Sometimes the very thing you're looking for
Is the one thing you can't see
And now we're standing face to face
Isn't this world a crazy place
Just when I thought our chance had passed
You go and save the best for last
John McCain has executed a phoenix-like comeback. Now leading in the polls in New Hampshire, he is on the verge of winning the historically meaningful "first" primary. His new-found potency, once again, incredibly, makes him a viable player in the greater race for the Republican nomination. Is the much-maligned John McCain really going to win the Republican standard in 2008?
David Brooks, Robert Novak, and Bill Kristol think so.
While confessing my admiration for McCain, and reminding readers that I had come out for McCain twenty-one months ago as a courageous and electable Reagan conservative, I wrote with confidence a few days ago that the McCain comeback would necessarily fall short.
I offered a list of five improbable events, which would need to transpire in order for the seventy-two year-old Arizona senator to emerge victorious. But I argued then, taken together, they were highly unlikely; however, yesterday I noted that "two have come to pass and, incredibly, the ice seems to be breaking on the other three."
The Five Signs of the Political Apocalypse:
1. Huckabee holds on to Iowa.
Happened. This much and more. I had expected Huck to fade a bit and Mitt Romney to prevail thinly on the strength of money, organization, and electability. Not so! Huckabee won the caucus by nine points, and he is the darling of the national press corps this weekend. On the other hand, the person McCain has always seen as his primary obstacle to victory, Mitt Romney, is staggered, bloody, and on the ropes.
2. McCain "finishes strong" (third place) in Iowa.
Miraculously, in effect, this happened also. McCain surged to finish in a statistical dead-heat with Fred Thompson for third-place in Iowa, adding to his growing sense of possibility and sapping Fred of the bounce he might have enjoyed from a solo finish in the money.
3. Independents in NH abandon Obama and other attractive fruitcakes and come out for McCain.
Of the five improbables, this one remains the most intractable. While McCain did well with independents in New Hampshire in 2000, New Hampshire independents have a lot more choices than they did then: Ron Paul, John Edwards, and, most troubling for McCain, Barack Obama.
Many pundits had averred that an Obama loss in Iowa would help McCain with independents in New Hampshire--but, alas, a triumphant Obama arrives in the Granite State with momentum, enthusiasm, and a compelling pitch for independents. One other problem for McCain and NH independents: while McCain's incredibly courageous and prescient leadership on the war in Iraq inspires rock-ribbed Republicans, I wonder whether this facet of his current political package makes him much less appealing to these independents, whoever they really are?
On the other hand, perhaps the conventional wisdom is wrong, and McCain does not really need the mysterious independents to win this race. Perhaps he is surging the old-fashioned way--which could portend more success in the aftermath of New Hampshire 2008 than in 2000. Following the shocking McCain upset eight years ago, the independent-tainted victory seemed an albatross around his neck in the ensuing primaries, serving as further proof to core Republicans that the Maverick really was not one of us.
4. At the crucial moment, the GOP establishment (conservative talk radio, blogs, non profits, etc.) experiences an epiphany, suddenly embracing "Maverick McCain" and admitting grievous error.
Within my original post a few days ago, I said: "Not in this lifetime." But, maybe so. Of all the "improbables," this would be the most ironic. It is not happening right now--but a big win in New Hampshire, which seems possible, will force conservatives to re-examine McCain. Rush has advocated for Fred Thompson as the only conservative alternative. Sean Hannity says he could accept either Rudy, Mitt, or Fred Thompson. But what if none of these candidates are around next month? Mitt is probably out. Fred is Fred (see below). Rudy is in the netherworld right now--but will likely get one more chance on the national stage as we head South (and West).
My point: alternatives to McCain are falling away. At some point, conceivably, the conservative establishment could be forced to pick between two options: McCain or Huckabee. Most likely, they pick the old hero.
5. Fred Thompson proves as lifeless as advertised.
As noted above, Fred won third, but (quoting myself from yesterday) "[h]e pulled off a surprisingly lackluster and curiously uninspiring third place. He may have, once again, done the minimum to keep himself above water in this race."
Fred is still alive--but only because there are so few other options. Let's see what happens in the big prime-time, nationally televised debate tonight on ABC--but, as always, it is now or never for Fred. He certainly could prove as "lifeless as advertised" and as insignificant as every knowledgeable person in the mainstream media seems to think. We'll see.
The Bottom Line: Does McCain have a chance? Yes. Today I think he does, but I still would not bet the house on it.
