Off the Wagon

Off the Wagon

My name is sptmck, a part-time blogger, and I AM “off the wagon.” After spending months of de-toxing and painfully abstaining from “going negative” on Judas Joe, formerly Captain Lieberman, formerly Oedipus Lieberman, formerly Joe Lieberman, Democrat from CT, I thought for sure that I twelve-stepped my way to a new found serenity. Unfortunately for me, and many CT Bloggers, God neither granted me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change nor the wisdom to know the difference.

It’s official: Judas Joe is back and more heinous than ever. Talk about a “double-birdie” to us Ned Lamont supporters, and, more surprisingly, to the Democratic Establishment that should’ve seen shameless Joe for what he was before they granted him those committee assignments. Media-blitzing on his endorsement of Senator John McCain, Captain LIEberman just did a spot earlier tonight on Furball in which he stated to Chris Matthews—brace yourselves—that in his heart he IS a TRUE Democrat and that because Senator McCain ASKED HIM for his support, he said…yes. “Vengeance is mine,” sayeth Judas Joe.

Things are getting interesting in Presidential Politics, aren’t they? One can’t help ponder how Judas Joe’s latest move affects Billaryworld. Remember, it was ol’ Billy who came to CT in the summer of’06 to stump for then-known Oedipus Lieberman. Remember, it was Hillary to whom Oedipus appealed to get Billy out there to do his thing. And remember it was Hillary who remained on the quiet side when it came to her support of Ned Lamont. Much more can’t be said about Barack who, in the summer/fall ’06, during his book tour, slided around CT to AVOID a public appearance with Lamont, Oedipus’s nemesis at the time.

Maybe we should revisit John Edwards’ analysis of Washington insiders and how their actions have consequences. Maybe Mr. Edwards, who proudly supported Ned Lamont and true change, can offer a viable, sobering alternative to establishment politicians and the betraying bedfellows they keep.

The Iowa Caucus "Second Choice" Wrinkle

Weekly Presidential Politics - 12/5/07

The recent Des Moines poll still has political America in a tizzy. Obama's roaring, Hillary's vulnerable, and Edwards is fading. Thus spake the masses.

What if I were to tell you that an Obama-Hillary-Edwards finish is just as likely as an Edwards-Hillary-Obama finish? Or an Edwards-Obama-Hillary finish, or a Hillary-Edwards-Obama victory, or, well, you get the point.

See, what's consistently overlooked when it comes to the Democratic Iowa Caucus are the interesting rules attached to the contest. These rules are unlike any other primary of either party, including the Republican Iowa Caucus. The most important of these rules is: if a candidate doesn't reach a particular threshold (percentage of votes), the votes that were going to him go to the voter's "second choice."

Example: The threshold is placed at 15% (It's usually between 15 and 25). Only the three candidates end up exceeding that threshold. Richardson gets 8%, Biden get 6%, etc. The votes intended for Richardson, Biden, et. al get scattered into the top 3, depending on the voter's second choice. (Note: The reason for this is because Iowans want to make sure their votes go their top candidates and a viable candidate, if these two aren't the same person. Not that bad of an idea, especially when you think of the Nader dilemma in 2000.) In the 2004 Iowa Caucus, for example, only John Kerry, John Edwards, and Howard Dean earned national delegates to the convention.

Okay, so, what does this mean for 2008? Well, the Des Moines Register poll revealed:
Barack Obama - 28%
Hillary Clinton - 25%
John Edwards - 23%
No one else above 9%

Say that ends up being the numbers for the Iowa Caucus itself. Those first three numbers mean that 76% of voters have chosen one of the big three, and 24% have not. Therefore, 24% of the vote is still available to be divvied up among the top 3 candidates!

Therefore, second choice is hugely important in the Iowa Caucus. The question is: Who of the Big Three is the most popular second choice of those who are voting for someone not in the top tier? Who of the top 3 has the most support beyond those who are already planning on voting for them?

This will be examined throughout the month, but I think you at least know this: It's not Hillary Clinton.

(Note: You can read more on the Iowa Caucus all month at Presidential Politics for America.)

