappointing, but still seems far too tilted toward the “realistic” school of Iraq policy.
Perhaps the most interesting moment of the Iraq portion came from Joe Biden, who is in favor of partitioning the country and for the first time said that if there was no political solution, he would pull all our troops out. To me, that is the most realistic position and one I would endorse, although I still feel a specific date is required.
This also marked the first time Biden started to criticize Hillary. On health care, Biden made the key point that getting health care legislation passed will require bringing people together and that the Republicans will never come together with Hillary (who also has little appeal to independents as well). Edwards pointed out the failures of Hillary’s first attempt at health care legislation and talked about how it was done in secret, with more input from industry types than from those affected by it. Edwards got the one big round of applause of the night when he repeated his promise that if Congress didn’t pass universal health care legislation in his first year in office, he would strip them of their health insurance. His last shot at Hillary, which also got applause, was to say “In 1993-94 we didn’t get universal health care, we got NAFTA.” All of these things show a willingness to take on both Hillary and the not-so-fantastic legacy she wants to revive. Linking her to the inept trade policy of her husband is a great idea. Reminding people of how divisive she is extremely important in the drive to save the party from her candidacy.
The essence of Hillary’s campaign was revealed in her answer to Russet’s question of what you would do to save the future of Social Security. While the other candidates addressed the issue, with full discussions of raising the amount of income on which Social Security taxes are paid, or raising the age of retirement, or discussing the actual numbers which lead to the purported insolvency, Hillary ducked the whole thing. Her position was that we have to establish fiscal responsibility before we can do anything about Social Security. She was called on this nonsense – a variation on Reagan’s solving budget problems by attacking “waste, fraud, and abuse” – by the other candidates but still refused to address the problems. The reasons are obvious: she was told by her pollsters that in the general election the one thing you can never be in favor of is raising people’s taxes. Hillary thinks she has the nomination and is carefully positioning herself for her headlong dash to the middle (where she belongs anyway). Look for more ducking and dodging in future months.
The winners in this debate were Edwards and Biden, who drew distinctions between themselves and the other candidates and drew blood from the front-runner. Obama seemed bland and listless and is simply not getting better at this. Hillary got beat up a bit, but whether her supporters care is the real question. The campaign has yet gain focus with the general public – it can’t happen too soon for the country’s future.

Numbers and Notes -- When Do Things Really Start?

We’re less than five months from SuperDuper Tuesday, when, to all intents and purposes, the Democratic nominee will be decided. The big question is who it will be. The key question which may determine the answer to the big question is: when will people start to focus on the race? Most polls show that most of the voters are not paying much attention to the race and therefore are not ready to decide on who they’ll vote for. The problem is finding the moment when they will engage. Historically, voters have waited until Iowa and New Hampshire do their thing, vetting the candidates in a personal way, narrowing the field to a manageable size. Then with their own primaries weeks or even months away, they can get down to business. Even leaving out the MI and FL silliness, there won’t be much time between NH and the big ones. Add to that the nature of voting in CA, where nearly 30% of the votes will likely be cast before the NH primary and confusion must be rampant within the campaigns. Where and when to spend advertising dollars is key. Do you start your spending in December, hoping to get the momentum rolling early? Or do you wait until after the holidays, when people’s minds are ready and compete among what will surely be an avalanche of ads from both parties. Here in CA, there will be several key initiatives on that February 5th ballot, adding even more political advertising to the clutter. Will anyone be able to get traction amid the noise?
On the Democratic side, the numbers indicate that Hillary has a substantial lead, with her numbers generally in the forties, while Obama has settled in the mid-twenties, and Edwards in the low teens. The only thing that has changed over the last couple of months is that Hillary has added somewhere near ten percent. That addition is a dangerous omen for the others, since it would seem to indicate that people have made a choice. It’s the reason for the escalation in attacks on Clinton from both Edwards and Obama. They understand that there is a danger in letting it look like Hillary is going to win. People start jumping on the bandwagon, start to feel that they need to sign up.
I think there is one person with the ability to start the campaign on his own – Al Gore. Gore has said that he intends to endorse a candidate before the primaries. His endorsement would be the lead story on every news report, his reasons would focus the campaign light on something, either positive or negative, and begin the national conversation. There is one thing we can be confident of, he’s not going to endorse Hillary. After that, it’s anyone’s guess. Edwards might be more in tune with his current thinking, but would his endorsement of the white Southern guy look like a circling of the wagons? Other than electability, it is hard to find the easily stated reason for an Edwards endorsement, without getting into a policy-wonkish discussion (not that Al has ever been averse to those). On the other hand, an endorsement of Obama as “the future” rather than the Clinton-Edwards revivals would be very effective coming from Gore. Speak up, Al, you’re holding the green flag on this race.

