Updated Labels: Shunned, Nut

Back at the beginning of the year, I worked on the epistemological task of updating my blog-labels. One change was to add titles to politicians, e.g. instead of plain old Bill Clinton, he became Citizen Bill Clinton. I explained the change thusly:

Herr is a title for evil politicians (and the appropriate gender specifics, e.g. Herr Cheney, Frau Coulter);

Citizen for good guys (for the most part; I'm being generous by including Krugman here);

Comrade for bad leftists (e.g. Ralph Nader).

Since that time, early January, I've added a few more categories:

1. "The Nut" = This applies to people I used to align with but who have since either gone completely crazy or whose previously existing crazy has shown to be no longer useful. This applies to my bygone favorite politician Joseph Lieberman who has transformed himself into a monster, and Martin Peretz (editor of The New Republic) who has always been crazy but while it was useful during the Bush Years and the two Israeli Wars of 2006-2008, his anti-anti-Zionism has gotten too shrill and unhinged to be useful.
   
   
2. "The Shunned" = This applies to people/politicians who's early promise was destroyed by subsequent immorality and/or incompetence. This applies to John Edwards and Ehud Olmert. Edwards had such promise but it turned out that his tacky lack of judgement was deeper than I could have imagined. And Olmert, oy, whose talent as a consummate political strategist and in-fighter was unbalanced by his utter inability to lead a nation, resulting in thousands of innocent deaths.
   
   
3. Miscellaneous additional titles = Extremely crazy or evil right-wingers get added fascist titles, e.g. "Mayorissimo Herr Rudolf Giuliani" or adding a "von" to the middle of the name "Herr Ronald von Reagan"
   
   
4. Borderline cases = Despite my grand disappointment with Paul Krugman, I've given him a "Citizen" title; Hillary Clinton, once she joined the Obama admininstration earned her a "Citizen" title as well. But these can be lost.

For the special cases of Hillary and Lieberman, I will explain more of my thinking anon.

Why Palin Matters

For reasons I can't understand, Left Wing bloggers are trying to act like Palin shouldn't matter. E.g. Steve Benen stating: "I have deliberately steered clear of writing posts about Sarah Palin this week, in part because I don't think she's worth the obsessive media attention, and in part because I find myself struggling to care." And others who say that Newsweek had a sexist cover (which I won't reprint here) of Palin in jogging shorts, or that it's excessive for AP to have 11 fact checkers of her book (which they didn't, but whatever). Here's my take:

1. I am happy that the somnolent, stenographic news-establishment has finally woken up and realized that someone, in this case Palin, is an existential threat to the United States. The press was sleeping about Iraq, about Abu Ghraib, about the Patriot Act, about almost everything dangerous and catastrophic that the Bush Administration perpetrated, in real time - except for the brief, quickly-snuffed, outrage over Katrina. But, Cheney is still treated as an authority of matters that don't just exist in his fantasy dungeon; McCain is jokingly called "President McCain" by my favorite bloggers because of his retained authority and ubiquity on Sunday talk shows. The press is relentlessly market driven to the point of self-inflicted triviality. But now they have woken up about Palin and are treating her like the threat to our country that she is. That's at least one aspect of my spin on their obsession with her.
   
   To be honest, they're motivated more by her popularity - positive on the GOP end, negative on the Rest of The World end - and her sexpot tabloid trash image sells units. So she is good for business. But I am willing to say that the press has also realized that we almost had her for president.
   
   
   
2. Plain is the presumptive GOP nominee in 2012. That's just the way our election cycles run: the VP candidate of the losing ticket becomes the presumptive nominee next election. Lieberman led the polls for the 2004 primary back in 2001-2003. Edwards was presumed to be the front runner from 2005-2007; even Quayle thought he had a shot in 1996. So by structure alone, Palin is the presumed nominee. And, not to push to hard on this, it doesn't matter that she stepped down from the gov., Edwards was out of the Senate after 2004 as well.
   
   
3. In a real sense, Palin is the face of the GOP right now. True, the de-facto heads of the party are Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, but Palin actually was on a national campaign and millions of people pressed the lever with her name in November 2008. She is real, while the others aren't.

Her popularity with the GOP base is why I characterize her as an existential threat: she could very well be the nominee in '12, and (as others have coined) the "Any Given Tuesday" weirdness of election day could put her in office. And she is dangerous, stupid, crazy, and religiously convinced of her inerrant rectitude.

Whatever made Bush bad, she has, without anything that made Bush good. I've said this before, I believe, but it bears repeating - as un-meritocratic and elitist it may sound, there's a benefit to electing a person who comes from a political machine. They are usually surrounded by professionals who have experience. Sadly, the Bush machine's experience was all in Evil. And they were bad at it. But his candidacy in 2000 rested on the barely unspoken premise that, yeah, he's a moron but he has good advisers. This over-confident bluff cannot be said for Palin. So Bush without expertise is a clear recipe for catastrophe.

The last point, especially about Palin and Bush, is this: for most of America (and the world) George W. Bush was a disaster. Most people, therefore, would hate and fear another Bush and we have learned to recognize the symptoms of another Bush. Hence, this is why most thinking people detest and fear Palin. However, the gnarled nub of the GOP who remain, the teabaggers and Birthers and Christers and Beckters, by definition, loved the last 8 years. If they have any complaints, its that Bush wasn't conservative (read: crazy) enough! And thus they really want Palin - for the same reasons we don't want her.

