Hillary For . . . Secretary of Labor! (?!)

There is an awful lot of chatter about Hillary Clinton now positioning herself for VP, and yet in what has become typical Clinton fashion, there is more than a little bit of an air of entitlement about their approach. Here is what I would do with regard to Hillary and appointments were I Barack Obama: Make a very big deal about offering her the important position of Secretary of Labor. In the speech point out how she forced him to think about the many issues facing the working men and women in this country, and that he can think of no better way to use her expertise and commitment to the good, hard working [apparently white] men and women of America than in this important position.

Why this would be great: We all know that Hillary sees SecLabor as well beneath her. We all know that the Department of Labor is not a plum choice for someone of Hillary's ambitions. We all know that she would not take it. We all know that she and Bill would be furious. But what could they say? And if they did speak out, you'd have a whole array of video and audio clips and numerous self-satisfied quotations at the ready showing Hillary's deep and abiding concerns for the working men and women of this country. This would represent an ideal kiss-off, and would probably reveal to some Dems and not a few GOP Obama's toughness without showing (too much) vindictiveness. Or at least it would allow plausible denial of vindictiveness.

Clinton's Perfidy in Florida and Michigan

Of all of the vaguely scuzzy elements of Hillary Clinton's campaign the Florida-Michigan gambit is almost inarguably the most nakedly opportunistic, hypocritical and unjustifiable. Almost every aspect of Hillary's campaign since it became clear that she was not the entitled chosen one she believed herself to be has revealed her to be a craven demagogue. But her feigning that injustices have occurred despite the fact that she fully agreed to these rule changes in the fall reveals both how much the race shifted unpredictably away from her and just how much she is willing to do anything, however slimy, to win. (Even if she were to get the Florida and Michigan delegates she would not win, but none are so blind as those who will not see.)

Hoosiers and Tar Heels (And Guam)! Oh My!

At the incomparable Washington Post politics blog The Fix, Chris Cilizza has expert views on several developments to watch for in today's Indiana and North Carolina primaries.

My own prediction is that we will again be dealing with dueling narratives after today. Both races are likely to be close, with North Carolina looking like it will give Obama a 5-10% win and with Indiana increasingly looking like a dead heat. Clinton will almost certainly spin anything less than a 10-point loss in Carolina as a moral victory. If Obama wins both states, it may well close the door on Clinton even though the extension in his delegate lead will be marginal at best. But the perception is that he cannot close the door and that he cannot win big states. An Obama victory in North Carolina coupled with a win in Indiana, however slight, (and don't forget his seven-vote caucus victory in Guam!) will likely reinvigorate calls for Clinton to bow out of the race. A split likely results in status quo ante, and if Clinton pulls out an improbably double win the race will be tossed into its greatest state of chaos yet.

The Wright Stuff

I am not responsible for anything my mentor says. You are not responsible for anything that your mentor says. If you are close to your mentors, as I am to mine, you would not be likely to abandon that person even if they said something absolutely batshit crazy. Doing so would probably reflect worse on you than simply saying nothing. This all assumes, of course, that your mentor does not persist in saying crazy things that can actually harm you.

It also assumes that you are not dealing with the triple factors of Hillary and Bill Clinton and their imperturbable sense of entitlement, the well-oiled conservative attack machine, and a media culture as intellectually shallow as one can possibly imagine. In that case, you're Barack Obama, who somehow is being held to account for things that he clearly does not believe, has never advocated, and that someone else said.

So what does Obama do in this latest round of the ongoing cavalcade of idiocy surrounding the increasingly tedious Jeremiah Wright who, if he was taken out of context earlier has happily allowed his narcissism to shine while he provides the fullest context imaginable about ideas ranging from the justifiable (if angry) to the utterly inane to the dangerously misguided. You make it clear, crystal clear, that you denounce everything the mentor has said. There really was no need to make such denunciations of course, because the person who made those statements WAS NOT YOU, but that's the culture in which we live. And then we move on to focus on your views, not Wright's, because you are running for President, and Wright is not.