Is the one thing you can't see
And now we're standing face to face
Isn't this world a crazy place
Just when I thought our chance had passed
You go and save the best for last
John McCain has executed a phoenix-like comeback. Now leading in the polls in New Hampshire, he is on the verge of winning the historically meaningful "first" primary. His new-found potency, once again, incredibly, makes him a viable player in the greater race for the Republican nomination. Is the much-maligned John McCain really going to win the Republican standard in 2008?
David Brooks, Robert Novak, and Bill Kristol think so.
While confessing my admiration for McCain, and reminding readers that I had come out for McCain twenty-one months ago as a courageous and electable Reagan conservative, I wrote with confidence a few days ago that the McCain comeback would necessarily fall short.
I offered a list of five improbable events, which would need to transpire in order for the seventy-two year-old Arizona senator to emerge victorious. But I argued then, taken together, they were highly unlikely; however, yesterday I noted that "two have come to pass and, incredibly, the ice seems to be breaking on the other three."
The Five Signs of the Political Apocalypse:
1. Huckabee holds on to Iowa.
Happened. This much and more. I had expected Huck to fade a bit and Mitt Romney to prevail thinly on the strength of money, organization, and electability. Not so! Huckabee won the caucus by nine points, and he is the darling of the national press corps this weekend. On the other hand, the person McCain has always seen as his primary obstacle to victory, Mitt Romney, is staggered, bloody, and on the ropes.
2. McCain "finishes strong" (third place) in Iowa.
Miraculously, in effect, this happened also. McCain surged to finish in a statistical dead-heat with Fred Thompson for third-place in Iowa, adding to his growing sense of possibility and sapping Fred of the bounce he might have enjoyed from a solo finish in the money.
3. Independents in NH abandon Obama and other attractive fruitcakes and come out for McCain.
Of the five improbables, this one remains the most intractable. While McCain did well with independents in New Hampshire in 2000, New Hampshire independents have a lot more choices than they did then: Ron Paul, John Edwards, and, most troubling for McCain, Barack Obama.
Many pundits had averred that an Obama loss in Iowa would help McCain with independents in New Hampshire--but, alas, a triumphant Obama arrives in the Granite State with momentum, enthusiasm, and a compelling pitch for independents. One other problem for McCain and NH independents: while McCain's incredibly courageous and prescient leadership on the war in Iraq inspires rock-ribbed Republicans, I wonder whether this facet of his current political package makes him much less appealing to these independents, whoever they really are?
On the other hand, perhaps the conventional wisdom is wrong, and McCain does not really need the mysterious independents to win this race. Perhaps he is surging the old-fashioned way--which could portend more success in the aftermath of New Hampshire 2008 than in 2000. Following the shocking McCain upset eight years ago, the independent-tainted victory seemed an albatross around his neck in the ensuing primaries, serving as further proof to core Republicans that the Maverick really was not one of us.
4. At the crucial moment, the GOP establishment (conservative talk radio, blogs, non profits, etc.) experiences an epiphany, suddenly embracing "Maverick McCain" and admitting grievous error.
Within my original post a few days ago, I said: "Not in this lifetime." But, maybe so. Of all the "improbables," this would be the most ironic. It is not happening right now--but a big win in New Hampshire, which seems possible, will force conservatives to re-examine McCain. Rush has advocated for Fred Thompson as the only conservative alternative. Sean Hannity says he could accept either Rudy, Mitt, or Fred Thompson. But what if none of these candidates are around next month? Mitt is probably out. Fred is Fred (see below). Rudy is in the netherworld right now--but will likely get one more chance on the national stage as we head South (and West).
My point: alternatives to McCain are falling away. At some point, conceivably, the conservative establishment could be forced to pick between two options: McCain or Huckabee. Most likely, they pick the old hero.
5. Fred Thompson proves as lifeless as advertised.
As noted above, Fred won third, but (quoting myself from yesterday) "[h]e pulled off a surprisingly lackluster and curiously uninspiring third place. He may have, once again, done the minimum to keep himself above water in this race."
Fred is still alive--but only because there are so few other options. Let's see what happens in the big prime-time, nationally televised debate tonight on ABC--but, as always, it is now or never for Fred. He certainly could prove as "lifeless as advertised" and as insignificant as every knowledgeable person in the mainstream media seems to think. We'll see.
The Bottom Line: Does McCain have a chance? Yes. Today I think he does, but I still would not bet the house on it.
