Both Cops Now


At Dr. Martin Luther King's Church on Sunday, Barack Obama emphasized King's call for unity:

"If Dr. King could love his jailer, if he could call on the faithful who once sat where you do to forgive those who set dogs and fire hoses upon them, then surely we can look past what divides us in our time, and bind up our wounds and erase the empathy deficit that exist in our hearts," Obama said.

But that doesn't mean he's going to stay silent when his opponents are lying about him.

“You know the former president, who I think all of us have a lot of regard for, has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling,” Obama told ABC’s “Good Morning America” in an interview taped Sunday and set to air Monday. “He continues to make statements that are not supported by the facts — whether it's about my record of opposition to the war in Iraq or our approach to organizing in Las Vegas. This has become a habit, and one of the things that we're gonna have to do is to directly confront Bill Clinton when he's making statements that are not factually accurate.”

Snow Job

God didn't want Mike Huckabee to win after all. Snow in places that have no snow plows may or may not have dampened the Huckster's turnout, but John McCain was able to win in South Carolina. (Count the puns, I don't care.)

This makes McCain the GOPer favorite, especially when (as I predict will happen) Fred Thompson drops out and endorses McCain. Money will start flowing McCain's way, fueled by the disdain for Romney. It sets up an interesting dynamic for November, if two old faces square off in a change election moment. I don't know how McCain expects to sell Iraq to a public deeply set against it, but if Hillary is the nominee it's going to be tense.

On the Dem side, John Edwards ran such a one note campaign that it's hard to see what he does now but remain John "a noun, a verb and a millworker's son" Edwards for the duration. Unfortunately he is unlikely to bow out and swing his supporters to Obama, but if he really cares about change, he will--and the sooner, the better.

The House Wins

Confounding even the modest amount of conventional wisdom, a huge caucus turnout in Nevada--more than 100.000-- went for Hillary by about 5 points. She remained very strong with women and apparently polled better among Latinos. However, the actual delegates--as in New Hampshire--were about even between Hillary and Obama [update: Obama actually got one more delegate in Nevada ]. Hillary had been up by around 25 points for a long while, but the Culinary Union endorsement of Obama was seen to give him the edge in recent weeks.

There's a disquieting account of strong-arm tactics by Hillary's people, and Bill's personal politiking in a caucus room as voters gathered--either a rules violation or very close to it. Along with the Billary politics of distortion and fear, and a last minute Barack Hussein Obama robocall. It seems the Clinton machine learned from Iowa that a caucus can be managed, or bullied. But Hillary's strength among Latinos is itself worrisome (although it's probably more accurate to say Billary's), as is--further along the line--this evidence of a severe black/white racial divide over Obama in the deep South. (In Nevada, Obama got about half the white vote, and 80% of the black vote.)

John Edwards did poorly--due in part to the 15% viability rule, he got about 5% total.

And some of these numbers may yet turn out to be bullshit--the official figures don't reflect the actual popular vote, and I'm not sure what the entrance poll percentages mean, except they are more likely to reflect what people said going in. Who knows what this means? But overall, this is going to look like a Hillary victory, and the sense of her inevitability again will affect future elections. Obama may have to pull off a big win in South Carolina to offset it a bit, and that's now going to be harder. The courage that people need to accept the possibility of transformative change I believe was sorely wounded by not only Obama's loss in New Hampshire, but his loss in the face of universal expectations of a big win. Now the Billary politics of ugliness is chipping away, inciting people to vote from their fears. Actually, my vote for Obama is a vote not only of my hopes but from my fears--that this election is the last chance I'm going to see for positive transformative change.

The last few weeks have made one thing clear: Bill Clinton ain't going to be no roving ambassador in a Hillary administration. And it's not going to be a vice president running things from behind the scenes this time. Jonathan Alter in Newsweek writes of Ted Kennedy and others complaining to Bill Clinton about his attacks on Obama. The article also quotes Greg Craig, who coordinated Clinton's impeachment defense in 1998 and is now a senior Obama adviser, argues that "recent events raise the question: if Hillary's campaign can't control Bill, whether Hillary's White House could." People seem to know and a lot of people see to want a Billary presidency. This kind of takes the bloom off the first woman thing.

Salvation Saturday

Tomorrow Nevada Democrats caucus, South Carolina Republicans vote in their primary. Chastened by their faulty judgments about New Hampshire, and helped by a hard to read caucus system, the media muted their predictions about the Democrats. Hillary leads narrowly in a couple of polls, and according to the reporter you pick, things are either moving her way or they are moving Obama's way in the final hours. The Clinton people are already making excuses for why they lose if they lose, but they did that in New Hampshire, too. Bill has been angry, as he was in the final New Hampshire days. Hillary, instead of tearing up at a lunch counter, appeared on Tyra Banks talk show--which needless to say many men have never heard of--where she talked about getting through Bill's infidelities with prayer and concentration on what was best for her. So their game plan is the same.

One ventured opinion that seems to have some numbers behind it is that if there is a huge turnout, it favors Obama, but not even that is certain. Democratic party officials were variously quoted as expecting 30,000 participants and hoping for 60,000. However, if you hear estimates tomorrow of anything over 40,000 participants, it looks pretty good for Barack. But both the low and high figures quoted add up to many new participants, and nobody knows how that will go.

Conventional wisdom on the meaning of the outcome in Nevada is that a Hillary victory is big for her, but a loss is bigger. Obama figures to go into Tsunami Tuesday with the final victory, in South Carolina. If he can win in Nevada as well, there could be movement in his direction. Nothing like the wave that looked to be building when a double digit victory in New Hampshire seemed likely, but enough to make Bill even madder.

In South Carolina among the Republicans, McCain and Huckabee are virtually tied in the latest polls, and movement is said to be towards Huckabee, but an unusual snowstorm is forecast for a part of the state where a lot of his Evangelical supporters live, so this one may depend on what they used to call an act of God.

CW on this is that McCain gets a huge boost if he wins, a huge blow if he loses, but if Huckabee wins, it's almost as good as if Thompson were to win: in other words, utter chaos. In another state with more Evangelicals than the norm, if Huckabee loses, he's probably finished. (There are GOPer caucuses in Nevada, too, but Mitt Romney is about the only one who campaigned there.)

Stories on final Dem campaign appearances in Nevada were again contradictory--one reporter said Hillary was getting large, enthusiastic crowds, another said her appearances have been lackluster. Obama however was said to be upbeat and joking, though his wit had a sharper edge:

Obama began by recalling a moment in Tuesday night's debate when he and his rivals were asked to name their biggest weakness. Obama answered first, saying he has a messy desk and needs help managing paperwork _ something his opponents have since used to suggest he's not up to managing the country. John Edwards said his biggest weakness is that he has a powerful response to seeing pain in others, and Clinton said she gets impatient to bring change to America.
"Because I'm an ordinary person, I thought that they meant, 'What's your biggest weakness?'" Obama said to laughter from a packed house at Rancho High School. "If I had gone last I would have known what the game was. And then I could have said, `Well, ya know, I like to help old ladies across the street. Sometimes they don't want to be helped. It's terrible.'"

Rather than dwell on the continuing distortions by the Clinton campaign (Okay, one of them--in a thoughtful answer to a question, Barack Obama said that the GOP was the party of ideas for ten or fifteen years in the 80s, they went against the conventional wisdom, they were bad ideas and now they're stale ideas. But taking the "party of ideas" sentence out of the statement, Hillary and Bill both criticized Obama for saying the GOP was the party of good ideas. Seriously, how stupid do you have to be to believe that? Not that they would say it--because they did, and it's fully in character--but that anyone would believe that Obama, a lifelong Democrat with endorsements from major Democrats, would say that. Meanwhile, Hillary is saying nice things about Joe Lieberman, a former Dem who now supports McCain.), I'll end with a few selected quotes from Obama's interview with the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board.