First two pics are all over the place and are undoctored stills of Palin in public debates; the last Bush-Palin pic is from here.

Backpost: Obama's "Luck"

From September 1, 2008; I sent this email to Mark Kleiman of Samefacts.com.. Background: many people have asked why Obama seems to have luck that all his opponents, from the Senate on down to the primary and now general, seem to self-destruct. It sounds like luck! As Kleiman wrote:

Apropos the many developing Palin scandals, an observer of the Chicago political scene reminds me of Obama's "noted eerie knack for finding self-destructing opponents."

There was Alice Palmer, the incumbent State Senator who didn't submit enough valid signatures. There was Blair Hull, the apparent frontrunner in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate, accused of wife-beating. There was Jack Ryan, the Republican Senate nominee, whose kinkily erotic side spilled out into the newspapers through his divorce proceedings. And then there was the comic carpetbagger Alan Keyes.

I try to keep theology separate from politics, but it's hard to escape the thought: If Obama didn't make a pact with Satan he must be on a special mission from God.

So my response:

re: Obama's Luck

Dear Prof. Kleiman,

While I agree with you that supernatural forces should never be discounted in any scientific inquiry, I think the reason Obama's opponents self-destruct is a combination of (a) the old adage that "fortune benefits the well-prepared", and (b) his ability to maintain his cool, which drives his opponents batty, to the point they self destruct.

Hillary self-destructed (Bill started first, though), then even Edwards (and he had already dropped out!), and now McCain.

all the best,
JC

And, true to his gentlemanly nature, Kleiman quotes me in an update: "Update: Or perhaps, a reader suggests, this may merely be a case where 'Fortune favors the prepared mind.'"

Now this analysis of mine has become conventional reason. But I was an early advocate of the theory that Obama's opponents self destruct because they can't handle his skill. Basically, because Obama is unflappable, his increasingly desperate opponents up the volume of their attacks, trying to rattle him, and all they succeed in doing is self-destruction.

Am I Worried About November?

Well, in a large abstract way, I am worried about the election in the same way I'm worried about death or Nazis. Two national elections have been awarded to a profoundly unqualified man (Bush) and a party that decided to commit themselves to strange and evil policies.

2000 was terrible but until 9/11 most of us thought that the damage would be temporary, given that we were living through peace and prosperity. 2004 was heart-rending because it was clear how bad Bush was and things were getting worse and worse. The past 4 years have been horrifying and I know my kids will ask me about them with the same hushed awe I asked my parents about 1963-1968 (assassinations, Vietnam, Nixon). And if things were teetering on the bad in 2004, the re-election of Bush in 2008 would be a full-gonzo catastrophe.

It bears repeating: all of us who warned about the horrors of a second Bush term, and were ridiculed by Goopers who claimed we were being paranoid hysterics, were proven to be correct. And I was not correct by accident - i.e. many people are correct only by chance. For example, the smartasses who said that John Edwards was *of course* cheating on his wife... basing their assertions on the sole facts that (a) Edwards was good-looking, and (b) they disagreed with Edwards' policies/profession/accent.

Not liking somebody, and thus attributing to the disliked person all sorts of crimes, does not make your criticisms prophetic. You just got lucky.

However, if you said that Edwards was a wife-cheater because of certain provable factors (e.g. you knew of some shady behaviors, you read in his book that 'cheating on your cancer-stricken wife ain't the worst thing a person can do', or if you personally slept with him), then - fine - you can be considered a perceptive prognosticator.

For the record, I didn't believe the rumors that Edwards was cheating on his wife because I didn't think that someone as successful as him (self-made multi-millionaire, young Democratic senator in a red-state) would do something so destructive and stupid. I mean, it was Spitzer-esque! And even then, I had some glimmering that Spitzer was a sexual-schkutz because he intermarried. Ya see, that's a provable indicator. Sex crime here leads to sex crime there. But Edwards? Why would someone running for president - someone who constantly references his wife's terminal cancer - have an affair on the campaign trail.

Anyway, I went on this tangent to talk about the stakes of the election: just as the loss in 2004 was bad, and I knew it would be bad beforehand, I can say with confidence that McCain winning in November would mean total freakin' disaster for the U.S. of A. McCain is unfit to lead and will most likely die soon in office (based on simple actuarial prediction) leaving the country in the hands of a serial-fabricator hillbilly Evangelical.

And, as some dude pointed out, Bush managed to destroy our country from the starting point of Clinton's peace and prosperity. McCain - an uck-fup of Bushian magnitude - would be elected in the midst of two draining wars and an economy teetering on the brink.

Stop, You're Scaring Me!

I hear you cry. Yes, if McCain wins in November, we are totally screwed. But I don't expect it to happen. In fact, and you can quote me, the only way for the GOP to win in November is through fraud. I say this based on three proofs: (1) the frauds of 2000 & 2004, (2) the 2006 midterms, and (3) American history.