Regrettably we do not live in this ideal world in which you are not held to account for things that other adults who are not you say. We instead live in a world in which pundits fatuously, vacuously, and gaseously prattle on about responsibilities that ought not to be considered your own to disavow things you demonstrably do not represent to prove points to people who are never going to support you in the first place but who love the idea of watching you prostrate yourself. It's a form of minstrelsy, but you do it because it's been demanded of you and fulfilling those demands is the only way to try to steer the conversation back to matters of substance and hope that there is a way to make opportunity out of this hopeless muddle that has been foisted upon you.

Increased Democratic Turnout = ???

Voters are registering in record numbers and participation has been at historic highs in the primaries in 2008. The question both parties must wrestle with is what, if anything, this means for November. Does the record turnout and the new registrants represent a turning tide in American electoral politics? Does it mean that people want to be part of what they perceive as a historic primary fight? Does it mean that Democrats in these latter primary states finally see their participation mattering? Does it represent crossover votes from Republicans, whether disenchanted with their own party or interested in shaping the opposition for the fall?

Obviously we do not know the answers to these questions. It seems evident that the historic, perhaps transformative, nature of the Democratic race plays the biggest role in all of this, but my guess is that once the party's candidate is chosen a lot of these newly registered folks will be in play for the general election. McCain is a formidable opponent and will be a popular one as well. What he does not enjoy in support from parts of the base he may well make up for among the so-called Reagan or Swing Democrats, not to mention among those for whom an Obama or Clinton candidacy is problematic.

What is also likely is the the Democrats have an opportunity. By mobilizing so many voters the party has the chance to bring about a sea change along the lines of 1994's midterm elections which shaped the American political landscape for a decade and more. I do wonder if wholesale realignment along the lines of 1932 will ever again be possible in what seems to be such a closely divided electorate and instead if tectonic shifts in the future will be less of the earthquake variety and more akin to temblors.

Elitism and Bitterness

I honestly do not have the intellectual energy or patience to spend a load of time on the idiotic accusations against Barack Obama for saying something that, not to put too fine a point on it, is pretty much fucking true. My "working class" (we were, to put it less euphemistically, "poor") background is clear and is a defining aspect of my character: my parents, who had me when they were still kids, divorced when I was young, and my brother and I lived with a Mom who worked in factories or cleaning floors or waiting tables to keep two kids fed and to keep the lights on in a house where the well sometimes ran dry so we had no water. We spent a large hunk of time at our grandparents' farm, which my dad ran. It was a small, family dairy farm, and it went belly up in the mid-1980s when running a small farm was an almost sure ticket to bankruptcy. In other words, try that elitist liberal Democrat nonsense with someone else, because it isn't working on me. And if you think there is not a great deal of bitterness among the working class, left and right, liberal and conservative, Democrat, Republican, and undecided, you are living in a dream world.

Now, I would argue that Obama made an infelicitous linkage between that bitterness and the issues of guns and religion. Not because the ties are not there -- they are, in some ways -- but because the situation is more one of correlation than the causality that Obama implied. I find most amusing the question of Obama being an "elitist," which is one of those assertions so stupid on its face that it would warrant mockery were some people not levying the accusation seriously. First off, anyone at that level of politics is an elite. John McCain has been a Senator for a generation. It does not get much more elite than that. Hillary? Please. If her discomfort around real people were any more palpable she'd spray some sort of warning ink on them like an anti-proletariat octopus. But secondly, how convenient -- how cute! -- to make the black guy in the race, who has served as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago and worked as a civil rights lawyer, the elitist! To make the most demonstrably religious person in the race first a Muslim and then a dangerous uber-black Christian because of someone else's preachings, and now to imply that he is anti-religious! To make an issue of the fact that he doesn't bowl well! Without belaboring the point, I am going to have a hard time buying that race does not play a role in all of this.