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
Instapundit links to this story on Stategy Page about National Security implications of Chinese manufactured goods. Two excerpts:
January 4, 2008: One reason China tolerates the widespread manufacture of counterfeit products is because some of them have some military benefit for China's Cyber War effort. This came to light recently when the FBI arrested two Americans for running a computer parts company that was selling counterfeit computer parts (especially Cisco router components), manufactured in China. The phony parts had counterfeit labels, and were delivered in counterfeit boxes. The two brothers had a contract to sell these parts to the Department of Defense and other government agencies.
. . .
. . . There's also the fear that the Chinese, or some other hostile nation, might get their hands on real computer components, and replace some of the chips with modified ones that will make government networks easier to hack. Yes, it just gets worse.
Somebody explain to me again, why do we have free trade with these *ssh*l*s?
And more: according to this NYT article, abuse of workers in Chinese factories continues. Think about it. We have recalled toys made in China because of high lead content in the paint. What about the workers who make the paint and those who paint the toys? What of their lead exposure?
January 4, 2008: One reason China tolerates the widespread manufacture of counterfeit products is because some of them have some military benefit for China's Cyber War effort. This came to light recently when the FBI arrested two Americans for running a computer parts company that was selling counterfeit computer parts (especially Cisco router components), manufactured in China. The phony parts had counterfeit labels, and were delivered in counterfeit boxes. The two brothers had a contract to sell these parts to the Department of Defense and other government agencies.
. . .
. . . There's also the fear that the Chinese, or some other hostile nation, might get their hands on real computer components, and replace some of the chips with modified ones that will make government networks easier to hack. Yes, it just gets worse.
Somebody explain to me again, why do we have free trade with these *ssh*l*s?
And more: according to this NYT article, abuse of workers in Chinese factories continues. Think about it. We have recalled toys made in China because of high lead content in the paint. What about the workers who make the paint and those who paint the toys? What of their lead exposure?
Most media coverage of the presidential nomination race could be on the Sports Page. The focus is on the "game" of politics.
If you are a reader who is more interested in the positions and professed beliefs of the candidates, you will need to work to find the information you need.
Farmer helped all of us recently with his work on Obama's foreign policy convictions, and I hope he'll use his political and scholarly skills to do similar work on other top candidates.
For now, here is a page from the Des Moines Register that should prove helpful, though certainly not exhaustive. (This page may take a while to load because of its video links.)
If you are a reader who is more interested in the positions and professed beliefs of the candidates, you will need to work to find the information you need.
Farmer helped all of us recently with his work on Obama's foreign policy convictions, and I hope he'll use his political and scholarly skills to do similar work on other top candidates.
For now, here is a page from the Des Moines Register that should prove helpful, though certainly not exhaustive. (This page may take a while to load because of its video links.)
Trying to understand the interplay of religion and public life in the United States? A great place to start would be this address by Wilfred McClay at the recent Pew Forum.
An excerpt:
So let me begin with two propositions. The first one is that in the American experience, the separation of church and state, which by and large we acknowledge as a rough-and-ready principle, does not necessarily mean the separation of religion from public life. Another way of saying this is that America has a strong commitment to secularism, but it is secularism of a particular kind, understood in a particular way.
Second, that the United States has achieved in practice what seemed impossible in theory: a reconciliation of religion with modernity, in contrast, as I say, to the Western European pattern. In the United States religious belief has proven amazingly persistent even as the culture has been more and more willing to embrace enthusiastically all or most of the scientific and technological agenda of modernity. Sometimes the two reinforce one another. Sometimes they clash with one another, but the American culture has found room for both to be present. I won't prophesy this will always be the case, but it's a very solid relationship of long standing.
And perhaps I should add-and I did this for my Turkish audiences [he had recently been on a speaking tour of Turkey]; it utterly baffled them, but it shouldn't be quite so baffling for you-that all this makes sense in light of the fact of [a] third proposition: that American institutions and culture are intrinsically and irreducibly complex-not chaotic, which is of course what they see-but complex.
The complexity takes a particular form: that politics and culture are designed around an interplay of competitive forces, which is, I think, the key to understanding a lot about the United States. The Constitution was based on the assumptions that in any dynamic society there would be contending interest groups, and [that] one could best counteract their influence by systematically playing them off against one another. That was the reasoning behind separation of powers. That was the reasoning behind the federal system. These different parts of the government are supposed to fight with one another. That's how the Constitution is supposed to work.
An excerpt:
So let me begin with two propositions. The first one is that in the American experience, the separation of church and state, which by and large we acknowledge as a rough-and-ready principle, does not necessarily mean the separation of religion from public life. Another way of saying this is that America has a strong commitment to secularism, but it is secularism of a particular kind, understood in a particular way.