1. The only way the GOP won in 2000 and 2004 was through fraud.

Yeah, the Goopers amongst you will deny that 2000 was fraud, even though, based on facts, it's clear that Gore *would* have won in Florida if the votes that the voters cast were actually tabulated. If you prefer winning at all costs, and see a 'win' as proving retroactively everything done as right and correct, then the fact that the Supreme Court allowed Bush to win Florida, and thus the whole election, to be enough to say that Bush actually won.

But in the world of facts, it's important to remember than no matter what the weird rules stated, Gore won in 2000. A sports analogy, if I may. If quarterback Jack Drake throws a 95 yard touchdown pass while being tackled by a blitz of linebackers, yet the play is invalidated because the second-string slotback was barely offsides, do you credit the QB with a touchdown.

In the official game scoring, Jack Drake does not get credit for a touchdown. In the world of real life and of commerce, Jack Drake will be known as an amazing athlete who can perform under pressure and whose expertise was proven in real events. The rules of sports, while important to those who follow sports, are arbitrary and do not determine actual events.

Gore *should* have won in 2000; and for this argument it means that the country was willing to have a third Clinton term, and to elect Gore-Lieberman, even though arbitrary (and ultimately skewed rules) undermined the true events.

2004 was not as close as 2000 and for months after the election I was devastated not only because Bush was still in office, but with enough of a margin to suggest that people approved of his idiocies.

However, as the numerous scandals that were uncovered from 2006 on have shown, the Bush administration was involved in systematic voter fraud in every election since they took over the Justice department. I don't have time or space to get into great details - yet, they are easily found all over the internet - but event after event has shown that Bush administration politicized every aspect of the executive branch, skewing policy and actions to help Republicans get elected. The very core of the attorney scandal was that Bush/Gonzales were forcing the U.S. Attorneys to (a) suppress the vote of probable democratic voters (e.g. minorities), and (b) indict Democratic politicians or their staff-members close to the election date. The 8 attorneys who were fired all refused to engage in malfeasance.

Read the data, get scared, and conclude - as you should - that 2004 was won via fraud.

Now, this does not deny that the Democratic candidates of 2000 and 2004 were poor candidates. They were pusillanimous, uncharismatic, and not great leaders. But also recognize that conditions were such in 2000 and 2004 that would have made the country vote for an accept a mediocre Democrat.

Barack Obama is not a mediocre politician. He has many detriments, tis' true - he's young, black, and smart. But he also is a galvanizing speaker and a sober thinker who has raised the most money in history and did so with small donations. Which means he excites millions of people. These facts militate against the not-unfounded anxieties that Americans won't vote for a black man with a funny name. I'd have said that - and in fact did - back in 2007. Today, it's an unfounded fear.

2. The 2006 Midterms showed that the country wants change.

Even with the Justice Dept. vote-fraud, even with the Senate lineup stacked against the Democrats, we still managed to win Congress in 2006. Things were so terrible, in just 2 years, that the country threw their bums out. And, it needs to be said, it's hard to throw out congressional incumbents, and a switch-over in the Senate is not a great way to gauge public mood since only 32-33 people are up for election and not always in states that express the public mood. Even with all that, the Democrats won in 2006.

In 2008, the country is in even WORSE shape. The economy is teetering on the brink of collapse, the Iraq war is still hated (and our soldiers are still dying), etc. Add onto that the fact that congressional oversight of the Executive has led to mass firings in the Justice Dept. and elsewhere, making it very hard to repeat the fraud of 2002, 2004 and 2006.

Without the fraud, it's very hard for the GOP to win... even in a good year. And this year is one of the worst.

3. The past 100 years have shown that it's very hard for the incumbent party to win a third term in the presidency.

Since 1900, there have been a few third terms:

1. 1896-1912: McKinley was re-elected, but his assassination makes things difficult to gauge, so we start with Teddy Roosevelt. He had two terms, and he was succeeded by Taft who only had 1. Note, Taft would have been re-elected if Roosevelt hadn't run against him in '12, so following my Gore-2000 rules above, I think the GOP should get real-world credit for winning in 1912.
   
2. 1920-1932: Harding's death led to Coolidge's ascension and his two terms was followed by Hoover's 1.
   
3. 1932-1952: FDR had four terms - the only true 'third term' proof we have - and he was succeeded by Truman who won 1 term on his own right. He would have lost in '52 if he had run.
   
4. 1952-1960: Eisenhower almost won a third term; Nixon barely lost in 1960 (and, following Gore-2000 rules, it could be that this is a third term).
   
5. 1960-1968: LBJ, despite being elected via a grief-fueled nostalgia landslide in 1964, was quite unpopular in 1968. His successor didn't get a third term (even though I could hear an argument that he would have won if Wallace wasn't a third-party spoiler, but it was a complicated year).
   
6. 1968-1976: Nixon led to Ford who lost to Jimmy Freakin' Carter.
   
7. 1980-1992: Reagan was able to secure a third term for his bland VP.
   
8. 1992-2000: Clinton won a third term, but just just barely.