Fatigue

Fatigue '08

Hendrik Hertzberg of The New Yorker wrote about Democrats and the overall 2008 saturation recently, and I think many Americans would agree: enough parsing, enough news, enough already. Yeah, we need to know about these candidates and their positions. Yes, we would like them to be more frank in their responses. Sure, we want to know whether or not they are representing the best interests of the people—yeah, whatever. But how many more debates, stump speeches, polls, thrusts and parries, and lies must we endure in this off election year? Sorry, Republicans, but Nosferatu Giuliani’s latest, ah, “exaggeration” about how much time he spent at the WTC clean-up handedly wins the Emmy for best performance of legend in one’s own mind. And The New York Times wins the award for best new drama for The Days & Conflicts of Martha’s Vineyard, starring the Clinton and Obama supporters.

What’s even more amazing is that we have over a year to go. Meanwhile, there is some “real” disturbing news on the electoral front that seldom registers on the front pages or in the American psyche, right, left or center. Take, for instance, this unsolved controversy over paper trail-less electronic voting and how “easy” it is to tamper with results. And what about how the Republicans in California would like to change how the electoral votes in the state are distributed? Yes, I’m being totally partisan—and a bit conspiratorial—but what about the corollary involving certain Secretaries of State, political parties, and voting outcomes? Sorry, I haven’t recovered from the 2000 cake-up of Kathleen Harris.

Indeed, we (and I mean everybody) are interested in 2008; we’ve all been terrorized enough by Bush and company. But instead of being over-saturated with nano-second news on which state will out-mojo the next for "the" primary date, porn-star named Mitt Romney’s family of boys, Hillary’s cleavage, and Johnny’s sexy hair, I think we could all focus on more pressing issues related to and not related to the election to avoid '08 fatigue.

A Different World

Last night, six Democratic Presidential candidates participated in a televised forum (click the link to watch) that discussed an issue often avoided in most campaigns - homosexuality. (LOGO, the channel that broadcast the forum, offered the same screen time to Republican candidates, and they all declined. Shocking, I know.) Fielding questions from a panel including Melissa Etheridge, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, Joe Solmonese and Jonathan Capehart, a writer for the Washington Post, the Democratic Presidential hopefuls who participated (all except Chris Dodd and Joe Biden) expressed their positions on gay rights once and for all.

And what are those positions? All support civil unions, hope to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy and support a ban on anti-gay discrimination in the work place. John Edwards apologized for previously aligning his position on homosexuality with his religion; Hillary Clinton spoke of her "honest effort" to work towards gay rights during her husband's time in office; Barack Obama likened the plight of the LGBT community to the struggle faced by African-Americans during the civil rights movement; Bill Richardson (upon removing his foot from his mouth after suggesting that homosexuality was a choice) rattled off his relatively short list of pro-gay accomplishments as governor of New Mexico. The only outright support of total equality came from the two candidates least likely to ever find themselves elected to the White House, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel.

There were no real surprises. No radical pledges of sweeping reform. In fact, most of the candidates were surrounded by what was unmistakably a giant, impenetrable forcefield of gray. Questions were danced around and only half answered, John Edwards tossed his hair around and I'm sure Hillary Clinton's campaign song was playing on a loop in her head the entire time - all in all, a regular stop on the campaign trail. But the purpose of the stop (to discuss gay rights) and it's participants (individuals who stand a real chance of becoming the next President), when put together, is entirely irregular. A high profile, nationally televised conversation about a political hush point is a huge step towards progress in this country, and however lackluster the performance of the candidates, the simple fact that it happened, even if it was only Democrats, is fantastic. Brian Graden, the president of LOGO, summed it up best: "Simply seeing the candidates step on a stage to speak to a national gay television audience may be as moving as anything they say." Indeed.

Summer Series - John Edwards

(Blogger's note: Note to those who missed it - last week I took a break from presidential politics to count down the Top 25 Greatest Americans in History.)

Weekly Presidential Politics - 7/25/07

The ’07 Seven Candidates of Summer Series

John Edwards


"This is the cause of my life," said John Edwards. "When I die, if I've done something serious to help eradicate poverty, I'll die a happy man." Someone forgot to tell him poor people don't vote.

"(We can do what it takes) to make it right... and actually end poverty in America within the next 30 years." Hey, John Kennedy's dead. Politicians don't make promises like that anymore.