Second, that the United States has achieved in practice what seemed impossible in theory: a reconciliation of religion with modernity, in contrast, as I say, to the Western European pattern. In the United States religious belief has proven amazingly persistent even as the culture has been more and more willing to embrace enthusiastically all or most of the scientific and technological agenda of modernity. Sometimes the two reinforce one another. Sometimes they clash with one another, but the American culture has found room for both to be present. I won't prophesy this will always be the case, but it's a very solid relationship of long standing.
And perhaps I should add-and I did this for my Turkish audiences [he had recently been on a speaking tour of Turkey]; it utterly baffled them, but it shouldn't be quite so baffling for you-that all this makes sense in light of the fact of [a] third proposition: that American institutions and culture are intrinsically and irreducibly complex-not chaotic, which is of course what they see-but complex.
The complexity takes a particular form: that politics and culture are designed around an interplay of competitive forces, which is, I think, the key to understanding a lot about the United States. The Constitution was based on the assumptions that in any dynamic society there would be contending interest groups, and [that] one could best counteract their influence by systematically playing them off against one another. That was the reasoning behind separation of powers. That was the reasoning behind the federal system. These different parts of the government are supposed to fight with one another. That's how the Constitution is supposed to work.
Nobody Knows Anything....but, as it happens, no one more so than I.
My predictions tens day out:
The Party of Lincoln:
Romney pulls it out. Huck hangs on for a respectable second place. Fred surprises with a third-place finish and emerges, finally, as a serious candidate.
Wrong. Wrong. Right--kind of, maybe, but--perhaps--not exactly.
Huckabee is much more formidable than I gave him credit for. Note to self: do not underestimate Mike Huckabee again. He has a lot of talent, and he has come to play and not just for the ride. In truth, I don't dislike Huckabee. He is affable and engaging--and those are good qualities. Certainly, he would do no worse as president than Obama or Hillary.
How did he do what he did last night? Christian conservatives helped him greatly in Iowa, where he harnessed a perfect storm of social conservative enthusiasm, personal appeal, and neglect on the part of a field bent on conceding the state to Romney. New Hampshire is not likely to provide the same fertile ground for Huck--but he will undoubtedly receive a bounce there. After New Hampshire, all eyes will turn South, where, like Iowa, he speaks a language God-fearing, America-loving, social conservatives understand. He is likely in this race for the duration.
Having said that, I remain skeptical that he goes all the way. The forces of conservatism are arrayed against him (my previous thoughts on that). This is a tough hill to climb. But no one expected Jimmy Carter to win in 1976 when he faced a similar battle with party regulars and the traditional sources of Democratic orthodoxy. Funny things happen in American politics.
Mitt Romney. He had a lot of money, a great organization, and a great plan--but he had to win Iowa and New Hampshire to generate a groundswell. He did not reach first base. This is extremely problematic for Mitt. He remains viable for a while because of his money and organization, but it is hard to imagine Romney catching fire at this point. Obviously, New Hampshire is do or die for him—but, even if he wins the Granite State, he faces a hard road from there.
Fred Thompson. He pulled off a surprisingly lackluster and curiously uninspiring third place. He may have, once again, done the minimum to keep himself above water in this race.
One interesting note: if you take Thompson's 13 percent and McCain's 13 percent (as they are, after all, basically the same guy), you get 26 percent—not enough to beat Pastor Mike in "Evangelical-land," but a significant number nevertheless.
What happens to Fred? Beats me. Nothing would surprise me at this point. Amid the rumors circulating that he was planning on withdrawing and joining the "national security senators for McCain" tour, he surged just a bit in Iowa. It is worth noting that his lurch forward occurred while his "ace in the hole," Rush Limbaugh, was on vacation. Rush is on record as extolling Thompson as the only true conservative in the race. This kind of support is not insignificant in the upcoming primaries wherein candidates must court the Republican base, many of whom listen to Rush regularly and admire him greatly. Fred is not dead—but he continues to need to make his move and show us something. On the other hand, a Thompson-McCain alliance sometime soon certainly would not shock me either.
John McCain’s rise from the dead is so remarkable that he deserves his own post--which will be forthcoming. Preview: of the five improbable things that had to happen for McCain to return to viability, two have transpired and, incredibly, the ice seems to be breaking on the other three.
And Rudy illustrates the perils of skipping Iowa. His big-state strategy is not completely dead--but he will be engaged fulltime for the next few weeks making the case that he is still relevant. This is a tough assignment for the former US attorney. As I have written many times in the past, I am a big Rudy fan--but I remain convinced that he is not GOP nominee material. Rudy for AG or DHS.