What does the chart prove? That a party can win a third party only when things are going very well, and the incumbent is popular. Coolidge, FDR and Reagan are the successes that prove this rule. Even when the incumbent is pretty popular, and the country is in good shape, the party still has a hard time staying in power: Nixon in '60 and Gore in '00 show this. Even if you want to say that Nixon and Gore actually were cheated out of their deserved victory, it's also demonstrable that the elections were very very close.

The bottom line is that a party gets a third term when (1) people like the outgoing president and (2) the country is in good shape.

In 2008, Americans hate George W Bush and 80% think the country is on the wrong track. The Iraq War is killing our soldiers, breaking our military and draining our coffers. The economy is going through shocks unseen since Herbert Hoover. Just on history alone, it's nearly inconceivable that the voters will reward the incumbent party with a third term.

This is why, ultimately, I'm not so worried about 2008. Barring fraud, which will be hard to do this year, the GOP will lose.

P.S. If my enormously long-winded description above doesn't comfort you, doesn't quiet the 2004-embedded fears that the GOP is so scummy and/or the American people so stupid, that they will defy the rules of logic and history and elect Growly McSame and Jesus S. Palin, I will just say that there are three presidential debates coming up. If the polls are still depressing after the debates, then it will be time to panic.

John Edwards is a Mamzer

This is one of those paradigm shifting moments. Before the revelation that John Edwards had an affair in 2006, we were able to imagine him as a possible president because he was a charismatic Southern democrat with demonstrable talent in convincing people to do things they wouldn't ordinarily do. Now that we see he committed adultery on his 'cancer-in-remission' wife ONLY TWO YEARS AGO, we see that he is in fact a slimeball with very little on the plus side to offset the massive flaw in character and - most importantly - judgement.

His career in politics is over. His career elsewhere as well, we can only hope.

The Story of the Campaign So Far

A seven minute overview of the Democratic nomination race from Slate magazine. Very very good:


(Bonus: my brother-in-law is on screen for a few seconds, cool).

h/t Sullivan.

My Man Edwards on Colbert

From last night, a cameo on Colbert by my man, John Edwards:

Who is helped by Edwards dropping out?

The body of a letter I sent to the TPM:

First some personal experience. I am an Edwards supporter; I have records back from Feb 07 that I wanted an Edwards/Obama ticket. Once he leaves, I am going to support Obama as strongly as possible. True, I'm a 35 year old married male, so that puts me square in Obama's demographic, but I am the sample group you're asking about...

Secondly, about the larger impact. I think that the older voters are going to go to Clinton (I asked around in synagogue and that's what I was hearing). The younger to Obama if they haven't already jumped ship after Edward's loss in Iowa.

Ultimately, though, I think that Obama will benefit from this becoming a two person race. I think I understand Obama's skill set (having a similar set myself although on about 1/100th a scale). It's much easier to marshal an opposition to one opponent than to two. While Obama is about a positive message, he's also effective as a contrast - especially to Hillary - and Edwards was getting in his way.

As such, I predict that Obama will be MUCH better in the upcoming debate. It's just so much easier to concentrate on one opponent.

Pic from here. Backpost finished 2009-12-18.

Edwards to End Presidential Bid

The AP (via the New York Times) is reporting that Edwards will end his Presidential bid. As I analyzed before, he would only stop the run if (a) he ran out of money, (b) his wife died, or (c) he was offered a deal by one of candidates.

Either of these three conditions may be what's going on here. My bet would be on a deal. There were credible rumors that Obama had offered Edwards the Justice Department. I'd be perfectly happy with that.

I do hope Edwards throws his support behind Obama. Although, as we saw in South Carolina, Edwards got the White-Male vote, and it's a question whether that group is more sexist, racist, or apathetic. That is, whether they don't want Hillary more than they don't want Obama more than they don't want to even vote now that the other candidates are so unacceptable to fine KKK standards.

Contra-Wilder Effect

From a letter I sent to the Reality Based Community Folks, in response to this point by Steven Teles.

I don’t buy the idea that Obama lost due to the “Wilder effect” (that voters told pollsters that they’d vote for a black candidate, but secretly voted for white candidates in the secrecy of the polling booth). The main reason is that there’s a plausible alternative hypothesis, which is that the large Obama lead in the polls sent independents into the Republican primary to vote for McCain. But we’ll have to take a look at the data tomorrow, when we’ll have fine-grained information.

One thing about the 'wilder/bradley-effect' that I haven't seen mentioned is why would racist voters choose Clinton over Edwards? Are pollsters and pundits suggesting that people will lie about voting for a black man and then choose a white woman when there's a perfectly acceptable (17% thought so) white man as a choice?

Backpost finished 2009-12-13.

And, No, It's Not Good For the Process

I've seen people write that they're glad Hillary's still in the race because it's good for the process. No, it's not. Two big reasons:

1. She's trying to destroy Obama

Yes, it'd be good for the process for example if it were between Edwards and Obama to be head-to-head, because they don't have the tactics of personal destruction like Hillary does. The more she stays in, the more she attacks him. And if he's not our nominee in '08, he will be in '12 (because if she's the nominee, she will lose), or if you're sanguine, in '16. He'll be 54 in 2016. Destroy him now and we'll lose this year and also in 4 and 8.

Every moment she stays in the race, it's worse for the party.