John Edwards is an idealist, and that will probably cost him the election. He's addressed that poverty is not a "vote-winning issue," but rather a "moral issue" facing America.

Talk about a Democrat.

So is he a single issue voter? No. He came out swinging on Monday's CNN/Youtube debate with an issue that is as esoteric as it is crucial in politics. "I think the people who are powerful in Washington -- big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies -- they are not going to negotiate. They are not going to give away their power. The only way that they are going to give away their power is if we take it away from them. And I have been standing up to these people my entire life. I have been fighting them my entire life in court rooms -- and beating them."

The guy is as liberal of a candidate as there is in this 2008 race, save the unrealistic Dennis Kucinich candidacy. He was the first to come out with a detailed universal health care plan, but since he came out with it so early (Feb 5), Democratic voters have already forgotten about it. He's been the most radical on the war on terror, specifically saying that it's a "bumper sticker slogan," used to "bludgeon political opponents" outlining the old Republican tactic that says if you were against the war, you were un-American. (I say "old" Republican tactic because many Republicans are backing off their formerly patriotic position.) It's what all candidates want to say, but it wasn't politically wise. He said it anyway. He also blasted the Fox News Channel as a right wing agent, and was the first to pull out of the Fox News debate in Nevada. The rest of the candidates followed.

Yet the liberal Democrat from the south, who doubles as the least unalluring candidates to the Republican base in a general election, stays at a distant third in the polls.

He has two options moving forth, as Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have been solidifying their status as frontrunners in the Democratic nomination process.
1. Shake it up, take swings at Obama and/or Clinton. (Not advisable.)
2. Sit tight, let Clinton and Obama attack each other, win Iowa, ride the momentum, and always be there as the alternative to the top 2.

Pay attention to the Edwards' campaign strategy. He's not out of this and he's the only one with the potential to make a run at the top tier fundraisers. How long can he sit still? We'll see.

Who won the Democratic debate?

Who won the Democratic debate?

CNN & YOUTUBE, of course. Just as the Town Hall format made a splash during the ’92 election season, this YOUTUBE video screen approach established a new, fresh format.

There was an authenticity to this debate. Whether it was the lesbian couple asking a question about gay marriage, a saddened mother whose son was going on a second tour of duty asking about Iraq, or the non-descript Americans deeply troubled by our healthcare system asking about the healthcare they are NOT receiving, the questioners themselves were more preferable than Tweety Matthews or Foxy Blizter.

Anderson Cooper was also effective as a moderator, often reminding the candidates to AQA—answer the question asked—and to stick to their allotted time.

The debate did have its humorous moments. Joe Biden’s comment about Borg--love the guy-- Kucinich’s wife takes the cake, Gravel's recognition that time was NOT on his side was a scream, Edwards’ “negative” offering about Hill’s salmon-colored coat abounded with a metrosexual irony; and Obama kept it real when he pointed out that porn-star named, slick-flopper Mitt Romney has money, money, monaaaaaaaaay.

Clinton vs. Gore?! Gore vs. Clinton?!

Weekly Presidential Politics - 5/30/07

I had a conversation with a highly respected colleague and fellow blogger (he might be familiar to you) yesterday. We had both watched The Chris Matthews Show over the long weekend. On this weekend's installment, guest Howard Fineman all but guaranteed that Al Gore would enter the presidential race this fall. Fineman cited the ever popular "sources close to Gore." Now, I don't think Gore's running, but let's proceed as if he is...

Here are some FAQ's and answers concerning Gore throwing his hat into the arena:

What would be the effect of a Gore entrance into the Democratic field? - John Edwards would be the first to take a hit in the polls. Like it or not, his greatest advantage in being the next President is that he's the top ranked White Guy on the Democratic side of the field. Gore takes away that advantage, not to mention the countless undecided progressives who would probably vote for Edwards, but would definitely vote for Gore. Soon thereafter, Barack Obama would take a hit, as his strength was as the original anti-war candidate, and Gore was more vehement and vocal in a vociferous opposition. Obama's other strengths, specifically oration and owning the outsider label, will also disappear over the horizon, as Gore v 2.0 has been known to blow the doors off many halls since he left the public office in 2001. Two of the three viable Democratic candidates would essentially be immediately eliminated upon the arrival of Al Gore.