Asked his reaction to an angry outburst by the former president - who in Oakland Wednesday suggested the at-large system was "rigged" - Obama laughed. "This caucus process was designed by the Democratic Party of Nevada in conjunction with the Democratic National Committee," said Obama. "I, as somebody who's not part of the establishment of the Democratic Party, had no say in the rules ... (but) individuals like Harold Ickes, Clinton's key adviser, were a part of making these rules. And some of the people who filed the lawsuit were a part of making these rules.

"President Clinton now suggests they didn't understand the rules that they designed," Obama said. "This is coming from the campaign of extraordinary detail and thoroughness and experience. "But somehow, they didn't know what these rules were," Obama said. "Six days before the caucus - two days after I received the endorsement of the Culinary Workers (Union), suddenly these rules are grossly unfair and a violation of 'one person, one vote.' And a lawsuit is filed that would disenfranchise mostly Latino maids, dishwashers and bellhops." Obama said that was "an implausible argument before the court rules. I am glad the court bought none of it. I think it took about an hour for the court to decide that this lawsuit had no merit. "And I think at this point we should go out and persuade the caucus-goers of Nevada who the best candidate is," he said.


Here are more Obama answers in the "Quotes Only" part of the Chronicle story:

On whether he has the experience to handle the toughest challenges as president:
"If the question is, do I have the internal fortitude to make tough decisions and take on tough issues, I would say throughout my career I have dealt with very difficult issues. Sen. Clinton keeps touting her experience, but has no management experience that I can see in her resume. It's presumed through osmosis, as a consequence of having been first lady.

But I would point to this campaign, where I went from zero, starting from scratch, to compete with a legendary political organization 20 years in the making built by a former president. That's not an accident. It shows my capacity to put together a team and point it in a direction that I think is important.

"The skill sets that are required to move the country are not different from the skill sets that are required to move somebody across the table. It means listening to them, it means having very clear principles - what you're willing to fight for, where you're willing to compromise. And it means being willing to walk away from the table. "Those skill sets are the ones, I think, I am most confident I can apply ... where I think I have an edge over Sen. Clinton, who I think has a tendency - when confronted with somebody who doesn't agree with her - to demonize them or push them away."


On his foreign policy experience:
"There's going to be a lot of repair work to be done internationally. This is an area where Sen. Clinton and others have suggested they are most concerned about my experience. It's actually the area where I most trust my judgment, because I've lived, traveled, have family overseas. If you look at my track record over the last three or four years on big issues - like opposition to the war in Iraq, the need to engage directly with Iran, our approach toward Pakistan and putting all the eggs in the Musharraf basket - on big strategic issues, I've been right and the conventional thinking in Washington has been wrong."

On how an Obama presidency would change the country:
"The day I'm elected and sworn in, not only does this country look at itself differently, but I think the world looks at itself differently. And that's not just symbolic. When I go to a poor country and talk to them about America's obligations, but also that poor country's obligations to help itself by dealing with corruption or to reduce ethnic tensions, I do with credibility as somebody with a grandmother who lives in a small village in Africa without running water. If I convene a meeting of Muslim leaders ... I do so with the credibility of somebody who lived in the most populous Muslim country on Earth for four years and has a sister who is half-Indonesian. ... That will allow me ... to be an effective spokesperson for a different version of American foreign policy."

It Didn't Last Long

The amity was over quickly, as the Clintons returned to appropriating Rabid Right Rovian tactics against Barack Obama today. Distortions of his health care plan continue, and now this new wrinkle, as described by Obama to a Las Vegas crowd:

"You may be getting some fliers, you may be getting some phone calls from the Hillary Clinton camp saying she will solve the social security crisis through fiscal responsibility while Barack Obama wants a trillion dollar tax hike," the Illinois senator told a jammed crowd Wednesday morning at the convention center in this booming Las Vegas suburb. Obama then explained he would bolster social security by removing the current cap on the very highest of earners and not be a general tax raise as implied by Clinton. "Maybe she thinks the top 3% of earners are average American taxpayers, but I don't."

Calling Repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy a "tax increase" is a Rabid Right standby. They've had a patent on this bullshit since Goldwater at least. And suggesting that middle class taxpayers will pay more social security tax if this plan were enacted is the same cynical dishonesty. Furthermore, should Hillary become President, she's pre-empting an alternative she might well have to consider.

As for the past two days of apparently burying the race hatchet as mutually damaging, columnist Mark Shields has a different opinion. Here is what he said on the PBS News Hour today: "I had six senior Democrats this week, unaligned in this campaign, independently volunteer to me that they thought it was part of the campaign strategy of the Clinton campaign to get this in to make it a black-white race going into February 5th."

The calculus is, Shields said later in the broadcast, that there are simply more white voters than black voters in the Democratic primaries. The Michigan exit polls suggests that black voters may see this for what it is, and if they come to believe what Shields says is the Clinton strategy, and Hillary ends up the nominee, she and the Democratic party are in big trouble. She's got enough enemies without alienating the single most dependable constituency the Democrats have.

A Good Night For Democrats

After the Democratic debate in Nevada and the Republican primary in Michigan with the third winner in three contests, it feels great to be a Democrat. Trapper John liveblogging the debate at Kos said it best: "We've got three potential presidents up there -- they've got Lord of the Flies."

The three Democratic candidates came together to make the Democratic party stronger going into the decisive part of the primary campaigns and especially into the general election against the Republicans. This will help whoever the nominee will be, and also it will help elect a more Democratic and progressive Congress, which each will need to govern effectively.

Individually, I thought each had moments that helped them and hurt them, but on balance they all helped themselves. I feel better, although I don't think I'll soon forget how the Clintons behaved when they felt they were losing, in contrast to how Obama has behaved since his loss in New Hampshire.

As an Obama partisan now, I was glad to hear him focus on the economy in his first few answers. He's matched Hillary with his own economic stimulus plan. And he gave a great answer when asked about that Clinton pollster quote that Latinos don't vote for black leaders: We didn't have that problem between blacks and Latinos in Illinois--they all voted for me."

Michigan gave Romney his first primary victory. It's impossible to predict what it will do to their race but it is likely to shake things up a bit for South Carolina. We're rooting for Fred Thompson there, and then Rudy in Florida. (I'm also rooting for Rudy so I can call my blog entry "Rudy Tuesday.") Let's go for the record--five contests, five different winners! Some of the pundits are wondering where Romney wins again, and others say that in a fractured field he wins because he's got the money to go on, in his personal bank accounts.

There was voting on the Democratic side, but Hillary was the only candidate on the ballot, because Obama and Edwards dropped out when the Democratic Party sanctioned Michigan for violating its rules. So it was Hillary v. Uncommitted, and she avoided disaster by getting more than 50% of the vote, but the exit polls--for what they're worth these days--suggest she ought to be worried. She won a majority among women, older voters and committed Democrats. But she lost young voters, Independents and upper income, was about even among men, and lost black voters by a stunning margin--she got less than 30% of their votes, while Uncommitted got 70%.

The questions in the Nevada debate were not as bad as they usually are, and with just three candidates sitting at a table, the interplay and followup was
good. But while they got asked one Nevada question--the proposed nuclear storage dump at Yucca Mountain, which they all oppose--the NBCers failed to ask about the attempt by Hillary's campaign to change the rules of the caucus voting, to outlaw the "at large" sites. It's assumed these sites will favor casino employees, but no objection was made until Obama got two key union endorsements. I'd like to hear that debate.

Stop the Silliness

Today Barack Obama held a press conference, at which he said:

“I don’t want the campaign at this stage to degenerate into so much tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, that we lose sight of why all of us are doing this,” Mr. Obama told reporters at a news conference here. “We’ve got too much at stake at this time in our history to be engaging in this kind of silliness. I expect that other campaigns feel the same way.”

“If I hear my own supporters engaging in talk that I think is ungenerous or misleading or in some way is unfair, I will speak out forcefully against it,” he said. “I hope the other campaigns take the same approach.”

“I think that I may disagree with Senator Clinton or Senator Edwards on how to get there, but we share the same goals. We’re all Democrats,” Mr. Obama said. “We all believe in civil rights. We all believe in equal rights. We all believe that regardless of race or gender that people should have equal opportunities.”