So where does this issue go from here? My guess, and perhaps my hope, is that while it will be a lingering subtext that some will use to Swift Boat Obama, most people, bitter or not, won't let it have a major impact on their decision unless they were already leaning against Obama. There is a long race to go. The Democratic convention is three months from now -- what, in terms of specifics, do you remember about the various day-to-day aspects of the campaign that surely seemed like life or death matters from back in January? The general election is nearly seven months away. How much of the dynamic of the races from seven months ago is still relevant? Nonetheless, for now Hillary and down the road the McCain people will try to keep this "elitism" accusation alive, despite its absurdity, for as long as possible. This is the political environment in which we live and in which they operate. Obama's so-called gaffe is today's annoyance. But there is worse to come as the stakes get higher. This is far from as ugly as this race will get. Mark my words on that.

Obama, Wright, and Race

I have been mute on the Barack Obama-Jeremiah Wright imbroglio because, frankly, I was sick of it before the whole thing turned into the latest excuse for mock outrage. First, Obama's speech yesterday encapsulated everything I like and admire about the man. It was sophisticated and smart and powerful and inspiring and it will do little to dissuade those who are either looking for reasons not to support him or who, such as Republicans looking to win a general election in the fall, were never so interested in an Obama presidency in the first place.

Let's just say that I find the demand that Obama do more to separate himself from Wright and his church comical coming from at least two groups of people. First, if you are a Catholic, I do not want to hear it unless you have disavowed the entire Catholic Church after years of priests raping children, protecting those who did it, and covering up the crimes to begin with. Second, the Republican Party has largely suckled at the teat of the religious right for two decades now. And that religious right has spewed so much hatred it is hard to fathom where Wright's crimes alleged and real and that happen to have a foundation in some reality -- America's racial history is so loathsomely terrible it is hard to take seriously those who assert that Wright's assertions amount to racism -- rate, but they rate pretty low.

In any case, there is plenty of coverage of the Wright fiasco and Obama's response. The Washington Post had worthwhile pieces here,
here, and here. The New Republic asked several people to weigh in on the politically salient question of whether the speech was effective here and here. The New York Times' praiseful editorial is worth perusing, and naturally Andrew Sullivan has peppered The Daily Dish with Obama and Wright. And finally, I think one of the more thoughtful (and historically based) reflections, which came before Obama's speech, is Ralph Luker's Jeremiah, which the Atlanta Journal-Constitution republished in slightly modified form. The topic of the religious tradition in the black community plays right into Ralph's wheelhouse.

Post-Nouveau Super Tuesday Assessments

Well, yesterday's primaries threw yet another wrench in what is turning out to be a remarkable election. Hillary emerges as the big winner if you, like me, agree that McCain's victories were a foregone conclusion.

Nonetheless, Hillary still faces some harsh realities when it comes to the arithmetic of the primaries. The reality is that Obama's lead is not likely to fade easily if at all, and Hillary will almost certainly have to rely on this year's kingmakers (queenmakers?) the mysterious and powerful superdelegates.

Meanwhile the analysis comes fast and furious. At Slate Jeff Greenfield compares the Democratic candidates to Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck. At The New Republic Eric Rauchway tells Democrats to look to the 1912 election (while TNR's Plank has its usual blast-fax coverage). And of course there is going to be no paucity of Democrats Divided talk (dramatically overstated, I think) and parsing the race v. gender fracture (which I weighed in on last month.

What we actually know is this: The Democratic race will continue, Obama is in the lead, and all of these discussions will move forward as well. Yes, John McCain can now campaign against the Democrats, but all of the attention will still be on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. And any advantage McCain might get in terms of the ability to knock down his opponents will long since be neutralized by the time the summer rolls around. besides, turnout in the primaries has consistently favored the Democrats. If whoever emerges as the frontrunner can rally that turnout, the interest in the primaries may well redound to the benefit of the Democratic nominee. In a sense, then, all yesterday did was allow for a maintenance of the status quo ante.

On to Pennsylvania.