Bottom Line: The Republican canvass remains a mess. Anything is possible at this point, including a brokered convention and a nominee outside the current contest. We'll see.
But, then again, why would anybody listen to me?
My predictions tens day out:
The Party of Lincoln:
Romney pulls it out. Huck hangs on for a respectable second place. Fred surprises with a third-place finish and emerges, finally, as a serious candidate.
Wrong. Wrong. Right--kind of, maybe, but--perhaps--not exactly.
Huckabee is much more formidable than I gave him credit for. Note to self: do not underestimate Mike Huckabee again. He has a lot of talent, and he has come to play and not just for the ride. In truth, I don't dislike Huckabee. He is affable and engaging--and those are good qualities. Certainly, he would do no worse as president than Obama or Hillary.
How did he do what he did last night? Christian conservatives helped him greatly in Iowa, where he harnessed a perfect storm of social conservative enthusiasm, personal appeal, and neglect on the part of a field bent on conceding the state to Romney. New Hampshire is not likely to provide the same fertile ground for Huck--but he will undoubtedly receive a bounce there. After New Hampshire, all eyes will turn South, where, like Iowa, he speaks a language God-fearing, America-loving, social conservatives understand. He is likely in this race for the duration.
Having said that, I remain skeptical that he goes all the way. The forces of conservatism are arrayed against him (my previous thoughts on that). This is a tough hill to climb. But no one expected Jimmy Carter to win in 1976 when he faced a similar battle with party regulars and the traditional sources of Democratic orthodoxy. Funny things happen in American politics.
Mitt Romney. He had a lot of money, a great organization, and a great plan--but he had to win Iowa and New Hampshire to generate a groundswell. He did not reach first base. This is extremely problematic for Mitt. He remains viable for a while because of his money and organization, but it is hard to imagine Romney catching fire at this point. Obviously, New Hampshire is do or die for him—but, even if he wins the Granite State, he faces a hard road from there.
Fred Thompson. He pulled off a surprisingly lackluster and curiously uninspiring third place. He may have, once again, done the minimum to keep himself above water in this race.
One interesting note: if you take Thompson's 13 percent and McCain's 13 percent (as they are, after all, basically the same guy), you get 26 percent—not enough to beat Pastor Mike in "Evangelical-land," but a significant number nevertheless.
What happens to Fred? Beats me. Nothing would surprise me at this point. Amid the rumors circulating that he was planning on withdrawing and joining the "national security senators for McCain" tour, he surged just a bit in Iowa. It is worth noting that his lurch forward occurred while his "ace in the hole," Rush Limbaugh, was on vacation. Rush is on record as extolling Thompson as the only true conservative in the race. This kind of support is not insignificant in the upcoming primaries wherein candidates must court the Republican base, many of whom listen to Rush regularly and admire him greatly. Fred is not dead—but he continues to need to make his move and show us something. On the other hand, a Thompson-McCain alliance sometime soon certainly would not shock me either.
John McCain’s rise from the dead is so remarkable that he deserves his own post--which will be forthcoming. Preview: of the five improbable things that had to happen for McCain to return to viability, two have transpired and, incredibly, the ice seems to be breaking on the other three.
And Rudy illustrates the perils of skipping Iowa. His big-state strategy is not completely dead--but he will be engaged fulltime for the next few weeks making the case that he is still relevant. This is a tough assignment for the former US attorney. As I have written many times in the past, I am a big Rudy fan--but I remain convinced that he is not GOP nominee material. Rudy for AG or DHS.
Bottom Line: The Republican canvass remains a mess. Anything is possible at this point, including a brokered convention and a nominee outside the current contest. We'll see.
But, then again, why would anybody listen to me?
Nobody Knows Anything....but, as it happens, no one more so than I.
My predictions tens day out:
The Party of Jackson:
Hillary wins a squeaker. Obama second. Edwards a close but, nevertheless, terminal third.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong--but possibly right in spirit.
This was a huge win for Obama. If there were any doubters left before last night (not me), they are running for the hills today. Barack Obama is big time for real. Most importantly, unlike many past insurgents (Gary Hart, Pat Buchanan, Paul Tsongas to name a few), Obama is in great shape money wise and organizationally to move to the next battle with strength and style. He has plenty of money in the coffers and is likely to out-raise Hillary 3-to-1 during the next few days.
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton is still Hillary Clinton. As I have written previously, she is unlikely to collapse in the face of disappointment. She is an amazing candidate in her own right, with the best national organization in the first-ever "national primary." She has a whole slew of political assets and big guns in her arsenal. Now that the battle is irrevocably and indisputably joined, I expect to see a primary fight over the next five weeks unlike anything we have ever seen in American politics. Fasten your seatbelts, boys; we're in for a bumpy ride.