"I think that Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton have historically and consistently been on the right side of civil rights issues. I think they care about the African-American community and that they care about all Americans and they want to see equal rights and justice in this country.”

At last some sanity. At last, an adult.

Hillarious

It keeps getting uglier. Now the Clintons are amping up their charges that Obama's been inconsistent in his opposisition to the Iraq war, and Obama's people are calling it swift-boating.

Meanwhile, on the "positive side," Hillary's hired an advertising man for Wal-Mart to re-brand her.

If Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, and Al Gore doesn't lead a third party ticket, I'll vote for her. I learned my lesson on election night in 1968, watching Nixon eke out a narrow win over Humphrey. I'd had my heart broken when my candidate was assassinated, and my party sent police to beat up my contemporaries. I filled out an absentee ballot and voted for Robert Kennedy anyway, although I'm not sure I even mailed it.

But not voting in that election was a mistake. Hubert was a jerk by then, but Nixon was a liar to even himself. I doubt we would have still been in Vietnam for another 6 years if Humphrey had been President, and that's the most important outcome.

So I'll grit my teeth and cast my ballot to hire her, and then I'll turn my back on the whole thing. I'd have no hope for the future whatsoever, beyond some repair of the immense damage done by eight years of Smirk. Her campaign is already stinking up the joint, and it's putting more distance between me and respect for both Clintons every day.

Her staff is weighted towards arrogant thugs. Her supporters are divisive, attacking others for sexism while defending or engaging in racial politics. Now she's accusing "the Obama campaign" of keeping alive the controversy over her remarks about Martin Luther King and LBJ. Yet it is her own words that haunt her. One of her supporters cries that the New York Times and other media are misquoting her, lifting her remark out of context. That does happen to be a nasty habit of our arrogant, theme-driven, cliche-making media. But here is the full quote as he produces it:

"I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the President before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became a real in people's lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished."

So this is supposed to make it better. Actually, I grasped the point she was trying to make the first time--it may take a village but in the end it takes a President, and in a narrow framework, I agree. That's why we need a President who will lead on the Climate Crisis in particular, but also many other issues.

It's a metaphor for a legitimate if insulting point, which is-- Obama (King): poet, dreamer, who can't get things done. Hillary (LBJ): no poetry but ready to execute. There's no real evidence this is so, but it does state an assertion of why she should get the nomination.

People are upset because she disses Dr. King, who did a lot more than make speeches, when and where even making speeches was pretty courageous and important. They are upset by the implication that black people are dreamers who aren't competent executives, and that black people always need white people to do the heavy lifting. Maybe that's unfair, and I'd like to believe she didn't mean it that way. But considering some of the people around her, I can't really be sure.

But what really gets me about this "in context" quote is " when he [LBJ] was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do..." Recall the context of this statement--the New Hampshire primary, when Hillary was accusing Obama of inspiring "false hopes." Hope is great, but you want action. So every time she used the word "hope" it sounds suspiciously like code. And here we have another dreamer apparently, President Kennedy, who--let's straighten out her grammar for her--hoped to pass Civil Rights legislation, but apparently he failed. It took experienced pro LBJ to do it.

Well, it's true that JFK proposed the legislation that became the Civil Rights Act. But I wouldn't exactly call it a failure of leadership. It was more along the lines of somebody killed him.

So for my money, her expanded quote not only insults Martin Luther King, Jr., it insults John F. Kennedy.

Meanwhile her "surrogates" continue the "experience" drone. Gloria Steinem repurposes this as a feminist issue, insisting that a woman with as little experience as Obama would never be considered for President. Only a man.

Which apparently means that this society hates the idea of a woman President so much that it would even rather have an unqualified black man. Think about that for a minute.

Another underlying assumption is that because Hillary has so much experience, not even this male chauvanist power structure can deny her.

Shades of the vitriolic wing of womens lib in the 70s. Steinem ignores the uncomfortable fact that most of Hillary's "experience" is of being what she was so caustic about in the past: a wife. Hillary was the wife of the President of the United States, after being the wife of a Governor. She can claim all she wants to claim about what she did there, but on the face of it, this is the qualification for President of Laura Bush.

Hillary was never elected to anything until the year 2000. Before that, she had accomplishments on various issues, as did Barack Obama. Obama was elected to the state legislature in 1997. Hillary has roughly four more years than he does in the U.S. Senate, while he has roughly three more years as an elected public servant.

On the other side, you have a guy in the White House who failed at everything until he became Governor, and 6 years later ran for President, with no foreign policy experience and a well-earned reputation as a dim bulb. If the inexperienced G.W. Bush hadn't gotten anything done, this country would be a far better place.

Hillary knows about raising false hopes. As the designated Clinton in charge of the plan, she hoped to bring universal health care to the U.S. in 1993 when it was a very popular idea, and she failed. I don't think it was all her fault, but the fact is, the Clintons raised hopes, and those remain failed hopes, and people like me are affected by that failure.

It's not easy being a woman seeking power. They're damned for being too masculine and too feminine. But Hillary has shown the ability to play manipulative gender games when she feels she has to. That New Hampshire debate when she said the charge that she wasn't likeable hurt her feelings--did you see her body language? She was going all girlish. At first it seemed like she was making fun of the question, and clearly Obama thought the question was unworthy when he said, "Hillary, you're likeable enough." Some women took that as insulting. But I watched Hillary's body language--she acted like a high school girl who had just been complimented. And I do mean acted.

What Hillary has the most experience at is being attacked. That's clear from her defensiveness, her scattershot attacks, and from the kind of people she has around her to protect her by attacking and demeaning her opponents. Nixon had that kind of experience as well. It's not in and of itself much of a qualification.

I didn't see Hillary's Meet the Press performance today but I gather from several stories she spent most of the time attacking Obama. I don't doubt that the Obama campaign is guilty of some sub rosa guff, and their adoption of the "Yes, We Can" slogan in Nevada is something close to code for Latinos (In Spanish, it was the chant during the demonstrations against the Bush policies on immigration and illegals.) But I'm ready to endorse this statement by Obama, made in a conference call to reporters responding to Hillary's TV show:

"I have to say that she started this campaign saying that she wanted to make history and lately she has been spending a lot of time rewriting it. I know that in Washington it is acceptable to say or do anything it takes to get elected but I really don’t think that is the kind of politics that is good for our party and I don’t think it is good for our country and I think that the American people will reject it in this election."

It's Ugly

And I wonder if it's going to stay that way. The political blogs are bursting with anger over perceived racism (against Obama) and perceived sexism (against Hillary.) Controversy over remarks that offend African Americans, including by a "feminist" defending Hillary. Controvery over remarks about Hillary that offend women, including remarks by other women. (These selections from Huffington Post are representative of what's going on elsewhere, but perhaps better written.)

All of this might be lauded as cultural consciousness raising but people vote their emotions, and there have already been angry women voting for Hillary and are likely to be angry African Americans voting for Barack, now that there are elections in states with notable black populations. And here's a sexist comment for you: it looks to me that the racial remarks are being discussed and debated out in the open, but that women are taking their anger with them to the voting booth in silence. On the other hand, as someone noted, Hillary has talked openly about being the first woman President, while Barack hasn't prominently mentioned being the first African American President.

By the way, if Giuliani were to win, he would be the first Italian American President. Think about what that says about stereotypes and prejudices.

This week Karl Rove entered the fray, sprinkling a column with racial code words in his lambasting of Obama, calling him "lazy" and referring to his playing basketball. He must be pretty happy about the polarization that's going on now.

Some dispute whether gender or race ultimately will matter for the electorate. I think in the general it will matter less. But you have to get to the general, and the primaries may well continue on their present course: ugly.

Now there's a diary at Kos: Clinton Polster: Latinos don't like Black leaders.

P.S. "it's the economy, stupid" has been a cliche since 1992, and has been used countless times with a different, "it's the x, stupid" to make a point by coining a new cliche. It's this generation's "gate" at the end of every scandal. In other words, it's stupid. It's also insulting to keep calling people who disagree with you, stupid.