Super Tuesday, Redux

For all intents and purposes today's voting in Texas and Ohio (and Rhode Island and Vermont) represents Super Tuesday redux. Barack Obama could put this contest away, or Hillary Clinton could mount a comeback that will all but guarantee a brokered convention. Even if that happens, however, I think it is far too simplistic to break the Democratic race down into the meme of a party divided. It does not strike me that the Democratic Party's fissures are anything remotely comparable to those that divide Republicans. The Democrats just happen to be lucky enough to have two strong candidates that appeal to elements of the party. But one can easily envision a scenario whereby Dems rally behind whichever of these historic candidates emerges as the winner even if a large swath of conservatives find themselves having to hold their nose and pull the proverbial lever for McCain (or else choose a third-party social conservative if one emerges).

For my money, the best political coverage can be found at The Washington Post. Nonetheless, I'd also check out The Plank, Andrew Sullivan, The New York Times -- you know, the usual suspects.

My gut instinct is to say that Obama will pull out Texas (and likely Vermont), Hillary will claim Ohio (and possibly Rhode Island), but just barely, and the debate about whether Clinton should withdraw, which is already a ubiquitous subtext, will accelerate. It will be this issue, not the putative differences between Clinton and Obama, that runs the risk of getting ugly. If Clinton withdraws gracefully, one can imagine her in a number of scenarios, none of which plausibly includes her sitting at Vice president. I could certainly see Clinton becoming a lion of the senate. But is it too farfetched to imagine Obama nominating her for a vacancy on the Supreme Court? What about Secretary of State? Of course if Hillary fights to the bitter end, she will almost certainly guarantee that she will play no role in a potential Obama administration.

I now have to cross the street from campus to head to Nimitz Junior High to cast my vote. This is a vote that I never imagined would be anything but a symbolic gesture, falling as it does in the primary fight.

Texas' Super Tuesday

The Lone Star State is getting ready for its closeup on Tuesday. If you're confused about how the Texas process works, you are not alone. Fortunately The New Republic has a primer. The intro describes the convoluted process thusly:

Welcome to Texas: home of the most ludicrous, convoluted, and downright screwy Democratic primary system in America. Actually, it's not even a primary; it's a primary-caucus hybrid, the electoral equivalent of the turducken.

As we move from the primaries to the general election, is it possible that Texas, presumed to be the apodictic red state, could actually swing Democratic in November? Jonathan Gurwitz, a member of the editorial board at the San Antonio Express-News argues at Real Clear Politics that such an unexpected outcome might be possible. Texas politics are more complicated than most people imagine. The state that brought the country George W. Bush also produced Ann Richards and Molly Ivins and not so long ago was as solidly democratic as anywhere in the country. Wouldn't it be an irony of history if a state that turned red at least in part because of the politics of race voted for a black Democrat for president?

Purpling the Race

The Red State/Blue State divide served its purpose as a way to try to understand American politics in the wake of the divisions of the george W. Bush years. But those terms were always best understood as metaphors, and not as doctrinal models for grasping modern political truths. In reality, most red and blue states are infused with purple, and in American politics loyalties are often in a state of flux. This is why the "Reagan Democrats" and "Soccer Moms" and Independents always play a disproportionate role in each election cycle (and why politicians left and right almost always sell out their ideals at some point ina campaign if those swing voters are seen to be in play).

One of the big questions in the Democratic race seems to hinge on whether or not Barack Obama is capable of "turning red states blue," a discussion that will almost inevitably result in muddled answers. But the reason for the lack of clarity is because it is based on this largely false construct that there is something inherently red or blue about particular states. This strikes me as one of those social science flaws in which people create models and theories and then draw on the assumption that those models and theories are true without regard for qualitative nuances that those who do not feel the need to priviledge "science" are oftentimes better at interpreting. "Red States" and "Blue States" are descriptive and not analytical categories. Understanding that might make it easier to grasp how any candidate might be able to "turn" a state that really was never immutable hued to begin with.

The Power Brokers

Are you left wondering when John Edwards or, perhaps especially Al Gore, are going to announce their endorsement of either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? After all, high-profile endorsements serve many masters: the elevate the person being endorsed, but they do every bit as much for the profile of the one doing the endorsing.