Wait, wait. Are you saying we could have a Gore-Clinton primary? - Yes. More on this later.

How would Clinton react if Gore entered the race? - Kind of like this.

Would Gore win the nomination? - Yes. He unites the left of the Democratic Party and splits the moderates with Clinton. He edges out Edwards (or earns Edwards' endorsement) to win Iowa, Nevada, and South Carolina. Clinton takes New Hampshire. After taking three of the first four primaries and riding a wave of momentum, Gore wins big on SuperDuper Tuesday, sewing up the nomination by midnight, February 6th. He then goes on an immensely popular national tour reminiscent of The Beatles, drumming up support for the Democratic Party, exciting the base to points not seen since Clinton in '96. At the Democratic Convention that summer, his national polls spike at near 60%.

Would Gore win the general? - I don't know. He handily defeats Giuliani. Romney could put up a fight and has a punchers chance. McCain with momentum could give him some trouble, especially if we begin to see progress in Iraq.

IC, does a Gore candidacy, easily the largest remaining possible variable in the Race to the White House 2008, make you giddy? - Um, yes. Yes, it does.

Why? - A Clinton vs. Gore battle is the most exciting primary since, well, the beginning of time, (with the possible exception of Bartlet vs. Hoynes in 1998). How in the world does Hillary Clinton (and Bill, of course) find a way to badmouth Gore's record as Vice-President? They can't! He was part of the Clinton administration! So do they go to pre-1992 to find Gore's holes? They can't! Then why would Bill Clinton have chosen Gore in the first place? Do they attack his lack of experience compared to Clinton? They can't! He was in the Senate, just like Hillary, and he served a national constituency as Vice-President under President Clinton for eight years.

So what would Camp Clinton be forced to do to try and dent Gore's inevitably strong numbers? They'd have to attack what he's done since 2001. And what has he done? Only put himself in front of two of the most important issues to Democrats: The environment and the war. His platform will be that he was right when so many were wrong, that he led when so many followed. Hillary can't get to the left of Gore on this one, and to stay to the right of him means she won't get the nomination.

So in the end, what's keeping Hillary Clinton away from the White House is her husband's Vice-President. Or, in the opposite outcome, what's keeping Gore away from a return to the White House is his ex-boss's wife.

Please join us next week for another installment of As the Country Turns...

ABH: Hillary Clinton Unites the Right

Weekly Presidential Politics - 5/16/07

Have Democrats hit their head on something hard? Have they had a temporary loss of memory? Why does it feel as if the voters of the Democratic Party have been looking for reasons to vote for Hillary Clinton? This column is neither a critique of her policies nor an evaluation of her odds to win the Democratic nomination (If you want to get my thoughts on odds, check out The Line on the left hand sidebar). This column has one simple goal in mind: Have Democrats forgotten that she can't win the general election??

One can understand why this might happen. She did a terrific job at the debate. She made herself palatable to many Democrats with her candor on the war, as well as her ability to appear tough on terror. For the length of this campaign cycle, she's kept a clear lead over the Democratic field in all national polls. She has the largest campaign war chest in the history of the primaries. She's the most experienced of the Democrats' Big Three. If you're a Democrat, there are a lot of reasons to support Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primary.

However, there's an overwhelming reason not to. It seems Democrats are starting to forget the cause for their previous feeling of trepidation. More than any other candidate on the side of the Dems, Hillary Clinton will get Republicans to show at the polls in November. Surely it's clear to see how significant that is.

As of now, the Republican 2008 field is in trouble. President Bush's heir apparent, John McCain, is getting coupled with an unsuccessful war. Rudy Giuliani's social issues give many Republicans pause. Mitt Romney will never have a chance to be a trustworthy conservative (oxymoron?) until he gets elected to a position outside of Governor of Massachusetts. The rest of the field, like truer conservatives like Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee and the rest, are long shots to garner the GOP's nomination. Ultimately, come general election time, we might not see a full contingent of Republicans at the polls. They won't vote for the Democrat, but they might not vote for their guy either. Clearly, the unmotivated Republicans are running the risk of losing another branch of the United States government.