Now for the first time since it was used in the original Clinton campaign, the economy is in serious danger of tanking, and somebody has actually come up with an apropos twist: It's Stupid's Economy.

It's the Economy

I'd hoped we'd heard the last "It's the x, stupid" cliche but no chance of that now. I see the Washington Post concurs with my insight that the economy has become a top campaign issue, and Hillary Clinton has taken the initiative with a new stimulus plan proposal. Obama better have something to say when the subject comes in at the debate in Nevada. If he doesn't, a slow uptake on this issue could turn out to be the fatal flaw come Tsunami Tuesday.

Why Obama

It's long been my contention and belief that the Climate Crisis is the most significant set of problems to face humanity, and therefore the core issue in electing the next U.S. President.

So I read with interest a Kos diary by JohnnyRook that expresses some of my sentiments about why I support Barack Obama, even though the apparent policy differences on this issue with Hillary Clinton (or John Edwards) seem small. Like JohnnyRook, I am not happy with Obama's apparent support for ethanol and clean coal, nor am I happy with his willingness to allow nuclear power into the mix, although in that case his caveats are significant: provided safety is proven and the nuclear waste problem is solved (and we're nowhere close to that.) But there are overriding issues, and JohnnyRock expresses one for me in this paragraph:

Policy differences (over coal, ethanol) are less significant in my calculation than the ability to inspire and motivate. Clearly, any of the Democratic candidates, if elected, will take action on global warming, but I believe that Obama is uniquely suited to the task, because of his ability to inspire a vision in people. Without that vision, I believe, there will be far greater resistance to the policies that we must of necessity adopt to halt the heating of the planet. I see in Obama and his rhetorical, motivational and organizational skills an American leader who can turn global warming in the public consciousness from an important issue into the defining issue of our age (which is what it truly is), giving us a genuine sense of national purpose (as opposed to the shoddy imitation of purpose that Bush has tried to make of the Iraq War.

Endorsements

I got an email today from John Kerry (as did three million other close personal friends) telling me he was going to endorse Barack Obama, and apparently he's already campaigning for him, with an appearance in South Carolina and some phone-ins to talk shows in Nevada. But probably more important to Obama's chances in the Nevada Caucuses was the Culinary Union's endorsement, and this article I happened across tells why. (South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson and a Congressman closely associated politically with Speaker Pelosi also endorsed Obama. Meanwhile, Gov. Bill Richardson dropped out of the race, not endorsing anyone.)

Chuck Todd, NBC's new political director, said on Keith that Hillary can afford to lose both Nevada and South Carolina, but she could really use at least a split going into Tsunami Tuesday. Obama must win the South Carolina primary. If he does, it proves he can attract black voters in the South, which gives him an advantage in the Southern states on TT. If he doesn't, it's going to cut into his credibility as a winner. I'm guessing that a victory in Nevada gives the victor an apparent advantage in the West and among Latinos.

And man, it's been hard to avoid the blather over the polls and the results in New Hampshire, including conspiracy theories. What little I've heard and perused tells me it's not that big a deal--the polls essentially got everything right except Hillary's surge, and that New Hampshire voters have done this before. It is a little scary how a glistening eye and a guy holding up an IRON MY SHIRTS sign close to election day can decide an election.

But what has impressed me the last few days is the lack of panic among Obama supporters and the follow-through on endorsements that were planned before New Hampshire. Tells me the support for Obama is real, and so is the belief that he can win.

This NY Times story suggests Obama could get more endorsements, this time from black leaders offended by Hillary's comments awkwardly making the point that the talk of Martin Luther King didn't get Civil Rights without the action of President LBJ. That is not playing well with black politicians in the South.

Pivot

I am not going to obsess about this, especially the polls. But--the Culinary Workers did endorse Obama, which is good news for his Nevada campaign.

That was the only story I read today on the election. But I couldn't help thinking (in the shower) that Hillary's narrow victory may well be most related to the somewhat surprising #1 issue in the exit polls of both party's primaries: the economy. People are worrying about the economy, and they went to a Clinton. Bill Clinton not only ran on that in 92, he delivered (or was the beneficiary of) some good economic times.

The economy is the issue Obama probably needs to pivot on, shaping his message to emphasize it. It's a very strong issue for Hillary since people give Prez Clinton credit for managing it in the 90s.

Okay, that's it. No more. Goodbye.

After New Hampshire

It's chaos. Hillary Clinton's surprise 2 point victory over Barack Obama throws this election season into complete chaos. Everything that seemed to be revealed by Iowa is called into question, probably until the final results on Tsunami Tuesday on February 5, and maybe not even then.

The Democratic race itself now has no shape, except as a two person contest, at least for the next month. If Obama had won by even 5 points, the endorsements would have started to roll in tomorrow, and the wave would keep building. Now the Culinary workers in Nevada, set to endorse him, are scratching their heads again. They are said to be a key to the Nevada caucus.

Hillary won her base constituency that Iowa said she'd lost: women and party Dems. The Obama organization lost out to the establishment party organization. The youth vote slipped back to its usual unpredictability--even whether it will show up at all.

The polls were spectacularly wrong, indicating a last minute surge, or more troubling, the race gap problem in which voters say they will vote for an African American candidate, but don't. The polls were not so wrong predicting John McCain's GOPer victory (though his margin decreased through the night to about 5 points) so race may be a factor. Ugly.

The questions that the New Hampshire results open up will not necessarily be answered in Nevada and South Carolina, where Obama still has to be favored.
The possibility that Hillary got traction with her last minute negative campaigning, and that of husband Bill and her usually negative staff, may make the next month Uglier.

In concession, Obama was eloquent, though adding only new phrases (Yes, we can) and emphasis (a New Majority) to his Iowa victory speech. In victory, Hillary's speech was great in tone and substance for its first half ("I have found my voice") and mostly meandering thereafter, stealing liberally from Obama.

As chaotic as the Dem contest is, the GOPers are in even greater confusion. They've had 3 state contests with 3 different winners, and may get yet another in South Carolina and another in Florida. Whereas the Democrats had record turnout in New Hampshire, the GOPers didn't even match 2004, when there was no actual contest.

I think I'm going to pull back from this electoral obsession--I really don't want to have to wallow in the muck and mire of the next month. On Feb. 5, I'm voting for Obama. I never thought we'd get the chance for the transformative, inspirational leader we will require to have a chance to save the world from the worst of the Climate Crisis. He's that hope. I don't see another.

New Hampshire Day

720PT--John Edwards is talking. The Edwards campaign lives in a world of its own, and every event is exactly the same, as if nothing around them was actually happening. It's arguably Edwards attacks on Hillary that energized women to defend her in the voting booth today, his focusing fire on her in the debate Saturday and especially his stupid comment that her tearing up was evidence she isn't tough enough. Meanwhile, he's at 17%, which is consistent with opinion polls, so this is definitely an Obama-Hillary race.

710pmPT--The difference for Hillary so far is the women's vote, which she lost in Iowa but which she's strongly winning in NH. My partner turned analyst said immediately that it was her tearing up, and the reaction to it in the media. I thought that would help her--it was unfair and sexist--but not to this extent. Still, the college town votes aren't in yet. A narrow victory for Obama is still a victory, but it will be interesting to see if the endorsements start coming in, especially the Nevada unions, as were expected when he was projected for a double digit win.

620pmPT--Surprising if not shocking so far: Hillary is holding onto a four point lead with some 36% of the votes counted. Exit polls indicate she's won on some issues, and some 14% didn't make up their mind who to vote for until today. But nobody expected her to win, including her own campaign, and her own husband. If she wins it will be major, and even if she leads on TV for the first few hours and comes in a close second, we'll hear "Comeback Kid" before the night is over.

If Obama's momentum is blunted a bit--though he is still likely to win the next two contests--the big question I have is whether his campaign's ground game was ready for prime time in New Hampshire. Hillary had the tested Kerry infrastructure getting out the vote today.

I'll also be curious to see the status of my theory of where the Independents went and why. Certainly John McCain's substantial and early victory suggests he got a lot of Independent votes.