Numbers and Notes - Perception is Reality

In electoral politics, perception is reality. It did not matter whether George Bush was a “Compassionate Conservative” or not (Heartless Fascist would be a more accurate description), the belief that he was one helped him in the election. It doesn’t matter whether Hillary is a Left-wing Witch or not (Moderate Witch is probably more accurate, but perhaps she’s really a sweetheart), the public perception of that drives her high unfavorability ratings. The nature of a race, especially a primary race, where the candidates do not have bold policy differences, can easily be determined by the public’s perception of the race itself. No perception is more important under those circumstances than the inevitability of victory.
While those who analyze polling data professionally constantly point out that relatively few voters are paying attention to the campaign and that history tells us that once things intensify with actual votes being imminent there is a large change in voters’ allegiances, even fewer people are hearing those admonitions than are paying attention to the campaign. The news media, in particular, tend to treat polling numbers like they were handed down from Mt. Sinai, rather than just acquired by minimum-wage callers or zero-wage computers. A two-point shift is a trend, a four point drop a collapse, and a marginally significant lead is considered insurmountable. The media also enjoys the horse race far more than it does the underlying issues. And they are very bad at covering a whole field of horses, so they narrow it down as much as possible. In the Democratic primary race, that last part has become Clinton vs. Obama. Yes, they mention Edwards, but he’s clearly the third guy, and because of his lack of movement in the numbers, he’s actually less interesting to them than Richardson.
The Gallup Poll, along with being the most famous, is also the most widely quoted. In that poll, Hillary’s lead over Obama is over 20 points. More important, she is at 48%, which, for those of you who are numerically challenged, is very close to a majority. Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll has Hillary’s lead about half of that. Even worse for those men in the race, Hillary’s state-by-state numbers, especially in the big February 5th primaries, are even better. Combining these elements, there is a growing sense of inevitability to Hillary’s nomination.
We can point out forever that no votes have been cast (true), that little advertising money has been spent (also true), and that prior year frontrunners in the Democratic Party have a spotty history of success (true again). The fact still remains that while we are still five months from any votes being cast, we are only six months from the race being over. That last fact changes everything. The February 5th frontloading has changed the entire process. When exactly is the public going to focus on the race, between Thanksgiving and Christmas? There is little reason to believe people focus on anything but family and shopping in that timeframe. In fact, family gatherings could be interesting conversation areas, with those who have opinions formed convincing those who don’t, and could be more important than subsequent commercials.
The aura of inevitability helps raise money and just as important, dries up money for others. Nobody wants to endorse a loser, if the bandwagon is about to leave, you’d better be on it. Notice how organized labor didn’t endorse anyone. Hillary Clinton may be anathema to the AFL-CIO, but they don’t dare oppose her.
A month ago, Obama staffers told The Politico that the polls didn’t bother them, that they were planning on winning Iowa and New Hampshire and turning things around then, so they would be patient. The first time Hillary went over 40% in the Gallup Poll, that all changed. Obama got more aggressive toward Clinton, publicly fighting with her and drawing very public distinctions. Unfortunately for him, the numbers didn’t move. Make no mistake, they know they can’t wait until January to break down her numbers. There are already signs that more Democrats are feeling positively toward Hillary. I interpret those as the feeling that she is likely to be the nominee, so people guess they should start looking at her positives. As for me, I may be pregnant, but I refuse to pretend I’m in love. I believe Hillary will be a disaster for the party and a disaster for the country. The aura of inevitability surrounding her means she must be attacked directly. The lesser candidates can play a part here, but Kucinich, who could easily play a big part in this, is intoxicated with himself. Biden and Dodd are big on Senatorial courtesy and Biden probably has a cabinet position in mind. I believe something big has to happen before January or Hillary will win. Patience may be a virtue, but in this case, it could be fatal.