2. Their Narratives are Negatively Symbiotic

As I wrote before, the wins and losses for both candidates help feed or starve their related narratives of electability. Every loss for Obama will convince skittish Democrats that they can't expect a black man to win. Every win for Hillary shows that she's inevitable so stop struggling and take your medicine.

I will say that the Woman Can't Be a President narrative is weak compared to the American history of racism (as I wrote a few moments ago), but especially in the week following the assassination of Benzair Bhutto.

However, there may be a backlash against Hillary for her tactics which, ironically, will increase the narrative that women can't be trusted with power. Combine that with the anti-feminist message of 'marrying to get power' and Hillary Steinem have just set gender-relations back further than Mitt did for Mormons.

P.S. And because people aren't mentioning this at all... is Nancy Pelosi still chopped liver? I guess having the first female Speaker is nothing compared to Hillary. Ugh.

Clinton Pulls Out Narrow Win

How did Hillary beat the predictions? Three ideas are being floated:

1. The "Bradley Effect" - defined by the Wiki as: "a phenomenon which has led to inaccurate voter opinion polls in some American political campaigns between a white candidate and a non-white candidate"
   
   
2. Independents in New Hampshire saw the polls overwhelming favoring Obama and cast their ballots for McCain - depriving Obama of a decent amount of support (its such a small state that the 1000 people = 1% of the vote). Or, in general, Obama supporters thinking that the race was no contest and deciding to do whatever people do in New Hampshire when they're not voting
   
   
3. The repeated line, on my news outlets and blogs, was that female voters rallied behind Hillary because of the (a) open misogyny of the press in reaction to her loss in Iowa, and (b) her weepy moment.

E.g. of the weepy moment comes from the NYTimes primary live-blog:

10:42 p.m. | Reactions From Clinton Camp Terry McAuliffe, Mrs. Clinton’s chairman, on MSNBC attributes her apparent victory to her tearful moment yesterday: “That humanizing moment yesterday,” he says. “That did it.”

Does anyone still want to say that it wasn't calculated?

This is a narrow win for Hillary. Let's remember that until Iowa, Obama was behind Hillary by a few points. But the press likes conflict and the horse-race, so we're going for a longer slog.

Lessons

1. To you voters - never take the polls and info for granted. Get out and vote for the best person! (Or, as the case often is, against the worst person... certainly Hillary is worse than Romney!)

2. To you Hillary supporters - if you think that this is how you win a state, with crocodile tears, pathetically playing the gender card, then I am going to enjoy seeing you burn.

3. To you Obama people in the early states (I do get to vote on Feb 5, thanks Connecticut) - seal her doom, vote for the man.

4. To Edwards: DROP OUT! DROP OUT! DO US ALL A FAVOR! Make a deal with Obama to be Attorney General or Sec. of Labor or something. Just go, you had your chances and if you make us get Hillary I'm holding you responsible!

New Hampshire Predictions

It's late, I know, so this will be brief.

It's likely that Obama will maintain and even increase his lead over Clinton because Edwards is far less of a spoiler in NH. If she's within 5, she'll claim "victory"; between 5-10, then a "rebound" [note that I think its ludicrous to say either, but that's politics]; under 10 is going to be geometrically decisive for Obama and we'll get to see an increased Hillary freakout. Which would be nice.

The question on the GOP side is whether there are enough indipendents who don't want to vote for Obama left to vote for McCain. There's the huge turnout today, which helps those who're popular, so that may lift McCain.

Richardson said he's staying in "the final four" until Nevada, so he won't drop out. And if Rommney gets under #2 then he's major toast.

Policies or Personality

I've already been trumpeting my cynic cred, so I might as well go whole-hog. [Mmmmm, hog]. When choosing a politician to support as an executive - as opposed to legislator - there's wisdom in choosing personality over policies. One reason comes from the peculiar system called Federalism that we in the United States have had for a few centuries.

The president has NOTHING to do with making policy. Yeah, we've eroded those lines steadily through the years, most notably with W's 'signing statements' but (a) those were illegal, and (b) it's not the norm by any means. The president submits whichever ideas and policies he wants Congress to enact into laws and then Congress takes those ideas, defecates on the assorted documents the ideas were written on, then takes a fresh sheet of paper and piles money on top of that amid chunks of salt-pork from a big barrel. Viola, how a bill becomes a law.

The president is in charge of leading the nation by carrying out (or 'executing' like an 'executive') the laws of Congress. And that's about character, not policies.

Simply put, each of the major candidates this season - and every season - need to paint a picture of their attitudes and character. And that's what's sold, and purchased, by the electorate.

For example, in 2000 Gore was selling "I'm a big ol' Nerd and I will bore you to death about things you need to hear but won't bother hearing from me." Bush was selling "I am a Southern Cracker who likes to Party - before with hookers and beer but now with Jesus"

Note, that these were remarkably true personalty projections. Bush has spent our money on things that he thinks Jesus cares about: live stem cells and dead Arabs. And Gore is still annoying as all git-out to the point that most Republicans deny that there's global warming merely because Gore said it exists (using a freakin' slide show to do it... how nerdy A-V club do we need to be?!)