As for Edwards, his tie for a distant-second seems terminally impotent. For the man who staked his whole campaign on Iowa and started there with a lot of advantages, a seven-point loss in the Hawkeye State to another insurgent is devastating. He was vying to be the alternative to Clinton--but Obama clearly won that distinction. This remains a two-person race. The recently adopted Huey Long populism appears to be a gimmick that failed.
One quick note before the mythology takes root: many will wonder if Hillary erred in coming to Iowa. My opinion is that she really had no choice. Certainly, she understood that Iowa was not a good fit for her and a tough place in which she did NOT play particularly well. Having said that, she would have looked silly and cowardly, if she had sidestepped the caucus. She came, she ran hard, and she lost; It is a tough blow--but watching from the sidelines likely would have proved even more devastating.
One other Clinton note: Bill must take a back seat. After the loss in New Hampshire for George W. Bush in 2000, the elder Bushes (as popular as they were) went underground. A presidential candidate must be the top dog. Bill talks too much, he exudes self-absorption and self importance. Sit down, Bill, and shut up. Quite frankly, the three generations of Rodham-Clinton women are much more compelling at this stage of the contest than the old silver-tongued he-devil.
One last Clinton note: New Hampshire may or may not be do or die for Hill--but she must play it as if it is. New Hampshire saved the Clintons in 1992. She finds herself with her back against the wall there in 2008. NH is crucial. And while Obama will get a big bounce from his win in Iowa, Hillary still holds some high cards in the Granite State. We'll see.
Two random notes:
1. Zogby International was right on. He captured the steep Clinton drop-off in the waning moments of Iowa (he was also close enough on Huckabee, and he had his pulse on the Thompson surge and slight fade--see next post).
2. Hats-off to the Democrats, who boasted a roster of impressive candidates this time around. With the exception of John Edwards, all of the major Democrats struck me as good Americans who approached this contest with sincerity and noble motives (which is not to say, of course, that I agree with their policy proposals). But it is not surprising to me that Democrats in Iowa caucused in record numbers. Some of that was good weather (it only got down to 24 degrees last night in many parts of Iowa), but serious candidates and enthusiastic campaigning are also a large part of the explanation. Impressive.
My predictions tens day out:
The Party of Jackson:
Hillary wins a squeaker. Obama second. Edwards a close but, nevertheless, terminal third.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong--but possibly right in spirit.
This was a huge win for Obama. If there were any doubters left before last night (not me), they are running for the hills today. Barack Obama is big time for real. Most importantly, unlike many past insurgents (Gary Hart, Pat Buchanan, Paul Tsongas to name a few), Obama is in great shape money wise and organizationally to move to the next battle with strength and style. He has plenty of money in the coffers and is likely to out-raise Hillary 3-to-1 during the next few days.
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton is still Hillary Clinton. As I have written previously, she is unlikely to collapse in the face of disappointment. She is an amazing candidate in her own right, with the best national organization in the first-ever "national primary." She has a whole slew of political assets and big guns in her arsenal. Now that the battle is irrevocably and indisputably joined, I expect to see a primary fight over the next five weeks unlike anything we have ever seen in American politics. Fasten your seatbelts, boys; we're in for a bumpy ride.
As for Edwards, his tie for a distant-second seems terminally impotent. For the man who staked his whole campaign on Iowa and started there with a lot of advantages, a seven-point loss in the Hawkeye State to another insurgent is devastating. He was vying to be the alternative to Clinton--but Obama clearly won that distinction. This remains a two-person race. The recently adopted Huey Long populism appears to be a gimmick that failed.
One quick note before the mythology takes root: many will wonder if Hillary erred in coming to Iowa. My opinion is that she really had no choice. Certainly, she understood that Iowa was not a good fit for her and a tough place in which she did NOT play particularly well. Having said that, she would have looked silly and cowardly, if she had sidestepped the caucus. She came, she ran hard, and she lost; It is a tough blow--but watching from the sidelines likely would have proved even more devastating.
One other Clinton note: Bill must take a back seat. After the loss in New Hampshire for George W. Bush in 2000, the elder Bushes (as popular as they were) went underground. A presidential candidate must be the top dog. Bill talks too much, he exudes self-absorption and self importance. Sit down, Bill, and shut up. Quite frankly, the three generations of Rodham-Clinton women are much more compelling at this stage of the contest than the old silver-tongued he-devil.
