Pot, Have You Met Kettle?

Geraldine Ferraro said about Barack Obama:

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position . . . And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.

Lest you forget, Geraldine Ferraro was the 3-term congresswoman from New York who Walter Mondale chose as his running mate in 1984. Does she really think she would have been in that position if one of her X chromosomes had been a Y? Please. In politics, who one's parents are and various other factors totally out of one's control are extremely significant. Would Hillary be Senator from New York if she had not been First Lady? Would George W. Bush, John F. Kennedy, or Al Gore reached their political heights if they did not have their parents? Probably not. So get over it Gerry.

Blithering Idiocy

How exactly does one pass the "National Security Threshold?" If you are the VP nominee, does the Presidential nominee have to physically carry you over it when the convention is over?

Obama On Education

If you care about education, I think this tells you why Barack Obama should be President. Man, he is good. Can I get an Amen!

It Is Getting Emabarrassing

If Hillary sues over the Texas delegate selection process, every super-delegate should immediately throw in with Obama.

Ohio Debate

Two comments about the debate in Ohio last night and the reaction thereto.

First, Hillary complained that she always gets asked the first question in debates. she then segued into a "joke" culled from an SNL skit, and stated that "Maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow." I think she thought it would be a good laugh line to quote SNL, but it certainly felt forced. I suspect if Obama had been asked the first question she would have complained that the first person to answer gets to frame the debate and then used the same line.

Second, it is a current meme that the press has been too easy on Obama. It seems the claim is that no one has looked deeply into Obama's past to find dirt. But why do people assume that dirt exists? We've heard about Obama's connection to an indicted land developer, and his church's controversial views, and his drug use. Maybe that's it. Maybe the reason Russert seemed more tough on Clinton last night is because more ammunition exists. you can't blame Obama or the press if there is no dirty laundry to air.

Desparation

According to the New York Times, Hillary is now arguing that Obama suffers from the same foreign policy naivite as George W. Bush:

“We’ve seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience nor the wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security,” Mrs. Clinton said in a speech on foreign policy at George Washington University. “We can’t let that happen again.”

Well, I'm ready to defend Obama on the wisdom portion of this accusation. If I remember correctly, Obama was against invading Iraq, and Hillary was willing to trust Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. with the power to invade.

I am surprised Hillary went this way. It is such an easy accusation for Obama to counter, and brings up one of her biggest weaknesses in the Democratic primary.

Bass-Ackwards

Historically, when a candidate wraps up his party's nomination for President, he immediately runs to the Center in order to appease moderates and other general election swing voters. For the first time I can remember, a candidate, John McCain, is being forced to run to the Right instead. This is confirmation of my claim that McCain has lucked into the nomination. If the Republicans really wanted him, he wouldn't be pandering to the base of the party even after they elected him.

Not-So-Super Tuesday

Who'da thunk that after Super Tuesday, the Democratic race would be no different than prior to Super Tuesday? Hillary is still the frontrunner by a hair, but Obama is very much in the race. Way too close to call.

For the Republicans, they got lucky. They have stumbled into nominating their best candidate. I suspect McCain is neither the first or second choice of a majority of Republican voters, but the chaos of the campaign has let him win "winner-take-all" states with under 40% of the vote.

My Advice To Barack

Spend! Spend! Spend!

Maybe It Should Have Been Left Unsaid

Obviously, when it comes to politics, I have no idea what I'm talking about. But I'll try again. I am now leaning to the idea of a Hillary victory overall. She has successfully changed the story line from "change" to "race." Also, I know some pretty smart people who are buying what Hillary and her supporters are selling about Obama. For example, my dear mother cites Obama's lack of experience as her primary reason for supporting Hillary. And a co-worker of mine was actually persuaded by this hit-job on Obama. As Andrew Sullivan points out, Richard Cohen links Obama and Louis Farrakhan even though Obama's representative, David Axelrod, explicitly stated that Obama disagreed with his pastor's support for Farrakhan. But if intelligent people are falling for this stuff, I suspect its working nationwide.

As for the Republicans: What a glorious mess. A friend of mine believes, and I agree, that to have a real shot at the nomination, a 2008 Republican candidate needs to win one of Michigan, SC, and FL. Romney has his win. I think its between McCain and Huckabee in SC (and possibly Fred Thompson), and the loser of that battle versus Giuliani in Florida. That makes for a possible three way race on February 5, and hopefully a brokered convention.

Its a Good Day For Kucinich

Not only has Dennis Kucinich convinced a Nevada State Court that he should be in an MSNBC debate; but numerous people in Texas have reported seeing a UFO last night.

Political Daze

What just happened? I'm feeling dizzy. I have no idea what to make of the New Hampshire results for the Dems. My analysis still holds up for the Repubs, I guess. Can you think of a more exciting, nail-biting election?

Who Would They Want?

One significant problem for the Republicans this year is that they seem to hate all their potential standard bearers:

Mitt Romney - Mormon flip-flopper
Rudy Giuliani - Pro-gay, anti-gun, pro-choice
John McCain - weak on immigration, pro-campaign finance reform, weak on tax cuts
Mike Huckabee - unelectable, tax-hiking, big-spender
Fred Thompson - good on issues, but doesn't seem to care

So the question is: If Republicans could choose a candidate, who would it be? the only person I can think of is Newt Gingrich. Any other ideas?

NH (and after) Predictions

It is not hard to predict Obama and McCain victories. But what happens then? I figure if Obama wins by more than 8 or 9, he will definitely win South Carolina (where recent polls have him up by double digits already) and probably in Nevada (where the Culinary Workers Union Local 226, a very influential group in Las Vegas, is likely to endorse Obama). If Hilary had more money than Obama, I would say she still had a good chance in the big states voting on February 5. But Obama will have equal financial ability and a lead in the polls. So, unless Hilary can do something dramatic, or Obama does something dramatically stupid, I think the nomination is his.