2004 was the battle between Flightsuit Bush and the Even More Annoying Nerd. [Note, I still cannot get over the fact that Bush wore a freakin' flightsuit to announce mission accomplished... even if it HAD been accomplished, it was tacky; now that its clear that it was a despicable lie, how can he still be not behind bars?!. [Barfing sounds]]

The Democratic contest is among three main candidates with three narratives:

Hillary = "Hi! I am Gore and Kerry but with Ovaries!" or "Do what I say or the puppy gets it!"

Edwards = "I am a very handsome, small town, Southerner who will fight for you, the small guy, against big business"

Obama = "I am young and handsome and want to tell the Baby Boomers to finally take their hellish ball of partisan warfare and go home."

I like Edwards and Obama's messages - and chances in November. Because winning in November is all about attitude and not about policies. The last wonk who won POTUS was Nixon.

Obama's Veepstakes

Note, see part 1 for the other dudes.

Here we go. Obama is going to need someone who will balance his shortcomings, so he'll need a white male with a lot of DC government experience. Which means old white senators only. Which rules out Edwards. Hillary is also out (wrong gender, no actual experience, and she will melt when exposed to water or sunlight). However Dodd or Biden would fit the bill.

I think Biden is a poor choice because he's a dingbat. With a loose tongue. He'll become a quick liability (but he could carry Delaware! Wooo!). Dodd would be a smart choice - old-school white-as-hell long-time-Senator. The biggest liability would be that Dodd's state (mine) has a Republican governor and if he wins then that will hurt the delicate Senate ratio. One solution would be for Dodd to make his allegiance early, say he's resigning from the Senate, and then allow for Democrat to run in CT in '08.

Outside of the current candidates (and Dodd's the only one viable), the next question is: does Obama care if the VP is someone who had already endorsed Hillary? Almost all of the old guard has done so already. Will those dudes mind (I think not, because they probably signed up with her because they feared what would be her iron grip on their gonads that would come with her Inevitable Victory... they cheered on the insect overlords and may not have their hearts into it; and Obama seems to have the talent of turning enemies into friends, so maybe they'll go along with that).

So, if Obama can accept people who have endorsed Hillary, then Bayh would be a good guy. Maybe Vilsack, if Hillary hasn't already eaten his heart with fava beans and a nice chianti. Bob Kerrey was always in the back of my mind as a tough customer (Medal of Honor Navy SEAL), but his recent Obama smear tarred him as (1) a schmuck, (2) unfriendly to Obama, and (3) a fruit-loop.

Casting a wider net, I had thought someone like Sam Nunn would be good. But Nunn has established that he wants to be in the weirdo Bloomburgian third-party (the Everyone Else is Partisan But Not Us Because We're Otherwise Out of A Job Party) and only as the Presidential slot. So up his.

Someone suggested Bob Graham - former Governor and Senator from Florida. That sounds ideal - swing state, old time white guy - except that he was born in 1936 (72 years old?!) and that's just too old.

But swing state former Senators is a good start. What about Chuck Robb? Even though I'd have liked to see, on purely poetic grounds, a Dodd-Robb ticket, Robb is a former governor and Senator from Virginia who lost to George Allen in 2000. He'd be a great choice.

If Obama wants all of the above issues (white, senator etc) and also more moderate support, then maybe people from the Democratic Leadership Council, or the New Democrat Coalition, or my beloved Blue Dogs. True, there's almost complete overlap in the three groups, but that's fine for this.

The DLC (which brought us Bill Cliton, Al Gore, and Joe Lieberman - all winners in their elections), had Vilsack, Bayh, Nunn, and Robb (above) as leaders. Another DLC and NDC leader is John Breaux - a popular former Senator from Louisiana. I like Robb better.

Before I decide on Robb (and then send that suggestion to the bloggers I read), I'll check this handy list of currently alive former Democratic senators, which is divided up by state and gives the ages, how nice. I will see who is under 70:

• Whoa, Dale Bumpers is still alive! OK, not him, but kol ha-kavod to his doctors.
  
• There's Max Cleland (D-GA), but I met him in person and I wasn't so impressed. And he had only one term, not so good for the 'DC experience'
  
• Wyche Fowler (D-GA) - Rep. for 10 years, Senator for 1 term, then Clinton's ambassador to Saudi Arabia. Eh.
  
• Carol Moseley Braun (D-IL). Just kidding.
  
• Bill Bradley (D-NJ) - Now that's interesting. Born in '43. Hmm
  
• David Boren (D-OK) - Oklahoma, another Governor-Senator deal. I just don't believe a Democrat can win over a deep-red state no matter who the running mate is. The best VP picks, I believe, will be popular swing state guys.
  
• Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) - yeah, I know I said Democrats, but Chafee was pretty liberal, has recently changed his party affiliation to Independent, and that could really help a bipartisan push. And if Obama really wants to channel the Abraham Lincoln vibe, what a better way to remind people?
  
• Tom Daschle (D-SD) - see Braun above.
  
• Al Gore (D-TN) - ahem. Too bad. Did ya know, he's not even 60 yet?!