A half hour or so before many of the voting places close-- though others are open an hour longer, some in urban areas--signs point to a big Obama victory. The final tracking poll from Reuters/Zogby has Obama by 13 points, voting turnout is reported to be very heavy, and exit polls are showing a lot of Independents voting in the Dem primary.

There's a little more mystery for GOPers. Though this same poll has McCain with a 9 point lead, reporters are saying the Romney campaign feels undecideds are swinging their way. If Romney falls short, he will be the first Massachusetts (former)governor or Senator to lose the New Hampshire primary. And one interesting finding from the exit polls has been released--showing major dissatisfaction among GOPers with the Bushite presidency. This could translate into bigger numbers for the only anti-war candidate on the GOPer ballot, Libertarian Ron Paul.

Key to New Hampshire

It's just a few hours before the polls open in most of New Hampshire (some have already voted.) The final poll at this hour, taken by the American Research Group Sunday and Monday shows Obama with a 9 point lead (down from 11 points), and at 40% of the total, followed by Hillary and Edwards. McCain has a 7 point lead over Romney, with Huckabee, Guiliani and Ron Paul.

Weather is forecast to be clear and bright, so turnout is expected to be high. The one unknown at the moment is which party will get the most Independent voters (they can vote in either party's primary but not both.) The nightmare scenario for McCain is that the Obama boom attracts so many Independents that his natural constituency is depleted enough to give Romney a narrow victory. The nightmare scenario for Obama is that all the talk of his runaway victory persuades too many Independents that their votes aren't needed, so they can afford to give McCain some help in the GOPer primary. But if those early voters in Dixville Notch are any indication, Obama has nothing to worry about. Out of 17 voters--12 Independents, 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats--he got 7 votes. 3 0ther votes went to Democrats, but none to Hillary.

Right now to even meet expectations, Obama has to win pretty big, while McCain has to win. Hillary may have won back a few votes in the past two days, but she probably lost others. Reporters are detecting a Romney surge but several newspapers are reportedly trashing him in very strong terms. His saturation negative ads seem to have hurt him. If I were to bet on the outcome, I'd say Obama wins by more than 10 points, maybe a lot more. And that McCain squeaks out a win of just a few percentage points--but he also could go bigger. But to make some real money I'd bet on Libertarian Ron Paul to come in fourth, above Giuliani. To meet expectations now, Huckabee has to come in a strong third. Anything over 12% and he gets a bump.

Obama may even get write-in votes in the GOPer primary. And a suggestion of how big this phenomenon is--and maybe how deep--there's a poll in Iowa taken after their caucuses matching Democratic candidates against Republicans. Obama obliterates them all: the closest race is with McCain (Obama wins by 17 points) and the worst drubbing is of Giuliani--Obama wins by 40 points.

Taking the Temperature

Judging from the polls and what reporters are saying, Obama is still plenty hot in New Hampshire. Their speculation now centers on how big a victory he'll have there tomorrow. (If he wins by less than 10 points, will their narrative be a Hillary resurgence?) On the GOPer side, the reporters are feeling a movement back to Mitt Romney, partly because Obama is attracting Independents who might otherwise have voted in the GOPer primary for McCain.

And of course they're all looking past New Hampshire. It's not clear where McCain goes if he does win there. A couple of polls show Huckabee with a large lead in the South Carolina primary. If Romney reemergences as the best of a bad lot in New Hampshire, that could be the end for McCain. And if he then wins in Michigan, he has some momentum going into Florida and the February states. But if McCain wins bigger than he's polling at the moment (he did that last time) then GOPer voters may take another look at him. But he'd almost have to win Michigan as well, because it's hard to see where else he posts another victory.

Guiliani is off the radar this week, campaigning virtually alone in Florida, which is supposed to propell him into Tsunami Tuesday, which includes primaries in New York and New Jersey. That's his last chance. So the GOPer scenario is still wide open, with the distinct possibility that they won't have a clear front-runner even after February 5.

The polls also show Obama is developing a large lead in South Carolina, so while Hillary has to campaign there to hold on to her endorsements from black political leaders in the state, her real resurgence--if it is to happen--will be on Feb. 5 in those Tsunami Tuesday primaries. That's where the Clinton influence on the Democratic Party mechanisms will have to work. Meanwhile Edwards hangs around to step in as an alternative should either of the other candidates falter.

As for Obama, he's become a phenomenon. Chris Matthews attended one of his recent speeches and he said that it was the best political speech he'd ever heard. Joe Scarborough said that there hasn't been an inspirational candidate like Obama since June 6, 1968, which was the day Bobby Kennedy died from gunshot wounds he suffered immediately after his victory speech from the California primary.

The 'False Hope' Example Hillary Can't Use

In Saturday's debate and on the stump, Hillary Clinton is making the argument that hope is fine, but that a candidate not ready to be President will raise "false hopes" by being too inexperienced to fulfill those hopes.

It's a reasonable argument, and there is a very good example which she knows very well, but that she can never use. It's Bill Clinton.

In 1992, it was (perhaps ironically) Bill Clinton who was the "change candidate." He was not only the young candidate--the first baby boomer to seriously seek the office--but he made "change" a major campaign theme. The other day, a reporter on TV said he counted how many times Barak Obama said the word "change" in one speech. A different reporter did the same thing with one of Clinton's debates with Bush the First. In both cases, they said "change" a lot.

After twelve years of Reaganistic Republicanism--with its ardent privatization and deregulation and hollowing out of needed government agencies, its championing of corporate power and policies of impoverishment, its lethal foreign adventures and war in Nicaragua, its corruption and abuses of power, and its demonization of political opponents and fostering of polarization--the country was in deep debt, the economy was wilting, the middle class endangered, the government threatened, and it was time for the kind of progressuve changes Bill Clinton articulated.

After decades near despair, his election was one of the sweetest moments of my life. We were able to breathe again. He was the "Man from Hope."

By the end of eight tumultuous years he had managed to lead us back from the brink, to reverse much of the destruction wreaked by 12 years of Republican rule, and put the country back on track and with a solid foundation to move ahead in the 21st century. On the other hand... We all know what threw his second term off track. But his first term also started disastrously.

Once in the White House, he attempted to move boldly, but he and his people failed to anticipate the powerful opposition to his attempt to reverse the ban of gays in the military by presidential order. His pencil thin Democratic majority in Congress gave him some early victories, but as other controversies and perceived disorganization allowed the Republican noise machine to blow mud on the waters, there were limitations and defeats.

The biggest defeat was on universal health care. This became an issue in the 1992 campaign mostly because of a single TV ad in Pennsylvania a year or so before, when Democrat Harris Wofford ran for the Senate seat that opened as a result of the tragic death of moderate Republican Senator John Heinz in a plane crash. In the ad, Wofford was seen outside an operating room or some such medical scene, asking why members of Congress get complete health care, and other Americans don't. Given little chance of winning at the beginning of his campaign, he was elected by 10 points, and suddenly universal health care became a winning issue.

The idea of universal health care was arguably Bill Clinton's most popular issue when he ran. It wasn't all "the economy." When he took office, it remained popular. He was so confident that Congress had to pass his plan that he branished a pen at a State of the Union address, and said he would use it to veto any plan that didn't include universal coverage.

But both Bill and Hillary Clinton weren't experienced enough in Washington politics to see the extent and the power of the opposition, particularly from powerful corporations and lobbyists. They weren't experienced enough to build coalitions in framing the plan, although the case can also be made that pretty much everyone--media included--believed that their plan would pass overwhelmingly, and that whatever mistakes they made were unforeseeable.

Partly because Clinton had raised hopes for change that he couldn't make, his popularity plummeted, and for this and other reasons--some probably more powerful than this one--the Democrats suffered their devastating off-year election defeat in 1994, when Newt Gingrich and his Contract on America swept into power, and swept many Democrats out (including Harris Wofford, who was defeated by newcomer Rick Santorum.) Democrats lost control of Congress, and have yet to fully regain it.