As for the Republicans, I have no idea what happens next, but I'll take a stab at it. I think McCain's win in NH leads him to a win in Michigan, and kills any real chance Romney has. But Huckabee, with a third place finish in NH, then probably wins in South Carolina, where he has a significant lead in the polls. then it all comes down to Florida. If Romney is all but out by then, I think his votes break for McCain and Huckabee more than Giuliani. Therefore, I think Giuliani's current lead in Florida disappears. And believe it or not, I think Huckabee wins Florida. What then? I guess Huckabee, McCain, and Giuliani fight it out on February 5. I don't know who has the most money - probably Giuliani. My guess is that the three candidates start relying on different places for support. Giuliani looks to NY, CA, NJ, etc, places with moderate republican leanings. McCain probably looks West, and Huckabee looks South. that would seem to be a winning strategy for Giuliani because his states are more delegate rich. So I'll take a flier and say it is Obama vs. Giuliani in the general.

Wow!

What a set of results! First, I must admit to my failure as a political seer. I had no idea the results would be Huckabee by 9 and Obama by 8, with Hilary third. This throws both races into turmoil, with only 5 days until New Hampshire.

What effect does all this have on the races? Damned if I know. I think the Huckabee win helps McCain and Giuliani (and obviously Huckabee). It helps McCain because Romney, who was already faltering in Hew Hampshire, has lost any positive momentum, and McCain appears likely to win NH. It helps Giuliani (gulp!) because it means no Republican candidate is likely to be the front runner before the Florida primary. Therefore, Giuliani still has a good chance there, and will go to the Super Tuesday primaries on 2/5 with a win.

Obama's win is, I think, transformative. As Juan Williams noted on Fox News last night - who'd have thought a black man could win a caucus in such an extraordinarily white state as Iowa? I think this will propel Obama to wins in South Carolina, and a number of other Southern states. Why? Because, I think a large portion of the African-American vote has been going to Hilary on the assumption that a black man cannot win in November. After Iowa, that assumption is much less valid. Hilary might still win in NH, which will reenergize her campaign, but what was once a not so competitive race after SC becomes a real dog fight. A loss in NH will really hurt her, and require something big to recover.

Iowa Caucuses

Now the fun begins. And already, I have to change my predictions. I now think it is Obama and Romney. This probably kills Huckabee's chances. If Edwards beats Hillary, he still has a fighter's chance. If she comes in second, and Edwards is third, he is history.

On the Ropes

Look who is polling third in Florida. If this is true and not a polling outlier, Rudy is in big trouble.

More I Will Not Support

My reason for not supporting Romney, McCain, or Thompson is the same in each case: Why should I? It shouldn't be news to any regular reader that I don't agree with much of their policies. But, even more, could there be a less inspiring bunch? Romney wants to be President because that's what rich ex-governors do. McCain wants to be President because he lost in 2000. Thompson wants to be President because . . . well, I'm not convinced he wants to be President.

Who I Don't Support

Annie V. has asked me who I am supporting for the Presidency. I don't think my answer will surprise anyone, but just in case its a nailbiter for anyone, I'll keep you hanging for a while. But I will tell you who I am not supporting. Today I will explain why I will not vote for Giuliani or Huckabee.

As for Giuliani, just see these. He's a megolamaniac with poor judgment and an overriding concern in Rudy Giuliani above all else.

Huckabee is a more interesting case. He has expressed a concern for the environment and poor that I believe is true and admirable. I guess he'd have a chance with me if he would actually adopt reason, science, and the Constitution as his guiding principles. Oh, and if he didn't think I was going to hell.

Romney's Blinders On Faith

Well, I read Mitt Romney's speech on faith in politics, and was I disturbed. It demonstrates Romney's huge blinders when it come to American culture. The speech reeks of a purely evangelical world-view, while claiming to reflect an understanding of all. It has been widely commented that Romney's speech ignores the atheists and agnostics among us, and it certainly does that. Romney said a President "will need the prayers of the people of all faiths." Notice that he doesn't mention the good will of non-believers. He said that "[w]e should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders." Why should we? What if we don't believe in a Creator? He also says "Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God." Oh really? All Americans? I think not.

Note how all his rhetoric assumes a Christian belief system for all. He talks of placing his had on a Bible when he takes the oath of office, as if it were assumed that he should. But I encourage all of you to examine Article II of the Constitution. Neither the Bible nor God is mentioned - as they are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. I wish Romney had commented on this absence. But instead he suggests those who have a real discomfort with God having any place in government are establishing a religion of secularism - and repeats that America must be considered a nation "Under God" and that in God "we do indeed trust." Who is this we? Surely not all Americans.

The most disheartening part of the speech is rightly the most quoted in the press. Romney argues that "Freedom requires religion," but offers no explanation. What does it mean? I read it as excluding non-believers from the truly American and patriotic. If someone does not have a religious faith, apparently he cannot truly believe in freedom or the American experiment.

Romney included one paragraph that I think expresses the correct way to examine a politician's. Sadly, he sets forth his standard as if it is only relevant to "a person of faith." He said:

Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of humankind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?

Remove the phrase "of faith" and I think Romney is on to something. What Romney does not notice is that none of his three American values require the existence of God, or the belief therein.

To be honest, I don't think Romney meant to be exclusionary. Instead, I think he is blinded to the existence of those with a significantly different cultural understanding from his own. Romney pictures America as a a Christian postcard. He travels the country and sees the "many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven." Does he not know that many houses of worship do not have steeples? Even some Christian houses of worship are steepleless. But in an America where all believe in the same God, in Romney's America, all places to worship have steeples.