And that's it. Well, from my list above, the best choices would be:

1. Chris Dodd (current Senator, CT)
   
2. Evan Bayh (current Senator, IN)
   
3. Chuck Robb (former Senator, VA)
   
4. Bill Bradley (former Senator, NJ)
   
5. Lincoln Chafee (former Senator, RI)

That's it for now. I will send my list to appropriate time-wasters.

Hillary's Slash and Burn

One impression I get from analyzing Hillary is that she has no qualms in attacking her Democratic colleagues if they stand in the way of her ambitions. I've mentioned this before with what I find as an unnecessary ferocity in her back-swipes against Edwards and Obama. And everybody knows that attacks during the primaries are usually more vicious than during the general - and most likely to have long-term damage.

But another Hillary crime, I fear, will be her active or passive sabotaging of any non-Hillary candidacy. I remember thinking back in 2004 that Bill (and Hillary) weren't helping Kerry nearly as much as they should have been. I was pissed back then and I had assumed that it was because they wanted to run in '08 and they wouldn't be able to do so if Kerry won in '04.

Now that it's '08 and if Hillary loses this race, she can't afford to wait until '16 -- she'll be 70 and Bill will be (in all likelihood) dead. Her last chance, if she fails now, is '12. Which means that Obama will need to lose in '08.

Which means that her attacks on Obama will be unrestrained on purpose. She needs to win now or for Obama to lose in November - and, lucky for her, both conclusions rely on the same tactics.

The silver lining is that her attacks will need to be moderated by the studies/polling that will show that negativity by her emphasizes what so many people hate about her (and thus drive down her numbers). Also, Obama seems to have teflon-ized himself with the 'new politics' rhetoric that can jiu-jitsu every overt attack into a proof that his opponents (Hillary or GOP) are just practicing 'politics as usual.'

Stick a Fork Into Edwards

You know I'm an Edwards supporter. Not a fervent one, but he's still my favored candidate: he's the pre-1968 Democrat that we've needed for a while. But we've got two big enemies to defeat: first Hillary and second the GOP. Edwards has been building up a support/election team in Iowa since December 2004. And yeah, he came in second, and 30% is very respectable. But, Obama has exploded. Edwards is an unnecessary spoiler, and I want to win.

He won't leave the race, as I said last night, until either: (1) every dollar is spent, (2) his wife dies, or (3) Obama offers him a good job, (4) all of the above. But I don't want his presence to confuse the anti-Hillary voters. Edwards had his chance to win in a low-speed state that he's spent a lot of time in... it's time to pack it in.

Mind you, Obama is - of all the major candidates - the worst for Israel. But, even then, he can't be all that bad. While he talks up the internationalism rhetoric, the Clinton posture and the Bush posture hasn't been all that great either. Ironically, what's best for Israel comes from when Israel itself has a good leader. Clintons failures came from Rabin, Peres, Barak. Bush's failures from Olmert (and his, if you want to call it, successes from Sharon). Carter's success came from the best prime minister in Israel's history, the heilige Begin.

The next US president's success in Israel will come from the next prime minister (and we can only hope it's not Barak or Bibi).

Counter-Predictions for TPM

This is the body of a letter I sent to the TPM regarding their predictions for the Iowa/New Hampshire and beyond: "How We See it":

In general, I believe that your prediction of the potential nominees is on the mark. Two caveats, one for each prediction:

1. Democrats - I don't think you can rule out Obama even if Hillary gets #1 in Iowa and New Hampshire for two reasons:

(a) Obama has a lot of money- that gives him the ability to fight loud for a long time (unlike Edwards in '04 who kept running after it was clear that Kerry had clinched it, but it was largely a futile gesture).

(b) Hillary's negatives are pretty high. I think that Kerry was able to lock up the nom in '04 because most Democrats accepted the expertise of the early primary voters, assuming that since all the non-screaming candidates (e.g. Kerry, Edwards, Clark) were all major unknowns that they felt "if the early voters accepted one of them then, OK, let's just take that one." I heard this from my parents who accepted at face value Kerry's front-running status (and the false-positive crossover appeal of his military record) even though I, as a political junkie, felt that he was the kiss of death.

I don't think there'll be a front-runner repeat of 04 with Hillary because we KNOW that woman very very well. Even if she wins the first three contests (IA, NH, SC), I assume that all that will do is force Edwards to leave the race. Edwards is so far splitting the anti-Hillary vote, and if he drops he'll leave a loud Obama to provide a valid alternative contrast to Hillary. And when the field clears between these two well-funded choices, I think that Obama will get much more popular.

I think a model for Hillary vs. Obama could be 1984's Mondale vs. Hart -- if Mondale had more money, was more hated, and actually had no governing experience and if Hart was smarter, had more substance, and a lot more money. I was only 12 at that election, but in looking at the data I'm impressed at how many states Hart managed to win.

2. Republicans - Huckabee is not going to be easy to eliminate.

To consolidate a blog post I wrote on this, I think that Romney's support is very soft. He is the default candidate because all the other candidates are sick jokes and because Mitt's got looks, money, and clean living. But he's also a laughable phony. What scares me about Huckabee is that even though he has very little money and little staff, he is a very impressive Evangelical poster child and that gives him a built-in power base. Four words: "Passion of the Christ" - that movie made money because of the massive outpouring of Evangelicals who were probably not compelled by Madison Avenue but because thousands of them heard about it in church every Sunday. I think this power-base and free communication network can explain Huck's explosive rise in Iowa and South Carolina and also how he's tied with Giuliani nationally. Add real money and a real staff to Huckabee and I think he'll be a Goldwater on Christ.