Just about everything about this election cycle seems to defy tradition and history, however, and the endorsement game is no different. Because this race is likely to go down to the wire, perhaps in the Democrats' case remaining unresolved until the superdelegates commit in Denver, the power of endorsements is heightened even beyond what it otherwise would be. Why would Edwards want to expend political capital on an endorsement before Texas votes when Texas may well not decide anything? Why would Al Gore, clearly the party's biggest endorsement prize (and still the dream candidate for some in a brokered convention), not wait until he can maximize not only the impact of his endorsement but his larger political leverage? Remaining neutral for the time being has the added benefit of appearing to want to help keep the party united.

Just because there is a great deal of self-interest involved does not make this approach a bad strategy. Gore in particular might prove to be the power broker many envisioned that he would become in the 2008 election, albeit not in the manner -- as the reluctantly drafted candidate heroically come to save the party -- they expected. Then again, stranger things have happened than an 11th-hour Gore candidacy. The Democrats did not choose Woodrow Wilson as their nominee in 1912 until the 46th ballot at the Democratic convention, and only then as a compromise candidate, after all.

The Potomac Primary

If it's another Tuesday, then in this topsy-turvy election season, that means another important day of primaries. Today Virginians, Marylanders (-ites?) and those taxed but unrepresented denizens of the District of Columbia go to the polls for what has been dubbed the "Potomac Primary." Although John McCain has the Republican nomination all but locked up, Mike Huckabee's wing-and-a-prayer candidacy continues to reveal the fissures in the Republican Party, all eyes (maybe thankfully for GOP loyalists) are on the Democrats. It is likely that Barack Obama will have another good day, and it seems clear that Hillary is borrowing at least a part of a page from Rudy Giuliani's playbook by putting most of her chips on Ohio and Texas in a few weeks. In today's Washington Post Dan Balz has a fantastic article addressing some of the key questions not only for today's races, but for the long term for both parties.

Novak on the Dems

I'm not a big fan of Robert Novak's work. In fact, I think Jon Stewart's term for Novak, "Douchebag for liberty" is especially apt. But in the spirit of giving credit where credit is due, his column in today's Washington Post has some interesting insights about the Democrats, Barack Obama, race, and the possibility of a party split all the way to the convention in Denver.

A Super Exciting Super Tuesday

David Sparks, assistant to the dean of the McCormack School of Policy Studies at UMass-Boston, held senior positions in the 1980 and 1988 presidential campaigns for George H. W. Bush. he has an op-ed piece in today's Boston Globe putatively aimed at Mitt Romney but really applicable to any of the contenders still standing: Super Tuesday will likely not mark the end of the primary season unless one candidate manages to sweep.

It's looking increasingly likely that this will be the longest primary season in memory (certainly in my memory). I wonder if the internecine party struggles will have the effect of ameliorating the inevitable partisan ugliness to come, or if it will merely raise the stakes for everyone involved. If February becomes March and either party still is split, it will put Texas in play in a way that none of us envisioned. Will endorsements make a difference? If president Bush weighs in, will that tilt the GOP table one way or the other? Wat about Edwards' endorsement? Gore's? If Gore withholds his support for Clinton or Obama does that mean he might see himself as a compromise candidate for a brokered convention? For political junkies, this is ambrosia.

More on Politics

Sorry the posting has been so light -- it's been a crazy break and in the last couple of days I've been catching up on piles of work while at the same time trying to cobble together my first slovenly time of the break right before the new term kicks in next week.

The last issue of The New Yorker has two worthwhile articles about the GOP race. In "Talk of the Town," Hendrick Hertzberg has a great little piece taking a skeptical approach to the use of religion in campaigns, especially the religiosity of Huckabee and Romney. Elizabeth Kolbert profiles Rudy Giuliani in a way unlikely to change many minds among his detractors (among whom I clearly rank).