There is one thing, however, that could rally all Republicans to the polls on November 4, 2008...the idea of the Clintons back in the White House. Some Republicans might stay home if it's Edwards vs. Giuliani or McCain. They might stay home if it's Obama vs. McCain or Romney. They will NOT stay home if it's Hillary Clinton vs. ANYone. A Hillary Clinton nomination unites the right. The entire Republican electorate would mobilize to vote for their nominee, regardless of who it is - Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Andrew Johnson, Darth Sidious, Satan... ANYONE. Their motto, in fact, will be ABH: Anyone But Hillary.

And if the Democrats are smart, that should be their motto, too.

Hillary Clinton: The Democratic Doomsday Machine

Weekly Presidential Politics - 5/2/07

Don't let the courteous Democratic debate fool you. With a Democratic Congress soon to be fragmented over the country's most hotly debated issue, the candidates for the Democratic nomination will soon follow. In time, the candidates will stop teaming up against President Bush and start attacking each other in an effort to secure the party's nomination. At the center of this will be Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton's greatest advantage will end up being her downfall. No, I don't mean her gender. No, I don't mean her husband. No, I don't mean her possible-but-unlikely tapped supply of donors. I mean that Camp Clinton, thanks to the fullest campaign war chest in the country, has the potential to be a political menace of Darth Maulian proportions. You hit the Clintons and they will hit you back faster than you can say Cascius Clay. In the past, Barack Obama and John Edwards have both been the recipient of innocuous salvoes. But how long will the Clinton campaign play nice?

Other campaigns, though they will understandably never admit fallibility until after they drop out (See Tom Vilsack), fear this perpetual potential of a counter-strike as if it were a blow from the Almighty Himself. Senator Clinton, it seems, is in possession of the Democratic Party's version of the fabled Doomsday Machine, made most famous in Dr. Strangelove and a Star Trek episode. The idea behind the Doomsday Machine is that it is a weapon so powerful that, if deployed, it threatens mutual annihilation. The purpose is to overly-intimidate your enemies so they will never open fire against you. If you followed this questionable metaphor, you’d see that she has the potential to sink the Democrats chances in November. So do the rest of the candidates risk attacking her?

If they want to win, I think they have to. She'll be the frontrunner until someone takes her down OR until she takes herself down, and the latter cannot be counted on. We will see a handful of candidates make hay of her war stance, specifically her reputation, earned or not, of straddling the fence and blowing with the political wind. However, any shots taken at Mrs. Clinton will be reciprocated, and trust me, it won't be a proportional response.

The outcome? Hillary Clinton is going to make enemies this election cycle. There is a very strong chance this will come back to haunt her in the first couple months of primary season. To disgruntle her Democrat rivals might mean that, come Super Tuesday and beyond, some voters will consider her their top choice... with the rest not even having her in their top three. She won't get endorsements from other ex-candidates unless her nomination is sewn up. Therefore, any of the other candidates that can position themselves as everyone's second choice will have a decent chance of winning more delegates to the convention (read: winning the primary and becoming the nominee).

Last week, I guaranteed John McCain would win the Republican nomination. This week, I'm here to tell you, the Democratic nomination is up for grabs.

ELE-101: How to Win An Election

Weekly Presidential Politics - 4/18/07

Quick housekeeping note: Over at my Presidential Politics for America website, I've been using the nine days off during April Vacation to write one post a day, each post dedicated to a possible general election showdown. (Examples: McCain vs. Edwards, Giuliani vs. Clinton, etc.) Today is day five and I will tend to a new match up in short order. Yesterday, in my Giuliani vs. Clinton preview, the terrific author of 1% More Conscious weighed in with a lengthy, well thought-out comment that deserves a response. I felt there was no better venue than on his blog.

Thanks for the comment Sptmck. I will take your points one at a time.

Hillary/Richardson ticket - On the Richardson point, I concede the high ground. Always the sucker for electoral math, I have these numbers in my head every time I sit down to write a column. I admit that Bill Richardson's presence on a ticket does attract Latino voters, and while I won't exactly genuflect at New Mexico's five electoral votes, the possibility of turning Florida blue is magnetizing.

If you recall, I paired Richardson with both Obama and Edwards in their faux battle against John McCain. I understand all the positives brought forth by having Richardson on a ticket. Therefore, perhaps he's the best choice for the #2 spot regardless of the winner. The Dems better make damn sure, however, that they win Florida, because a Hillary Clinton nomination with no true southerner (Grits and NASCAR) on the bottom half will alienate more than half the country. We're talking a guaranteed loss of the popular vote.