While Huck has a dark side (a temper, the gifts in office, his compulsion to cover up and lie) and a dumb side (much of his policy ideas), I would posit that the scandals won't bother Evangelicals. Why? Three more words: "George Dubya Bush." How many scandals did Dubya accrue? His dark side is darker than Huck and his dumb side deeper. But the Evangelicals gave him a pass because (a) he was Born Again, and (b) every time he committed a sin against The Lord or against The Human Race, he'd just accept Jesus again and he'd be as right as rain. And if the Evangelicals accepted that with the Bush, then they'll be even more generous with Huckabee. Because while Bush is reborn, Huck is a freakin' preacher!

For example, Huck's biggest scandal (so far) is freeing Dumond, yet I believe the Evangelicals will just look at it as an act of Christian charity and move on. Seriously. And I don't think the Evangelicals will care that he's got liberal-ish views about spending government money to help the poor because that also fits into the preacher paradigm.

The only way I think Huck is knocked out is if somehow the fervid support he'll get from the Evangelical base is statistically too small to offset the GOP's anti-Evangelical voters. Given the stripping away of almost every group from the GOP over this scorched earth years of Bush-Cheney, I don't think there's enough anti-Evangelicals to stop Huck.

2009 Update: Hey, these predictions held up pretty well. Yay me.

Backpost finished 2009-12-14.

Edwards Stronger Than Is Often Reported

John Edwards is (still) a strong presence in Iowa. It must be remembered that pretty much only reporters and political junkies have been following the candidates closely up until Thanksgiving. After T-giving, and really only for the few weeks before any of the people line up to vote, do the vast majority of voters actually pay attention.

Hence why Hillary's front-runner status was probably just the moonlight echo of her husband's sun. But when people are taking a closer look they see the shrill butcher than we political obsessives have seen all along.

See here one informed Iowan's take on the current state of the Iowa race. Basically: Obama #1, Edwards #2, Hillary #3 and falling.

And the following clip (true, it's from Fox, but its of a focus group of Iowa Democrats), who say that Edwards won the most recent (and last) debate.


If Hillary gets third in Iowa then her only reason for candidacy - electability - will be destroyed. And if Obama comes first then the main fear about him - inelectability - will also disappear.

1964, 1984... 2008?

There are certain elections that are "gimmes." When one candidate, often an incumbent, is so popular and powerful that the other party doesn't have a chance. The most recent examples are LBJ in 1964 and Reagan in 1984. LBJ inherited the mantle of a beloved martyr and Reagan successfully expunged the malaise of the 70s. They were well-nigh unbeatable.

I'd think it's best, in those elections, to play a Goldwater: to nominate an honest and principled ideologue who - because a win isn't expected - can at least paint the party in as positive a light as possible. Of course, the Democrats couldn't manage that in 1984 - instead of nominating Gary Hart*, which would have been a perfect antidote to Reagan - i.e. a young, vigorous new ideas, new new deal, face for the party vs. the antiquated Cold War Codger - the Democrats went for the candidate of the money and the machine: Walter Mondale. It's sad, really, especially if you look at the primary map (found from here)
Yellow is Mondale and Pink is Hart. Hart still would have lost to Reagan, but he would have probably stopped the hemorrhaging of 'Reagan Democrats' because he was the choice of the Mountain West, Florida and California.

But as I said in a previous post, in general the machine-money candidate will beat the populist-maverick. It's what got W the nom' in 2000. And it's what I now predict will happen with the GOP if (when) they pick Romney.

If the GOP choose Romney they'll be pulling a '84 instead of '64. Just as the Democrats should have gone with Hart, the GOP should probably go with Ron Paul (who is as close to Goldwater you can get).

Note About the Gimme

My claim that this is a 'gimme' election is because the GOP is in tatters right now, and rightfully so. The only person who could unite them is Hillary and not just because Republicans hate her more than they hate themselves. It's because she's also hated by independents and Democrats. If the Democrats choose any of the other major leaguers (Edwards, Obama, and even Biden or Dodd... I'm leaving off Richardson because the guy is a buffoon with sneaky hands) then I think the election is in the bag.

Especially if it's Obama. I'm catching a vibe on even the Republican blogs that if Obama is the candidate, then they will be playing only a half-hearted game. They'll be demoralized because Obama has the star quality that makes for a Democratic winner. But they also will have respect for him - I believe - because he'll be a giant slayer. He'll be "The One Guy Who Could Beat a Clinton." The GOP couldn't beat Bill twice and now Hillary twice... and anyone who beats Hillary may get a pass in their book.

One anecdotal (or should I say 'blog-ic-dotal) proof is from Red State.com who linked to the same clip I posted of Barack's Hillary smackdown and said

"Give Barak Obama Credit: He is good."

I will breathe a lot easier if Obama or Edwards gets the nomination.


* Note Hart's famous 'Monkey Business' implosion was in 1987.