The You Tube Debate

This week featured the latest in an endless series of debates by an endless collection of Democratic candidates, although this was the first “official” one, as it was sanctioned by the party – like anyone cared. This was also special because the questions were asked by the public. Or at least that part of the public with the time, the wherewithal, and the interest in making a video for You Tube to pass CNN’s screening process and appear on a giant screen at the debate. CNN, in an orgasm of self-congratulations, proclaimed it revolutionary and historic. It was neither, although the videos were often amusing, sometimes poignant, and in one instance, just a little scary – the guy with the gun who referred to it as “my baby”, should be checked into immediately. They also made it easier to ask pointed questions which the candidates couldn’t duck completely, although Hillary did effectively dodge the “can’t we do better than Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton for 28 years?” question, even getting off a good joke of her own in response. I liked it, since the questioners seemed less self-conscious than the usually bunch of reporter types and more coherent than the nitwits who ask questions from the audience in town meeting style formats. It seemed to elicit good answers and a genuine spirit of liveliness that helped things move along. The only problem is that the most recent events couldn’t be dealt with, like the Gonzalez testimony and the Senate sleepover nonsense. Nothing is perfect, except John Edwards’ hair.
Speaking of Edwards hair, they also showed a series of You Tube ads put together by the campaigns. Some, like Chris Dodd’s, were wonderful, both funny and informative. Edwards used the musical background of Hair to show a series of quick issues and his positions, a wonderful contrast of the substance of his campaign with the news media’s ridiculous fascination with nonsense. Dennis Kucinich had the worst ad, in which he told people they could end the war by sending a text message to Congress – seriously. What planet does he live on?
All in all, most of the candidates have gotten better at the process, somewhat ameliorating Hillary’s big debate advantage. Edwards, in particular, seemed a much more commanding presence on stage, which is something he needed badly. Still, the crowd of candidates makes real dialogue next to impossible. Every time Joe Biden proclaims that he is the only candidate who really understands Iraq and that he is the only candidate with an actual plan to get us out of there, I just want to scream. Why can’t Edwards just follow that up by saying that having a plan (three states) with virtually no support within Iraq is fairly useless and then ask Biden what he would do if this plan he wishes to impose from outside is rejected by the Iraqis? Just once I’d like to see Mr. Expert-on-everything have to answer a tough question. I know the media has no interest in cutting him off, since they see no point in it, irrelevant as he is, but it would be illuminative. Without the threat of our leaving at a specific point, nothing will get done there. Kudos to Chris Dodd for coming around to the “we have to set a date certain” position. Of course, Edwards wants us to get out in six months, Kucinich in six days, and Gravel wants us to get out in 1966 – but I’m tired of the “realistic” positions on this issue and we need to see this brought out.
The big realism moment actually seems to have had a life beyond the debate itself. That was when the candidates were asked if they would meet personally with the leaders of N. Korea, Iran, etc., unlike Bush. Obama said he would, but Hillary said she would be willing to, but only after the groundwork had been laid and we knew what would be discussed, that doing otherwise would be giving them a public relations boon and gaining us nothing. I think she was right, but apparently much of the public disagreed. Obama has seized on the focus group reaction to attack the Clinton position, actually comparing her to Bush and Cheney on this. While I’m all in favor of confronting Hillary, this seems like a weird issue to choose. It may signal a change in the nature of the campaign and bears watching on that level.
Other highlights and lowlights: when Obama was asked whether he was black enough, he actually was quick enough to give the same answer I would have (which always impresses me, of course), to the effect that he still would have trouble catching a cab in Manhattan. He also was very good when someone asked if the candidates would be willing to work for minimum wage if elected. Obama said “we can work for minimum wage, we have money – not Mitt Romney money, but enough.” Obama also had the best bumper sticker line – “The world is not the world as it has to be.”
The candidates were asked to tell one thing they liked and one thing they disliked about the candidate to their left. None would say something they didn’t like (except for Edwards having a problem with Hillary’s jacket), but Joe Biden really liked Dennis Kucinich’s wife. When Kucinich pointed out he had no one to his left, Anderson Cooper commented that “we couldn’t find anyone to your left.”
The lowpoints involved Kucinich’s call for reparations for slavery – seriously, he said that. There was a question asked about whether there was a Republican they could run with as their VP. Joe Biden jumped right in and said Chuck Hagel. Edwards sort of said Hagel was okay, then went on to talk about other stuff. Not one person pointed out the ridiculous nature of Biden’s answer. Hagel, is anti-abortion, anti gay right, in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy – in fact, except for Iraq, he is a perfect conservative. The correct answer is that if you can show me a Republican who is pro-choice. pro gay rights, pro stem cell research, against the war in Iraq, in favor of a fair tax system, and pro worker’s rights, I might consider him or her – but that’s what makes them Republicans and us Democrats and the people need to remember that on election day.