I do not have a whole lot to add to the noise about New Hampshire. Both races are fascinating and have been made moreso by the results in the Granite State. I am happy for McCain and hope that he can get redemption for what happened to him at the hands of the Rove-Bush machine in 2000. On the Democratic side we've already heard more than we need to about the Comeback Kid redux but the most important aspect to me is that there is still a race, and that we'll have some time for an actual primary contest as opposed to a coronation for one side or the other. South Carolina ande Nevada represent shifts in geography and demographics, so soon enough we may have a clearer picture. I, for one, would welcome having this nomination process use more of the calendar than recent election cycles have. There is no reason why we need to have our candidates set before Valentine's Day. And maybe continued close competitions will prevent the media from establishing narratives that become self-fulfilling.

The dcat Pre-Iowa/New Hampshire Assessment

OK, here are my capsule assessments of the candidates. My views on the candidates for the two parties comes with the obvious caveat that I am not a nonpartisan observer. I am a Democrat. On domestic issues I am quite liberal, on foreign policy I believe in a sort of muscular humanitarian approach that makes me more hawkish than many in my party but that hawkishness fits within parameters of what I feel that liberal foreign policy once represented, before so many left-of-center foreign policy views became little more than reflexive opposition to President Bush’s ham-handed incompetence.

The following rankings are not based on my predictions of what will happen in Iowa or New Hampshire, or what will happen between now and the nominating conventions, although I take plausibility into account. On the Democratic side I thus consider both my own views and general electability issues. My take on the GOP is a bit different – consider my rankings something of a tolerability index for a number of candidates whose views I oppose and who in many cases I simply dislike.

DEMOCRATS:

Barack Obama: In a campaign in which the candidates’ views are not separated by all that much, my support for Obama comes down to issues of character and personality and integrity and intelligence and vision. My response to Obama is frankly a visceral one borne of his intelligence and competence and my estimation of his capacity. Race features so much in my work that one might wonder if that plays a role as well. Sure it does. And I have no idea why, other things being equal (or in my estimation stacked in Obama’s favor) that would be a problem. In light of this country’s racial history, the idea of a black president seems to me to be something that would reveal just how far we have come, no matter if we have not come far enough. Obama is a brilliant, at times mesmerizing speaker who seems to carry with him the promise of a new politics. The contemporary dialogue is so ugly that a candidate that truly seems to want to rise above divisiveness as more than merely a rhetorical ploy is especially welcome. I like Obama. And when conservatives try to change the rules of the game to somehow make the politics of hope and optimism seem shallow, I have a name for them: Ronald Reagan.

John Edwards: Edwards seems to be peaking at just the right time. Like Obama, he preaches a message largely of hope. I like his populist approach but have the feeling that in a general election Republicans would accuse him of trying to wage class warfare. Of course some might argue that he is merely firing back in a war already being waged against the poorest Americans. Edwards has to win, because he is not primed to be the VP nominee again. If Edwards gathers momentum I’d be proud to see him as the party standard bearer.

Al Gore (Not Actually Running): There are those who hope that some how, some way, things will work out so that Al Gore comes in as the shining knight to take the nomination and win the office that many believe was rightfully his in 2000. This is implausible. I like the post-2000 Gore and frankly cannot really fathom why the GOP built up such hatred for him, except for the fact that such treatment is likely to be the lot of any Democrat who wins the Democratic nomination. If something were to happen so that Gore did end up as a compromise candidate or a late entry, he would be a powerhouse. But the way that the nomination process is set up, and the amount of money involved, would make such a scenario nearly impossible. Consider my inclusion of him here as a statement of my admiration for the man.

Joe Biden: If experience, gravitas, and foreign policy knowledge and capability were the only issues at hand in this election Biden would be the strongest candidate for the democrats (and maybe of either party) hands-down. But Biden is too far back. My hope is that he would seriously consider the Vice Presidential post, or better yet, that he would consider a spot in the cabinet, preferably as Secretary of State or National Security Advisor.

Hillary Clinton: I think Hillary actually gets a pretty bad deal. At the same time, too often in this campaign she has revealed a too-patently-Machiavellian side that have led so many to distrust her. She is incredibly polarizing and my guess is that in their hearts the GOP contenders want her to win the nomination. I’m willing to grant that the GOP may want to be careful what they wish for. Hillary is formidable. She just is not very likeable.