Hillary/Dodd ticket - Talk about alienating 80% of the country. Two Northeast Dems? Dodd could recite Cervantes while riding a unicycle and eating chiles en nogada and the Hispanic community wouldn't care any more than they did in 2004.

Hillary/Obama Ticket - At this point, it’s either all or nothing for Senator Obama. After being thrust into the spotlight like the offspring of two celebrities, he won't be swallowing his pride to accept a #2 spot. Moreover, no Presidential nominee is going to choose a running mate that will outdraw and overshadow them throughout a campaign. Still, I'd say that the #2 spot is the perfect situation for Obama. He’s young, he’s got little national experience, and frankly, he might not be able win a general election yet. In fact, my Dream Team for the Democrats has him as the Vice-Presidential nominee.

He just won't do it.

Okay, Giuliani time - Many think that winning an election is having the right answers to questions on a variety of issues. Well, it's not about the answers. It's about the questions themselves. The questions that are being asked during a Presidential campaign dictate the winner more than the scripted and tested ten-word answers to these questions.

If the primary questions during an election are regarding national security, Republicans are going to win every time. Every time. I don't care what the Democrat is saying. Republicans will win national security elections. If it were about the economy, job, health care and other domestic issues, the Democrat would win, right? Again, the questions being asked are more important than the answers.

So what will the questions be in a Giuliani-Clinton campaign? They've both already hung their hat on the war and national defense. In Rudy Giuliani, you have the classic national security candidate. No one doubts that national security is his bread and butter. He's soft on the inside (the Baggage you mentioned), but first you have to get past his exterior polarized hull plating.

One more note on Giuliani's Baggage before I sign off: My general election previews are operating under the assumption that they won the nomination of their party. If Giuliani can get through a Republican Primary with all of these problems, he might come out invincible on the other side. So minorities won't vote for him...they weren't excited about George W. Bush either, and he's staggering across the finish line of his second term.

So how do you win an election? Forget about having the right answers. Make sure the right questions are being asked. Stick to your strengths and don't wander onto your opponent's home field. Hillary Clinton has become tethered to national defense, and both John McCain and Rudy Giuliani would defeat her in a general election.

Debate Camp: Early Platforms Crystalize (Part 1)

Weekly Presidential Politics - 4/11/07

Christmas comes early for political junkies like yours truly.

In what most consider an enormously premature event, the first primary debate for the 2008 Presidential election will be the Democratic debate on April 26th. The Republicans will have a debate of their own the following week on May 3rd.

Regardless of your opinion on whether or not it's too early to debate issues nine months before a vote is to be cast, the fact remains that these debates are going to happen, people are going to tune in, and candidate's platforms are going to solidify more in those 90 minutes than in any point previous to the debate. Most importantly, many first impressions will be drawn, and often times, first impressions do not go away easily. (Just look at conservative yet respected fellow guest blogger Kindel, who, despite my sincerest attempts, still doesn't like me because the first column she read of mine was my liberal diatribe from last December.)

Anyway, the first impressions are what count in these first debates. It's important that the candidate come across as clearly for something, and clearly against something, and these somethings must go beyond "President Bush is wrong and I'll do better."

The following is what I would be telling each of these candidates heading into this debate. This will be another two part column. I'll tackle the Democrats' Big Three today, and finish the Democrats next week and tackle the Republicans.

Democrats
Hillary Clinton - You're going to get hit on being a Washington insider. You're going to get hit on continuing a 20-year chain of a Bush-Clinton White House. Most of all, you're going to get hit on the war. Be ready to explain your vote, because while you wax and wane depending on who you're speaking to, your chief challenger to the nomination was against it from the very beginning, and your secondary challenger is a high profile, vocal opponent. If that's the paramount issue of the Democratic constituency, and it will be, you're toast unless you can dove yourself down a bit. Stop worrying about the general election, because you might not get there.