PBS Democratic Debate -- I Agree With What He Said

It was billed as the All-American Presidential Forum, perhaps in attempt to lure sports fans, but really it was the Urban Affairs debate, held at Howard University in front of mostly African-Americans, hosted by Tavis Smiley, with all the questioners being non-white. In other words, home turf for Dems, discussing issues which will not decide the election. The questions were interesting, thoughtful, and for the most part, ignored, as most of the candidates translated the specific question into “this is about education/crime/health care” and gave their prepared answer.
Obama and Edwards are very lucky that very few people are watching these debates. They have no chance at drawing distinctions between themselves and Hillary, as Kucinich and Gravel attack everyone equally, and Clinton and Biden sound so well prepared and authoritative on every issue, that Obama and Edwards seem out of their depth. All of them are getting better at this (except for Richardson) and the time that is wasted on Gravel’s senescent ramblings gets more and more annoying. Although there was a point last night hen I thought Dodd was actually going to smack him down, which would have been wonderful.
This was on really solid turf for Hillary, Obama, and Edwards, yet the format didn’t give them a chance to really discuss anything. Obama was able to talk to the audience in a different way than the others, and frankly, may be the single best thing about his candidacy. When discussing the shocking HIV/AIDS statistics in the African-American community, he alone was able to talk about the need for the community to take more responsibility.
Hillary may be the best “short-form” debater ever (to coin a term). Give her a minute, she will make her points in a minute, coherently and effectively, give her 30 seconds, she’ll do it in 30 seconds. Unlike virtually every other candidate, she answered the actual questions that were asked, rather than just shifting to her prepared boilerplate. She is a very impressive woman and this was really solid turf for her.
No candidate is hurt more by the two left-wing idealogues than Edwards. In earlier debates, he wanted to draw distinctions between himself and the others on the war and Kucinich and Gravel lumped them all together again. He wants to talk about his superior health care proposals and Kucinich attacks him with the others because he doesn’t immediately knock the insurance companies out of the system. Life is easier when all you do is spout ideology, unfettered by the actual need to either win or accomplish anything. Kucninch and Gravel have the Naderite position in this game – and they get 25% of the time to hurt Edwards, effectively help Hillary, and, like Nader in the past (and maybe future) help the Republicans stay in power.
Just a word on Blabbermouth Bill Richardson – shut up. Okay, that’s two words, but man, is he annoying. And unless he’s spent an awful lot of time in the sun the last month, he was wearing makeup dark enough to be used in a road company of Othello. It looked like he was trying to emphasize his non-white half in this gathering. He reiterated his willingness to boycott the Olympics, saying, pompously, “I happen to think preventing genocide is more important than sports.” Next time he says something like that, someone should ask him if it’s more important than China having most favored nation trade status. Then when he hems and haws over that, they can tell him to just shut up.
Mostly, everyone in the debate agreed with everyone else. The next version of this will be with Republicans, and that could actually be interesting.

Campaign Themes -- Branding the Candidates

We might like to think of the electoral process as a high-minded exercise in political discourse, where like-minded people gather around the best candidates with the most to offer the country in expertise, leadership, experience, and ideas. This is, of course, a fantasy. Political campaigns are high-level advertising campaigns, with the same branding of candidates as exists for cars and soft drinks. Yes, the speeches and debates give us more depth than a 30-second ad, but most people will vote based on second-hand information and something – a look, an ad, a moment – that catches their interest and gives the candidate an edge. Those who run campaigns well know this – whether Reagan’s Morning in America, Clinton’s Third Way, or Bush’s Compassionate Conservatism, the ability to come up with a theme which resonates with the public can overcome all sorts of negatives about a candidate. Similarly, the lack of the theme can allow you to be defines by your opponents, or simply not give the public a positive image of your candidacy to gather around.
After the last Democratic debate, I discussed the themes as I saw them at the time. To recap the top ones: Hillary’s theme is Ready From Day One. Notice how often she harkens back to the concept, when talking about foreign policy or rejecting hypotheticals, she recalls the nature of decision-making in the White House, which she was there for. When asked about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, she made sure to talk about the process of coming up with that policy at the time. When asked about health care, she reminds everyone she has had to deal with that policy and, more importantly, the battle to get it through Congress (‘I’ve done that and have the scars to show for it”); she doesn’t have a health care policy to speak of, but she just falls back on her experience. Obama is New Leadership From a New Generation – everything about him screams how he is unlike anyone else. To borrow from an old New York mayoralty campaign, he is fresh while everyone else is tired...and you are tired of these other people too, of the Clintons, of Edwards, of Biden. Look for him to refine this as he goes on, using the words “new” and “fresh” and “different” as often as possible in speeches and answers to question.
John Edwards, on the other hand, has not found a theme which might resonate. He has spent a lot of time talking about the war, attempting to be the major anti-war candidate. But the debates, with Kucinich and Gravel attacking all of them equally, destroyed the distinctions between him and the other two top tier candidates. He has talked about poverty. He has had programmatic answers, including a fine health care plan. Yet if you ask someone why they support him, there is no unifying theme which could be put on a banner to lead the parade. In his first commercial, he has three memorable points. 1) America’s strength is in its people 2) we must be one America 3) we need to give Americans something to be patriotic about besides war. Pardon me while I yawn. The first sounds more Republican than Democratic – if the strength is its people, why do we need government? It’s not a bad first line if he’s going to follow with “it’s weakness is its government and I will fix that”, but he doesn’t. It’s just feel-good nonsense. The One American theme, as opposed to his Two Americas speeches from 2004, a concept which he apparently is reviving, is meaningless to most voters. It can be fleshed out into something else, a common good philosophy perhaps, but doesn’t grab people. The third one is a lovely turn of phrase, but it ignores how most Americans, especially those likely to vote for a Democrat, think. It is the war that makes them less patriotic, that’s the only thing that they aren’t proud of.
I have thought about a possible theme for Edwards’ campaign, and here is what I have come up with:

John Edwards: Reviving the American Dream

Isn’t that what he is about? For most of the 20th century, the American dream was a simple one – get a good job with good benefits, buy a home, raise your kids, give them the education and help needed to have a better life than you have. Your job provides health insurance and retirement benefits and along with Social Security, your future is secure. Most Americans don’t dream of being rich, they aren’t entrepreneurial, they just have basic desires. That dream is dying. They fear losing their job and with it their health care benefits. Even if they don’t lose the job, the pay increases are not keeping up with the costs of gas, housing, food, and health insurance. The job may provide insurance, but the cost to the workers keeps increasing as wages stagnate. American optimism is fading. We know this because more and more polls have shown that Americans no longer believe that their children will be better off than they are. We know this because the first sign of fear is the resentment of the “other”. In this case, it’s the threat seen from the developing world stealing our jobs. Even more so, it is the perceived threat of immigrants. The anger over immigration is fueled by fear, not just of losing jobs or lower wages, but of the culture changing around them. There are many historical examples of this happening, and many of those were particularly nasty. Everything Edwards talks about can be linked back to this. Health care, ending the war, trade, job security – all of it. He has talked about “two Americas”, but there are three (at least), not just rich and poor (and he has talked about the poor far more than is good for his candidacy, sad to say), but those in the middle. The middle used to aspire to more, now they fear going in the other direction. Back in the 90’s, Bill Clinton said that most Americans would no longer have just one career, but two or three careers. Of course, that’s elitist crap, since most Americans don’t have “careers” they have jobs. And while it’s one thing to go from being a lawyer to a politician, to a college professor, as Clinton did, losing your job, and the wages and benefits that go with it is a harrowing experience. Looking for a new job involves starting over, usually at a significantly lower pay rate. If you lose your job after age 50, you can kiss your lifestyle goodbye. Edwards needs to tell people that he understands their problems, understands their fears, and will do everything he can to deal with them.
Will he find this theme? I don’t know, but America needs to hear it, so I hope he does.

Making a Choice

Polls of Democrats show that people are generally satisfied with the field of Democrats running for President. I admit that I am not among them, as I see serious weaknesses in all of them, either in experience, leadership, or judgment. In some cases, the problem is more difficult, with electability being the key problem, which seems unfair, since these are experienced men and woman who have won multiple elections and perhaps it would be better to not jump the gun on the impossibility of victory for some of them. Unfortunately, this is not the case, since there is less time for these campaigns to catch fire than in the past. Let’s take a look at the second (and maybe third) tier candidates.

Joe Biden: Totally qualified. Has shown no ability at all to get support outside of Delaware. In Gallup polling he is locked in a battle with Al Sharpton and Wesley Clark. As for his judgment, I don’t trust him at all – he was a strong supporter of the war, has a “solution” which while it sounds reasonable, has no support either within Iraq or in any neighboring country. His vote on the bankruptcy changes two years ago was morally reprehensible and to me, renders him unfit to be President.

Chris Dodd: Totally qualified. Seems more anti-war than most at the moment. Has even less support than Biden, although he seems to have raised a decent amount of money – it’s good to chair the Banking committee. This seems utterly quixotic.