One last Clinton note: New Hampshire may or may not be do or die for Hill--but she must play it as if it is. New Hampshire saved the Clintons in 1992. She finds herself with her back against the wall there in 2008. NH is crucial. And while Obama will get a big bounce from his win in Iowa, Hillary still holds some high cards in the Granite State. We'll see.
Two random notes:
1. Zogby International was right on. He captured the steep Clinton drop-off in the waning moments of Iowa (he was also close enough on Huckabee, and he had his pulse on the Thompson surge and slight fade--see next post).
2. Hats-off to the Democrats, who boasted a roster of impressive candidates this time around. With the exception of John Edwards, all of the major Democrats struck me as good Americans who approached this contest with sincerity and noble motives (which is not to say, of course, that I agree with their policy proposals). But it is not surprising to me that Democrats in Iowa caucused in record numbers. Some of that was good weather (it only got down to 24 degrees last night in many parts of Iowa), but serious candidates and enthusiastic campaigning are also a large part of the explanation. Impressive.
03/01: Another American Hero
Category: US in Iraq
Posted by: an okie gardener
Once again the blogosphere does the work that past generations of MSM would have done.
Captain Brian Chontosh, USMC, American Hero. Story here, from the Rott. From the official site of the USMC:
-- Capt. Brian Chontosh, of Rochester, N.Y. While serving as a platoon commander in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom on March 25, 2003, Chontosh and his platoon encountered a coordinated ambush in a blocked road. Chontosh single-handedly cleared more than 200 meters of an enemy trench, using his own weapons and discarded enemy weapons to kill more than 20 enemy soldiers and disable many more. For his actions, Chontosh was awarded the Navy Cross.
Details from the Department of Defense site here.
An internet search showed very few news references to his actions or his medals. One of thes stories, from USA Today, takes a typical slant in covering medal winners--trauma and its sometimes aftermath of substance abuse. Does a society that does not honor its warrior heroes even deserve to exist?
Captain Brian Chontosh, USMC, American Hero. Story here, from the Rott. From the official site of the USMC:
-- Capt. Brian Chontosh, of Rochester, N.Y. While serving as a platoon commander in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom on March 25, 2003, Chontosh and his platoon encountered a coordinated ambush in a blocked road. Chontosh single-handedly cleared more than 200 meters of an enemy trench, using his own weapons and discarded enemy weapons to kill more than 20 enemy soldiers and disable many more. For his actions, Chontosh was awarded the Navy Cross.
Details from the Department of Defense site here.
An internet search showed very few news references to his actions or his medals. One of thes stories, from USA Today, takes a typical slant in covering medal winners--trauma and its sometimes aftermath of substance abuse. Does a society that does not honor its warrior heroes even deserve to exist?
Earlier I took notice of Obama picking up the endorsements of 20 Democrat County Chairs in Iowa.
Now I see that Obama has the endorsements of the current and of the former mayor of Des Moines (capital and largest city in Iowa).
Will this swing the caucuses his way? I don't know. But, I think I know this. Obama's ability to pick up significant support from within the Democratic Party Organization in Iowa demonstrates both a strong and effective campaign, and more importantly, the weaknesses of Clinton and Edwards. Edwards has invested heavily in Iowa for over four years, since he last ran; the Clintons have been trying to sew up support for Hillary among Democrat politicians for nearly that long. And while they have significant numbers of supporters, along comes Obama and makes inroads in a relatively short time. We'll know soon what difference this makes.
Now I see that Obama has the endorsements of the current and of the former mayor of Des Moines (capital and largest city in Iowa).
Will this swing the caucuses his way? I don't know. But, I think I know this. Obama's ability to pick up significant support from within the Democratic Party Organization in Iowa demonstrates both a strong and effective campaign, and more importantly, the weaknesses of Clinton and Edwards. Edwards has invested heavily in Iowa for over four years, since he last ran; the Clintons have been trying to sew up support for Hillary among Democrat politicians for nearly that long. And while they have significant numbers of supporters, along comes Obama and makes inroads in a relatively short time. We'll know soon what difference this makes.
02/01: Enough is Enough!
I intended to write a post accusing Mike Huckabee of dishonesty and grandstanding when he called a press conference on New Year's Eve to announce that he was not going to go negative on Mitt Romney. Candidate Huckabee went on to explain that Romney deserved to be lambasted by a negative ad and everything he had planned to say in his thirty-second negative spot about Romney was absolutely true. Furthermore, just to prove that this was no publicity stunt, Huckabee went so far as to show the negative ad that he had decided not to show, just to prove that, indeed, he had a negative ad that he had generously chosen to suppress.