Barack Obama - Time to shine. The Democrats who don't love you yet will love you after these debates. You and John Edwards will come away from this debate looking like brilliant, genuine leaders. Use this opportunity to make sure everyone knows what you're about. You've been glossing over the details for too long. Edwards has a detailed health care plan to insure all Americans. Health care is a big issue to Democratic voters. If the two of you break even on the war, Edwards will beat you in a Democratic Primary because he's proving to be more progressive. Additionally, until you start making poverty a central plank in your platform, Edwards will end up winning the black vote. The lesson: Speak your mind, because there are few better speakers or minds.

John Edwards - Here is your greatest strength: Democrats agree with you. Liberals agree with you. Remind them. You are the perfect representative for the fed up liberal democrats of the country, and those are some of the most passionate voters in America. Make everyone realize the 2004 Kerry-Edwards ticket should have been reversed. Also, remember that you don't have the money to compete with Clinton and Obama in Super Duper Tuesday. Unlike the sitting Senators, you cannot afford a 50-state strategy in this primary. Use a four state strategy. Convince voters in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina that you're their candidate. If they vote for you, so does most of the rest of the country on February 5th. You won't need a dime.

Personal Pain Becomes Public Politics

Weekly Presidential Politics - 3/28/07

The recent announcement of Elizabeth Edwards's latest battle with cancer was as an objective of an issue you will ever get in a political campaign. Cancer does not care about Democrats or Republicans. Cancer does not care about ideology or on which side of an isle you sit. Cancer is terrible. Cancer is a tragedy. We all agree on it. The news of Elizabeth's latest battle with cancer is as sorrowful of a development in a campaign you will ever see. It's an issue everyone wishes did not exist.

But it is an issue.

I wish no one would talk about it. I wish we lived in a country where a personal announcement does not have to be made in front of a throng of cameras with flashing bulbs and eager reporters writing down your pain on a notepad. I wish we lived in a country where, even if the announcement had to be made, pundits did not immediately politicize the issue like it had a hundred times the weight of a vote in the Senate or an executive state budget.

But it is an issue.

I am guilty of the aforementioned punditry. Upon hearing the news, I felt terribly for Elizabeth, John, their children, and all those close to the family. Shamefully, my mind eventually turned to the impact this will have on the upcoming race. After all, to write a presidential politics blog while avoiding the biggest development of the race would be impossible. It had to be discussed.

So my buddy Darren and I began an email correspondence, which you can read here, discussing the political impact. For fear of redundancy, I won't use this limited space to repeat too much of what was written. Suffice it to say, my previously supreme confidence of an Edwards nomination has all but disappeared.

So what do I think will happen?

I think it's politically foolish to think these developments won't hinder his campaign, for reasons you can read by clicking on that link. Before the announcement, I was confident the Edwards campaign wouldn't have peaked until the primaries. Now, I fear it peaks this week or the next. The Edwards family will be lauded for courage, determination, and for what they say is putting the country before anything else. In time, however, the decision to push forward in a rigorous campaign with an ailing wife with children aged eight and six will be looked on as a decision very few Americans would have made had they been put in that same situation. Thus, Edwards will not win. The mounting pressure of an uphill battle will be supplemented with the idea that the next year might be wasted in a campaign, when Edwards could be spending time with his wife and family. One night, the decision will seem easy and clear.

John Edwards will withdraw from the Democratic Primary before a single primary vote is cast.

Save the Suspense: Democratic Primary Results Determined (Conclusion)

Weekly Presidential Politics - 3/21/07

Crucial to knowing my thought processes, deductions, assumptions, derivations, speculations, inferences, predictions, conclusions, and whatever else I'm talking about - excluding this sentence - familiarize yourself with Parts 1 and 2.

Save the Suspense: Democratic Primary Results Determined (Conclusion)


The DNC seems to like a new dish. Primary schedule - scrambled.

First, the decision to move the Nevada Caucus in front of the New Hampshire Primary changes the dynamic of the early primaries. One fortnight ago, I said that this adjustment, in regards to the Democratic Primary, was the single most significant development of the last year. Due to the added importance of Nevada, John Edwards will win the Democratic nomination. I'm still waiting for the talking heads to stop treating this like Hillary vs. Obama and catch up to me, but alas, we will wait.

The Nevada facelift is not the only difference in the primary schedule. Many other states, wanting to increase the political weight of their primaries, are making amendments, motions, and decisions to move up their primary date. Unfortunately for these ambitious states, Democratic Party rules prohibit moving up in front of February 5th, so they cannot move ahead of the four states mentioned last week. The remaining competitions are allowed to be held on or after that date.