This is not an argument against or in favor of Hillary Clinton's candidacy, nor a knock against Barack Obama. If it wasn't possible to learn from other people's experience, we may as well forget about education. It's just, if you will, one of those curious ironies of political campaigns.

This is really the subtext of what Hillary Clinton means by experience--she lived through this nightmare, and eventually she and Bill Clinton survived and triumphed, though having done much less than they had hoped, or led those who elected them to hope.

But what she can't come out and say is, when an inexperienced change agent raises hopes and can't fulfill them, the immediate result can be disaster, and the attempt to survive the catastrophe will cause him to pull back on much of that change, and concentrate on what most needs to be accomplished that can be accomplished, and that can rehabilitate his political power. And the reason she knows this is it happened to her husband, and to her.

Polls and Other Pre-New Hampshire Notes UPDATED

Update 2: The USA today poll shows basically the same spread as CNN but this is the first to show Obama with more than 40% support. They have him at 41% vs. 28% for Hillary. Edwards is at 19%, about the same as in other polls. So that's the other part of this story--not only has Obama's lead grown but he's getting a higher proportion of the total field. Here's a summary of this poll and others announced Sunday. END of Update 2.

3pm PT: New polls are confirming a ten to twelve point lead for Obama in New Hampshire, including the CNN tracking poll which yesterday showed a tie. Their survey says Obama is gaining about 3 points a day, at the expense of both Hillary and Edwards. On the GOPer side, Huckabee is up a couple of points to 14% which may be good enough for third place, behind John McCain and Mitt Romney. The Rasmussen poll has a slightly larger lead for Obama, but otherwise is much the same. This poll was taken before the debate yesterday. If that changed anything, it won't show up until tracking polls tomorrow. A couple of other polls show the same Obama trend, but see the race as tighter. They agree that the order is Obama, Hillary, Edwards. END OF UPDATE.


Not all the New Hampshire polls show Obama will such a large lead--one of the latest has him up only a couple of points, while others show a tie with Hillary. But these polls are also consistent in not showing Huckabee with an appreciable Iowa bounce.

There are lots of stories about discontent and dissension among Hillary's top staff and monied supporters--but that's consistent with the predictable media narrative: the rise of Obama, the fall of Hillary. But if Hillary's staff is being criticized, it couldn't happen to nicer guys. And it is right now when we begin to see their true colors--when they're under pressure.

We've seen them when they were arrogant, now we see them being even nastier. They've already reportedly engaged in what they know is a false accusation about Obama's record on abortion. A similar argument was made before and they know what they are asserting is false: Obama had a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood while a state legislator, and he voted "present" on some bills at their request. And the Clinton staff is desperately attacking from the Rabid Right, noting Obama's past statement on limiting mandatory minimum jail sentences. Shades of George Bush the First v. Dukakis and the old "soft on crime." Truly despicable.

Apparently that's also the opinion of a number of executive officers of AFSCME, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union that endorsed Hillary Clinton, who signed an open letter protesting the negative ads targeting Barack Obama that their union is sponsoring--not only on the basis of being unauthorized and directed against someone who has always supported their union, but for being distorted and misleading:

"It is also worth noting that the campaign that AFSCME is waging against Sen. Obama is fundamentally dishonest and inconsistent with past positions of our union, i.e. attacking him for not forcing individuals to purchase health care even when they can’t afford it. The ads are misleading in attempting to give the impression that they are associated with John Edwards rather than Hillary Clinton and in their claims that Sen. Obama’s health care plan will exclude 15 million people when in fact every person will have the opportunity to participate. This dishonesty is giving our union a “black eye” among many in the media and the progressive community."

Obamamania

It's hit New Hampshire. Accounts of large enthusiastic crowds for Obama, smaller ones for Hillary. According to some polls, Obama was already trending upward in New Hampshire before Iowa. Now he's pulling ahead: American Research tracking poll has him up by 12 points: he's beating Edwards among men, and Hillary among women. Rasmussen has Obama ahead by 10 points. They have Obama leading among Democrats by five points and among Independents (40% of New Hampshire's electorate) by 16 points.

"If we cast aside our fear and cast aside our cynicism and we stand up for what we genuinely believe, this is our moment, this is our time, you can feel it, you can see it," Obama told an overflow crowd in Nashua.

So far the polls I've seen haven't shown much of an Iowa bounce for Huckabee among NH GOPers. But more info on this should be available Sunday. Meanwhile, there are debates today for both parties' contenders. It may be Hillary's last chance to affect the outcome Tuesday, and Huckabee's only chance for GOPer voters to take a good look at him. He's still polling in the 11-12 % range.

Katherine Hall Jameison was on Bill Moyers last night. I always listen to what she has to say about the intersection of politics and media. She made a good point that commentators (especially Chris Matthews) who kept saying that two-thirds of the Iowa caucus voters voted against Hillary. She pointed out that the vote was for someone, not against anyone, and could indicate a preference among acceptable alternatives. She's right, especially this year. Polls show Democrats are pleased with the candidates running.

Where I differ from her is her assertion that the prediction that Huckabee will do less well in New Hampshire because of fewer Evangelical voters is an unfounded extrapolation. I think the data from Iowa entrance/exit polls pretty strongly indicates that Huckabee got most of his support from Evangelicals, and scant votes from GOPers who aren't. If he's going to be really viable, he'll have to do well in more groups than one.

Ironies of Change

Today everybody is a change candidate: Edwards, Hillary, even Mitt Romney join Obama and Huckabee. Well, they're all right--none of them is Bush.

Which is actually a big problem for Huckabee. If he was Gomer Bush, he'd be on his way to the nomination. But without establishment GOPer credentials, he's going to have to win it on his own, opposed not only by Democrats but by much of his own party.

But according to the persuasive E.J. Dionne, Huckabee may represent a change in the Evangelical community. In his conversation with Keith today, he points to a number of popular grassroots EC leaders who are folding in compassion for the poor and stewardship of the earth--in other contexts, traditional Christian constructions--to their political portfolios. However, at this point the EC community is split, and if Huckabee can unite it under a more capacious banner, that would be change.

Hillary Clinton would like to be the Democratic change candidate. The irony for her is that in 1992, Bill Clinton was the change candidate. I remember one network newser counting the number of times he said "change" in one of his debates with Bush the First, just as I heard one reporter today count the number of times Barack Obama said it in a speech.

On her first day in New Hampshire, Hillary and her people downplayed the significance of Iowa--they were never going to win there, it's a caucus not a primary, it's like running for mayor in a middle sized city. I'm not happy Hillary lost in Iowa, but I am happy Howard Wolfson and others on her staff lost. I'd like to see them lose their jobs.

But Hillary also sounded the theme she's likely to continue pushing, a judo move not on "change" which hasn't worked for her, but on Obama's "hope." She warned today against "false hopes," that is, pinning hopes on a candidate who doesn't have the experience to deliver. That's actually a reasonable argument and a decent formulation. We'll see how it plays. We'll see if Obama's personal qualities and charisma as well as his verbal response counter it.

But the Bill Clinton example is instructive in other ways. Clinton got elected as the change candidate, and he didn't bring it enough--or fast enough--and he was in political trouble pretty quickly in his first term. Perhaps he didn't have the experience. But it was also true that his missteps combined with an insurgency that had been building in the R party, led to the devastating losses of the 1994 off-year election in which Dems lost control of Congress.

If you listen to Obama talk about bringing people together to effect change, his premise is that he has the votes in Congress to make that possible. So if he gets the nomination that's going to be his message--he not only wants to be elected, he will make a Democratic majority in Congress part of his campaign.

Finally, this thought on change. The word itself isn't very specific--it could mean change for the good, for the worse, towards or away from any number of things. The direction of change is important. JFK ran effectively on the slogan of getting the country "moving again" which was a change in tempo and presumed direction, from the apparent torpor of the second Eisenhower term. Change in the right direction, and in the right way, is the support structure for the one-word anomalous slogan.