Dennis Kucinich: Frankly, I think he’s right about most things. Unfortunately, there is little realism in either his hard-line positions or his campaign. I wouldn’t mind looking at his wife for the next four years, but unfortunately, he comes with her.

Bill Richardson: Totally qualified – has the best resume since George H. W. Bush. Stunningly dull, seems to have no base or electability. While he seems like a good VP candidate, his dullness may even hurt that.

Mike Gravel: If we change the name of the party to the Slightly Loony Party, he’s our man.

On to the real race – and in one case the unreal one.

Al Gore: Gallup has been including him in their polls and his numbers, so he has to be looked at. Easily the most qualified, in a better world we’d be in the seventh year of the Gore administration. Right on the war and on the environment, he seems very comfortable with himself and I would love to see him in the race. I don’t think he’s going to run. He doesn’t want to discuss ethanol in Iowa and whatever other crap will get votes in various states. His disinterest in joining the fray reveals the biggest weakness of our system, wherein the best-qualified are forced to compete for votes on a demeaning level and forced to beg for money for hours a day. This is not a good way to pick a President.

Hillary Clinton: Sort of qualified – has been in the halls of power, has seen how the executive branch works up close, has met world leaders, has worked effectively in the Senate. Of the top tier candidates who are running, is easily the most qualified. Her stance on issues has been troubling. Her Iraq stance was awful, has tried to join the opposition, yet it seems, like everything else she does, thoroughly calculated. Says she will end the war when she takes over, yet hasn’t given the slightest indication of how, which seems thoroughly Nixonian to me. I hate comparing someone whose positions on many issues parallel mine with Richard Nixon, yet I feel comfortable with it. A Clinton administration would take on an unpopular war which she had supported, then promised to end. Like Nixon, she would enter office with remarkably little good will and trust. It’s not just that you’re either with her or against her – many who would be with her don’t much like or trust her. Like Nixon, she seems driven by a lust for power more than a vision. Because of the front-loaded primary structure, featuring many states where she has a big advantage, combined with her being strong among the most-likely primary voters (women and the elderly), she has to be considered a serious favorite to get the nomination. I would vote for her in November, of course, but I would be holding my nose while I did it.

Barack Obama: Here’s a man with a vision. He has no real qualifications, only two years in the Senate with no leadership demonstrated on any issue. In many ways, he’s the anti-Hillary – he’s warm, visionary, with a charisma which makes you think he could be the one to both lead the country and maybe even unite it. In his writings, the man emerges as thoughtful and knowledgeable. Yet he still speaks in generalities, seems careful on everything, and doesn’t seem to want to lead on issues of substance. I’m not sure what we get with him – his best chance is for it to narrow down to him and Hillary in time for him to get the anti-Hillary vote. Head-to-head matchups with her seem to favor her at the moment, yet that could easily change if he can make that the race.

John Edwards: Like Obama, it’s hard to see his qualifications. Six relatively undistinguished years in the Senate doesn’t exactly prepare you to run the country. What must Biden and Dodd think when they see these two “back-benchers” walloping them in the polls? In no other country in the world would this sort of thing happen. He was a lousy VP candidate in 2004, with a deer-in-the-headlights performance in the debate with Cheney being the most egregious example. He seems to have learned from that experience, seems tougher and maybe better prepared for the battle. He is driven to be President, yet it seems to come from a different place than Clinton’s drive. He has things he wants to do, people he wants to help. Talking about the poor and forgotten of society is not the best way to get votes, yet he does that. This is a good man, with the ability to admit mistakes (Iraq) and the vision to see the problems that face us, not in electoral terms, but in people terms. You may not agree with his position on trade, but he at least understands, as more and more economists now do, that free trade is not a panacea and that more and more Americans are being hurt by it. The first step towards tackling a problem is seeing that it exists. Unlike Clinton, he has talked about ending the war and how it should be done – he’s been derided as naive by Biden, but he’s at least shown the leadership to have a plan. Speaking of which, go to his website, johnedwards.com, and read his health care proposal — if the Democrats were smart, we would adopt it as the official party position.
Of the three front-runners, Edwards would be my choice. He has thought about the problems and has taken the risk of making actual stands on them. I have no illusions here – his lack of experience will not help him get things done. Even more important, his poll numbers are troubling. We are still a long way from the voting, yet when I step into the voting booth on Feb. 5th of next year, I expect I will have a tough choice. Do I vote for the person I want to be President, or the person best able, based on polling data, to beat Hillary Clinton? For now, I will take the high road and hope for the best.