As many as twenty states are looking to move up to February 5th, that earliest allowed date. Instead of the traditional Super Tuesday, a primary day in early March when at most ten states are up for grabs, 2008 will be the birth of Hyper Tuesday, when a majority of delegates will be up for grabs. Again, the motive of the states is to increase the importance of their primary.

Methinks their plan will backfire.

When 15-20 states have their primary on the same day, this will devalue each one of those states. First, candidates cannot spend time in all of these states. Second, and most important, remember that horse race coverage, and voters' subconscious or conscious desire to vote for a winner, will mean whoever is in the lead after the first four states will probably win the most states on February 5th, effectively cinching the nomination. At least that's what the historical pattern indicates.

And who will be leading on February fourth? As explained the last couple weeks: John Edwards, who has broad support across the socioeconomic and geographic spectrum. Unlike Senators Clinton and Obama, few people will dislike Edwards or predict he cannot win a general. Once he is leading after the first four states - and he will be - all parts of Democrat America can talk themselves into voting for him on Hyper Tuesday. And the rest, as they say, is academic.

Sorry to ruin the suspense.

PARDONERS' TALES

PARDONERS’ TALES

Our 3½ year old is just beginning to internalize what it means to be sorry. Still deep in the egocentrism stage, he’s slowly but surely inching his way towards perspective thinking. Thanks to the help of his nursery school teachers—patron saints indeed, the cheeky and oftentimes penitent Thomas the Tank Engine, Shane’s Kindergarten Countdown, and my better-half and me, N. is learning not to throw sand, not to demolish his classmates’ building blocks projects; and not to push O. whose father is a good colleague of mine, twice my size, and could easily send me into the ICU just by sitting on me. In short, N. is not just saying “he’s sorry,” he means it.

Pardon me: we Americans have a strange understanding of what it means to be sorry, what it means to forgive, and whom should be forgiven and/or pardoned and why. Perhaps we need to revisit the learning lessons of toddlers, past history, and/or great works of literature—something. Because more so than the much-ado-‘bout-nothing “morals and values” narrative assigned to the right in the wake of the 2004 election, this past week’s news showed a different story. While the MSM has indulged the hard right with their pontificating about all the ills and vices of Americans, the hard right has shown America that hypocrisy is no different today than when Chaucer wrote “The Pardoner’s Tale” in the 14th century.

Just take the I. Scooter Libby trial this week; check out David Corn’s analysis for The Nation. No sooner had the jury rendered its verdict then the right came “out” for Libby’s pardon in grand National Review fashion; never mind that the verdict was more about the illegal prosecution of the Iraq war than the Fitzgerald prosecution of Libby. Interestingly, some of these “pardoner” folks were the same people who raised holy hell against Bill Clinton when Monica’s genetically stained dress came out of its closet. Interestingly, these are the same people who’ve come out again and again sometimes on TV, sometimes in speeches, and sometimes in sermons about morals, values, and how to lead a “right” life amidst the sinners in the hands of angry mainstream America.

Most interestingly, what did “come out” this week from the hermetically sealed, right- wing closet was pretty amazing. In a mea culpa moment, Newt Gingrich did confess that he was having an extra-marital affair while he and his cohorts tattooed Bill Clinton with a scarlet letter M. Hey, give the guy a break: it’s Lent and some Republican candidates are tanking. And Mann Coulter, who in a speech called John Edwards a “faggot” and whose last book Godless criticized the religion of liberals among other things, was actually seen with a “closeted” gay Republican male—there’s a shocker—whose alter ego is better known as gay porn star Rod Majors. Now if only Rod were to check out if Mann had a “rod” then we (and my favorite radio personality Randi Rhodes) would all have clarity—once and for all—on why Mann makes fun of gay people on a regular basis. For more on Mann’s hypocrisy and the media’s enabling of it, be sure to check out Savoir Faire Scribneoir’s meditations in WTF!

Pardon me: in these desperate times, what will it take to move our culture away from egocentrism towards perspective thinking? Do we all need a dose now and again of Thomas the Tank Engine and the lessons we learn in nursery school? Can we ever pardon the sins of the past and the present to forge some kind of better tomorrow?