Dems in Iowa: Son of the Future


It's a phrase that popped out of the mouth of Chris Matthews, of all people, but if Iowa is any indication, it fits Barack Obama, the victor in the Iowa Democratic caucuses.

First the numbers: Obama won a decisive victory with 38%, 8 points better than John Edwards, 9 better than Hillary Clinton.According to entrance and exit polling, his victory was pretty much total: He won the highest proportion of men and women, of Democrats, Independents and Republicans; those making more than $50,000 a year and those making less--in fact he won every income group, except the one he tied ($15-30,000) with Edwards. He tied with Hillary among union households according to CNN (another poll says he won this), and won nonunion households. The only divided category was age: Hillary won 65 and older, Edwards won 45-64, and Obama won everyone younger, including a majority of voters 17-29.

Obama won on all the choices for top issue (Iraq, the economy, health care) and he won the categories of very liberal, somewhat liberal and moderate. Oddly, John Edwards won the self-described conservatives. But the most obvious statistic in Obama's win was this: 52% of these voters named "can bring change" as the most important candidate quality, and 51% of them voted for Obama.

The most sensational number was turnout. Something like 113,000 Dems voted in the caucuses in 2004. An optimistic projection was about 150,000. At last count, this year there were some 238,000. About twice as many voters caucused for the Democrats as for the Republicans--very good news for Iowa going Dem in the general election.

And as Obama pointed out in his victory speech, he and his campaign accomplished exactly what he set out to do: bring people together, bring people in, change the dynamic. And he did so by never compromising on principle.

He sure changed the dynamic of this campaign. He's now going to be the favorite in the first two primaries: New Hampshire and South Carolina. Hillary and Edwards will contest them, and everything up to and including February 5, but there's no minimizing the momentum this victory gives Obama. By the end of the evening, candidates Chris Dodd and Joe Biden officially ended their candidacies.

While Edward's "concession" speech was a solid but graceless rendition of his incisive stump speech (he failed to even mention Obama, let alone congratulate him, and barely acknowledged his wife Elizabeth, the hero of his campaign), and Hillary gave a graceful but slightly dazed concession, Obama's victory speech was remarkable. He had the MSNBC commentators falling over each other praising it, with Eugene Robinson nearly in tears and comparing him to Bobby Kennedy. In fact, both the speech and the victory seemed to bring out the best in almost everyone on TV, at least for awhile.

About the speech: first of all, it was beautifully stage managed. While Huckabee spoke with supporters right behind him--including Chuck Norris and an attractive blond--who took the focus away from him, and supporters were also crowded close to Hillary (with Bill Clinton perfecting his version of the Nancy Reagan adoring spouse stare--he never took his eyes off her), Obama's supporters were far enough behind him that they blurred when the camera focused on him.

I've only listened to excerpts from speeches of the past few days, but I heard the same mastery of cadence tonight. He has this little hand gesture with which he seems to be conducting his own sentences--his speech was so musical, that he had that largely white audience doing a little call and response. And he repeated not only some of the resonant lines from his latest stump speech, but a sentence from his 04 Dem Convention address that got him so much attention in the first place: "we are not a collection of Red States and Blue States, we are the United States of America..."

He spoke finally about hope, and this summarized everything that made this such an historic moment. The first (literally) African American candidate to win such a victory (I say literally because, as he said, he has a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas), a person whose victory is going to be heralded around the world and especially in the Third World--the first step to bringing this country back into the world community. A person of practical vision: serious, humane and confident.

Almost as important as the sight of Obama rising to the occasion was the proving of his organization, and his (and its) ability to get young voters to the polls. We heard a lot about the Dean campaign's use of the Internet, etc. last time, and his appeal to the young, but neither worked this well. That's good news for Democrats as well as the Obama campaign. Now we'll see if they can scale it up to do several states at the same time, and then the massive challenge of Tsunami Tuesday in February. (And that was another smart feature of Obama's speech--he gave a lot of credit to his campaign, and he spoke to their hearts--he revved them up to give their all the rest of the way.)

So the American Dash fearless forecast got the order of finish correct here, and Edwards stays alive (barely) while Hillary is no longer the favorite. (It seemed that Edwards either didn't care that he lost or it didn't register, because his speech would likely have changed little in victory. Or maybe he was just moving on.) Hillary's best strategy may be to run dutifully in New Hampshire but concentrate on the Tsunami Tuesday states, where the electoral experience available to her is an advantage in so many simultaneous elections.

But Iowa looked very much like a major "change" moment, as the commentators said, and I guess some of us got a glimpse of what we've waited for decades to see again, at least that possibility. This son of the future might be the leader we need but thought we'd never see again. And those of us of an age hope that our hopes are not dashed in the same catastrophic way as they were before, in 1963, and 1968. We have to hope that in 2008, we're given this last chance.

GOPers in Iowa: Huckabee's (Possibly) Hollow Victory

Mike Huckabee scored a pretty decisive victory in the Iowa Republican straw poll/caucus--a 9 point victory over Mitt Romney. But it was a one-dimensional victory: about 60% of the voters identified themselves in entrance polls as Evangelical Christians, and most went to Huckabee. Of those who identified themselves as not EC's, less than a fifth voted for him. There just aren't that many ECs in New Hampshire. He'll get a bounce out of Iowa and some fresh funding, but it won't be enough.

There's more bad news for him. Though he soundly defeated Mitt Romney, John McCain is neck and neck for third place with Fred Thompson (with 95% of the votes counted.) That's good enough to both give McCain some bounce in New Hampshire, where he's moving up anyway against Romney to be the favorite, and it's also enough to keep Fred Thompson in the race, preserving an alternative as conservative as Huckabee.

Huckabee's victory is causing consternation among Republicans already. He doesn't have the Bush pedigree to bring the Evangelicals and the Wall Street and Washington neocons all together. The latter two hated the Clintons for being upstart poor whites, and here's Huckabee who's governor of the same state and was born in literally the same little town as the Big Dog. In that sense and others, Huckabee is divider.

If Fred Thompson can finish third in New Hampshire (he has better pro help and probably looks a lot better to the heirs of Bush right now) and Huckabee is fourth, then it could all become complete chaos for the GOPers, right on to their convention.

All that said, Huckabee is also a wildcard. The polls that said he'd peaked in Iowa and his bubble had burst were dead wrong: a lot of his voters came to him in the past few days. He's probably going to have the resources to keep going well past New Hampshire and he has the possibility of raining on everybody's parade--including Rudy's last stand down in Florida--while not being strong enough to actually win the nomination.

On the numbers: the Des Moines Register poll was just about on the money on both races, and on a huge turnout (although even they underestimated that.) If I'd read their polling info more carefully on the proportion of evangelicals expected to vote, I might not have stuck with Romney in my prediction. I haven't seen any numbers on this yet, but I'd guess that most of the GOPer first timers were evangelicals voting for Huckabee.

Live Blogging Iowa


630PT: NBC is calling it for Obama. Chris Matthews can't stop talking about how big a victory this is, and how it's going to be global news.

6 pm PT: CNN is calling the GOPer straw vote for Huckabee, by a significant margin. NBC quickly followed. Entrance poll shows that 60% of the total GOPer voters were evangelical Christians.

David Gregory points out something important on the Dem side. The sheer number of votes don't entirely matter--it's kind of an electoral college situation, with the total number of delegates fixed by turnout the last time. This was always an Edwards strategy--that if he did well in the rural districts, that could offset big numbers for Hillary or Obama in the cities. Right now, with about a fourth of the delegates allocated, Obama is slightly ahead but they're all bunched around a third of the total.

5:50
The first results are coming in. What's interesting to me is the 0% for uncommitted, which means that supporters of the second tier candidates are going to someone else as second choice, and not to uncommitted. There's been talk all day of deals (denied by Biden and Richardson representatives) which would trade votes for them where Obama has more than enough, in exchange for second choice votes elsewhere.

545 PT: Donna Braizile on CNN is spinning incoming entrance poll stats as good news for Hillary, while MSNBC is projecting an Obama lead, and word is that turnout could be as high as 200,000, when 130,00 was expected and the Obama people were hoping for 150, 000. But it still matters who those new voters are.