Bill Richardson: Cannot win. Will not win. Guy you’d probably most want to have a beer with. Probably my favorite candidate on the issue of immigration. Cannot win and will not win, though.

Christopher Dodd: See above under Richardson. Except I’m not certain I’d care to have a beer with the guy. I actually support most of his policies. But again, can’t win, won’t win. Tomorrow I might rate him ahead of Richardson. It’s not really a distinction worth parsing.

Dennis Kucinich: Kucinich really ought to be the Democrats’ equivalent to Ron Paul – the wacky, somewhat endearing candidate with a lot of integrity and the ability to be a burr under the saddle of the party stalwarts. Instead he has a better chance of earning a starring nod in The Hobbit. Politics ain’t fair.

Mike Gravel: Positions are fine. In comparison, Richardson and Dodd are juggernauts. I’d actually be more than likely to vote for him before I’d actually cast a vote for Kucinich. But my hobbit line is better than anything I have for Gravel. Again – politics? Not fair.

REPUBLICANS:

John McCain: I have tremendous respect and admiration for John McCain now that he is rounding back into his 2000 form rather than his waffling, decidedly un-straight talk 2006 persona. And he is beginning to hit his stride again. He needs a couple of good showings in the next week, he needs that to get the money rolling in, and he needs to exercise his South Carolina demons from when Bush and his minions planted their campaign in the gutter in 2000. If all goes well for the Democrats, wouldn’t McCain make for a hell of a Secretary of Defense?

Ron Paul: My guess is that his momentum will come to a halt and that he’ll be the GOP’s equivalent to Howard Dean in 2004, except that he’ll never end up as head of the party. I admire Paul for his integrity and for his unwavering libertarian politics. I think he’s nuttier than toddler poo and his fixation on things like the Gold standard are endearingly batty. But he does not seem inclined to play the usual political games, and he certainly is speaking truth to power within his party, which I admire.

Mitt Romney: After Paul the candidates go seriously down hill for me on the GOP side. Romney is a blow dried smarm-meister who changes positions on a dime to improve his electability. I’m glad he made his compelling statement about his religion a while back, because while we are supposed to value all religions and all that, given that they can’t all be right I’m just going to say that Mormons are wronger than most when it comes to concocting shit that isn’t even vaguely fucking plausible. He had better do decently in Iowa and win New Hampshire. If a former GOP Governor cannot win his neighboring state, he’s pretty much screwed. Wants to “double Guantanamo” which doesn’t actually mean anything, but shows that the guy can pander like nothing you’ve ever seen.

Mike Huckabee: Huckabee’s public persona is really likable. I’ve seen him on a bunch of talk shows, including the late night Comedy Central gantlet and he has done really well. I’m frankly turned off by the religious right aspect of his candidacy. We’ve had enough of Christian warriors in the executive branch, and on that front Huckabee makes Bush look like a piker.

Fred Thompson: I, for one, think the cornpone New York DA would make for a hell of a folksy president who’d tell it like it is with fun metaphors. Oh. That’s just a character? The real Fred Thompson is a lazy social gadfly? Wasn’t there a point when some pegged this guy as a savior? He is like a GOP version of Wes Clark in 2004. Except impossible to take seriously.

Alan Keyes: He’s witty, I’ll give him that. And he seems to believe the things he says.

Duncan Hunter: Name a policy and he’s pretty much got the right wing stand down. Opposes gay marriage, and I’d bet gays too. Supports torture. Opposes stem cell research. Standard right-wing pap. I still like him more than . . .

Rudolph Giuliani I think Giuliani is legitimately dangerous. Cult of personality dangerous. The guy’s foreign policy thoughts are so thin anorexics fear for his well being. I still have no goddamned idea why the guy gets all that anti-terrorism credit based on 9/11. No one has successfully explained to me Giuliani’s appeal. He believes in overweening executive power and I have no doubt he’d exercise it to the fullest. Some of the rest of these guys I see as clowns and amiable dunces. Not Giuliani. I have no idea how he got to be a front-runner and am not only happy but palpably relieved to see him fading, though we’ll see if his strategy to withdraw to Florida and the big-delegate primary days in February is a sign of tactical genius or mere desperation.