I intended to say that this might have been the most ridiculous political moment in my memory, and that Huckabee is either an incompetent flim-flam artist or a sincere bumpkin unfit for the presidency, but I think I am going to hold off of any assertions of that kind for a while.
The ad Huckabee doesn't want you to see via YouTube here.
The press conference (via YouTube here) in which Huckabee explains why he won't go negative and, while plagued with technical difficulties, repeatedly attempts to show the ad he is so adamant about not wanting you to see.
"Jive Talking" via YouTube here.
I intended to say that this might have been the most ridiculous political moment in my memory, and that Huckabee is either an incompetent flim-flam artist or a sincere bumpkin unfit for the presidency, but I think I am going to hold off of any assertions of that kind for a while.
The ad Huckabee doesn't want you to see via YouTube here.
The press conference (via YouTube here) in which Huckabee explains why he won't go negative and, while plagued with technical difficulties, repeatedly attempts to show the ad he is so adamant about not wanting you to see.
"Jive Talking" via YouTube here.
02/01: Qualities of a Great Leader
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Copied from Brits at Their Best, a website devoted to the heritage of English Liberty and its preservation.
Paul Johnson on the five essential qualities of a democratic leader
In the latest Imprimis, British historian Paul Johnson describes the five essential qualities of a leader. Given Britain's crying need for a great democratic leader today, and the upcoming American presidential primaries, his list is timely. Let us know what you think -
1) Ideas and beliefs. "The best kind of democratic leaders has just a few – perhaps three or four – central principles to which he is passionately attached and will not sacrifice under any circumstances. . .History teaches it is a mistake to have too many convictions, held with equal certitude and tenacity. They crowd each other out. A great leader is someone who can distinguish between the essential and the peripheral – between what must be done and what is merely desirable."
2) Willpower. "I think the history of great men and women teaches that willpower is the most decisive of all qualities in public life. A politician can have immense intelligence and all the other virtues, but if will is lacking he is nothing."
3) Pertinacity. "Mere flashes of will are not enough. The will must be organically linked to resolution, a determination to see the cause through at all costs. . .One aspect of pertinacity is patience. Another is a certain primitive doggedness. . . 'It’s dogged as does it’ is an old English proverb. True enough. But doggedness should not be confused with blind obstinacy. . ."
4) The ability to communicate. "The value of possessing a few simple ideas which are true and workable is enormously enhanced if the leader can put them across with equal simplicity. . .But where words fail, example can take their place. Washington communicated by his actions and his personality."
5) Magnanimity "Greatness of soul. It is not easy to define this supreme quality, which few even among the greatest leaders possess. It is a virtue which makes one warm to its possessor. . .Churchill, who also had it, made it one of the top quartet of characteristics which he expected the statesman to show. . ."
So, how do the current presidential aspirants stack up? Do any of them have all five characteristics?
Paul Johnson on the five essential qualities of a democratic leader
In the latest Imprimis, British historian Paul Johnson describes the five essential qualities of a leader. Given Britain's crying need for a great democratic leader today, and the upcoming American presidential primaries, his list is timely. Let us know what you think -
1) Ideas and beliefs. "The best kind of democratic leaders has just a few – perhaps three or four – central principles to which he is passionately attached and will not sacrifice under any circumstances. . .History teaches it is a mistake to have too many convictions, held with equal certitude and tenacity. They crowd each other out. A great leader is someone who can distinguish between the essential and the peripheral – between what must be done and what is merely desirable."
2) Willpower. "I think the history of great men and women teaches that willpower is the most decisive of all qualities in public life. A politician can have immense intelligence and all the other virtues, but if will is lacking he is nothing."
3) Pertinacity. "Mere flashes of will are not enough. The will must be organically linked to resolution, a determination to see the cause through at all costs. . .One aspect of pertinacity is patience. Another is a certain primitive doggedness. . . 'It’s dogged as does it’ is an old English proverb. True enough. But doggedness should not be confused with blind obstinacy. . ."
4) The ability to communicate. "The value of possessing a few simple ideas which are true and workable is enormously enhanced if the leader can put them across with equal simplicity. . .But where words fail, example can take their place. Washington communicated by his actions and his personality."
5) Magnanimity "Greatness of soul. It is not easy to define this supreme quality, which few even among the greatest leaders possess. It is a virtue which makes one warm to its possessor. . .Churchill, who also had it, made it one of the top quartet of characteristics which he expected the statesman to show. . ."
So, how do the current presidential aspirants stack up? Do any of them have all five characteristics?