Iowa and New Hampshire

The Washington Post has a feature on the political cultures of New Hampshire and Iowa. I'm a native of the Granite State, and so I'm clearly biased, but I think that New Hampshire comes across better than Iowa, where the most notable aspects that stand out in the story are the idea of "Iowa Nice" and the fact that Iowa is "family oriented." As for the first element, Minnesotans probably more famously claim something called "Minnesota Nice," which and this brings us to Midwestern stereotypes that in the end aren't very useful. The second assertion is actually quite bothersome. Iowans are "family oriented" relative to whom, precisely? The northeast (and Blue States generally), after all, tends to have lower divorce rates. (And if this chart is to be believed, those nice Iowans commit almost every significant crime at a higher rate than people in New Hampshire. I'm sure they do it nicely. But I'm just sayin' is all.)

Ultimately I'm wary of trying to provide these kinds of generalizations about entire states or regions. Iowa has lots of nice people who love their families, I'm sure. But almost certainly no more so than Massachusetts or New Hampshire or Texas. Claiming to love families is a bit like saying one supports human rights or education. It's the low hanging fruit because no one actually opposes those things. In any case, if the purpose of the article is either to confirm or deny the vaunted status of Iowa or New Hampshire, I doubt this article will shift the terrain of the debate.

Wicked Pissah (Redux)

So South Carolina has announced that the Palmetto State's primary will now be held on January 19. Inevitably this is going to cause New Hampshire to react by moving its date forward, because by Granite State law the First in the Nation Primary is sacrosanct and must antedate all others. Last year in a post called "Wicked Pissah" I commented on this precise issue. I feel that my argument holds up well, plus you can never underestimate just how lazy I am, so I am going to quote the whole thing:

New Hampshire's hold on the first in the nation primary is growing increasingly tenuous, at least as far as the Democratic Party is concerned. I am pretty mixed about this. As a New Hampshire native and still semi-jingoist, I believe that tradition ought to matter, that the particular style of retail politics that the New Hampshire primary imposes on candidates is good for democracy, and that New Hampshire stepped up to the plate long ago when it was not a particular honor to be first but rather a duty and when in any case candidates were chosen by the parties rather than in any meaningful way by the public. Why now should the Granite State be shoved to the side, or at least diminished, in the candidate selection process?


At the same time, New Hampshire is not exactly representative of our great democracy. The state is about 99% white. Ethnically, socially, geographically the state is not as diverse as the presidential selection process warrants. New Hampshire may be the most libertarian-inclined state in the country and so having its citzens choose the candidates for each party's nomination seems to have a warping effect sometimes. I understand all of these points intellectually, even if my heart and sense of loyalty indicate that New hampshire deserves to maintain some status, however honorific, in the primary season.


But here is what I do not want to see happen: A move toward early, frontloaded superprimaries in which the party's choice happens quickly without voters being able to see candidates be hardened by a selection process. I do not want to see retail politics, the politics of the spaghetti supper and pancake breakfast and candidates trudging through the snow and gingerly walking on the ice and giving speeches in high school gymnasiums, give way to the saturation of blanket television ads and speeches in giant auditoriums delivered to the voter only via television, if then.


New Hampshire still has a role to play. Rather than place Nevada's caucus between that of Iowa and the primary in the North Country, why not leave things as they are, but, as they plan, bring South Carolina's primary closer on the heels of New Hampshire's and have Nevada be that week as well, preserving New Hampshire's role, at least symbolically, but allowing candidates to make South Carolina or Nevada more significant as well, thus increasing diversity of voices?

The reality is that the parties are going to have to intercede, they are going to have to ruffle some feathers, and some of these smaller states are going to go away feeling slighted. My guess, not that different from what i concluded last year, is that New Hampshire will be allowed to maintain its status, but only nominally, with a series of larger primaries following New Hampshire's in such quick succession as to push the "First in the Nation" status into practical irrelevancy while allowing the state to maintain its symbolic grip on primacy.