A couple of interesting observations about Independents in Iowa. Independents and even Republicans can choose to caucus with the Democrats. Tim Russert points out that if a lot of Is and Rs are caucusing Dem, it suggests that Iowa could go Dem in the general election (it went for Gore in 2000 but Bush in 04.)
Also, Chuck Todd suggests that if Hillary loses because of so many Is and Rs, her spinmeisters will suggest that the choice of real Democrats is not yet known (and won't be next week either, as Is can vote in the D primary in New Hampshire.

5:15 PT: Early entrance poll indications that turnout is indeed big. MSNBC is monitoring one precinct in Des Moines where turnout for the Dems is more than three times what it was in 2004. Also, a computer model shows the possibility of a strong showing by Ron Paul among the Republicans, possibly even third place.

4:45pm PT: The caucuses have begun. Weather across the state was favorable to a large turnout (i.e. cold but no storms or snow.) Apparently the doors closed about fifteen minutes ago, and if the turnout is big, it will probably take longer to sort things out. Republicans have a quicker, secret ballot process, so their results will probably be known first--maybe an hour from now.


Actually, it's live-blogging only in a loose sense--just updates through the evening as warranted.

It's mid afternoon in California and still more than an hour before the Iowa caucuses start. The buzz however continues to be for Obama. Zogby has been polling daily, and today's has Obama ahead for the first time: it's Obama 31%, Edwards 27%, Hillary 24%. Lots of talk of deal or no deal, most of it involving Obama as well.

Awaiting Iowa

The Iowa caucuses are tomorrow, at last. And then the first real primary in New Hampshire on Tuesday. Right now the buzz is about Barack. He came in first in the Des Moines Register poll by the biggest margin anyone's had in that poll, and Iowans read the Register. Then Kucinich asked his supporters to support Barack at their second choice, if (or rather when) he doesn't get the required 15% of caucus attendees and is disqualified. Today there's word--or rumors--that the Richardson people are also steering their supporters towards Obama. Chris Dodd announced that he's not sending his supporters to anyone. And nobody is suggesting John Edwards, which would be a blow to his chances--until now, the buzz had him benefitting from second choice votes.

So what will happen? It depends on who shows up. But the signs point to Obama, then Edwards, then Hillary. If Obama wins, he's going to surge in New Hampshire and could win there, and then it will be a matter of whether Hillary or Edwards can stop him in the super primaries. If Edwards wins, it's big for him, because it's now unexpected, but he still has a big mountain to climb. If Hillary wins, it's very big for her, because it reinstates her as the favorite. It's all about momentum going into New Hampshire.

On the Republican side I'm sticking with my original prediction: Romney, Huckabee, McCain. If McCain places, he'll hold on to his New Hampshire lead. If not, the race there tightens up, but I don't think New Hampshire is likely to go for Huckabee or even Romney. But if Romney wins Iowa, he stays alive. If Huckabee wins, that's expected; if he loses, he's in trouble because New Hampshire doesn't like him, and he's got no money for other states.

If this isn't complicated enough for you, here's a piece that speculates that an Obama victory in Iowa could lead to a long fight for delegates which would eventually mean the nominee will be...Al Gore.

I wrote about the polls as they came in at Dreaming Up Daily, but for the historical record--this blog does go back a ways--here they are:

12/30:This is about when the polls start to matter--three or four days before the voting. It's more of a mess this year because of the New Year's Eve/New Year's Day interval. But here's the latest:The McClatchy poll shows the Dems still virtually tied, but the trend line has Edwards moving up, and Obama and Hillary down. It also suggests that the Huckabee bubble has burst, and Romney's trend is up.

The Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll has the Dem finish as Hillary, Obama, Edwards, and the GOPers as a virtual tie between Romney and Huckabee. The GOP finding is consistent with McClatchy; however the Zogby poll is not considered as reliable as most others. The poll to watch will be the Des Moines Register, which has been the most accurate.

A couple of other findings from the Zogby that supports the Hillary lead--she's still strong among older voters, who are (based on historical precedent) the most likely to caucus. (McClatchy agrees.) Zogby also found Hillary's supporters are the most firm in their support. Both of these bode well for Hillary, if they prove out.

McClatchy found that events in Pakistan have not changed preferences, and that Edwards would get the most "second choice" votes. My initial guess a month ago of Edwards and Romney is looking pretty good, but these two polls suggest Obama could finish third. On the other hand, the Washington Post touts the Obama Internet-savvy organization and get out the vote effort, which could provide an unprecedented counterbalance of younger voters. His crowds are reported to be younger. Young voters are probably the wild card in the caucuses.

Meanwhile, the American Research poll in New Hampshire also shows an upward trend for Edwards in that state, a lesser upward trend for Obama, and a large downward (9 points) for Hillary. But as in Iowa, it's essentially a statistical three-way tie. Romney and McCain are vying for top spot among the GOPers, both trending upward at the expense of Rudy. Huckabee apparently has no bubble to burst in NH--he holds steady at 11%, which thanks to Rudy's fall, places him third.

As the polls come in, I think I'll update this thread rather than start new ones, so if you're interested, you might revisit here.

UPDATE 12/31/07: This is the one I was waiting for: the Des Moines Register poll 3 days before the voting--which was just about the only poll that got the finish order right in 2004: it shows an upward trend line for Obama, who comes in first with 32% (up from 28% in November) while both Hillary (25%) and Edwards (24%) were flat: no change. Obama's lead now is the largest any candidate has had. There is some fluidity: 6% are undecided (the same percentage as in other polls) and up to a third could change their minds. The poll is of voters who are likely to attend the caucuses, and a great many of them are first-timers and even not registered (although they can register "on the way to the caucus"). A bright spot for Edwards: there was an uptick in his support during the four days of the polling, but there was also for Obama. Not good news for Edwards: the union household is split pretty evenly among the three candidates.

This poll also show GOPer Huckabee maintaining his lead, 32% to 28% for Romney. That's not a safe lead.

So three polls, three different Democratic leaders. The only commonality is that Hillary's support has remained firm--the question being how big it is. One thing does seem very likely: while the race between the top three Dems is very close, it is a three person race: no other candidate looks likely to get the 15% for viability in most caucuses. Perhaps for that reason, the Register poll shows that, contrary to McClatchy, the "second choice" votes aren't likely to change the outcome.

Update 1/1/08: To further muddy the waters, the CNN/Opinion Research poll (conducted Dec. 26- 30) shows a two-way tie on both sides. The GOPers are the same--Huckabee and Romney, with Romney showing the upward momentum and Huck downward. On the Dem side, though, the tie is between Hillary and Obama, with Hillary slightly ahead. This one shows momentum for both Hillary and Obama but not for John Edwards, who is a relatively distant third. Meanwhile, the Register poll may itself have given Obama new momentum. The other candidates attacked its new turnout model. It does seem that the outcome hinges on how many young voters actually caucus.

Also, Dennis Kucinich--who is polling at around 1 or 2%--has asked his supporters to give their second choice votes to Obama. He did this in 2004 as well, although then he steered his supporters to Edwards. The other candidates haven't weighed in, but observers believe that Dodd, Biden and perhaps even Richardson voters are more likely to back Hillary as second choice, but precedent indicates they are more likely to remain uncommitted, or in particular instances, to see if they can't get 15% for one of these second tier candidates by combining their votes. The Biden campaign is saying straight out that they're running for fourth.

How Iowa Decides

Iowa isn't just voting next week--they're caucusing. The Wall Street Journal (finally) explains what that means.

Democrats and Republicans gather at various locations in the 1,784 precincts of the state. Republicans make a pitch for their candidates and there is a secret ballot. Democrats gather in clumps around the room according to which candidate they support. But the key item for caucuses in both parties is this:

"Candidates who don't receive support from at least 15% of participants are "eliminated," but their supporters can realign with another group. A final head count at the Jan. 3 gatherings will determine how county-level (not statewide) delegates will be apportioned."

According to this account, the lingo is that more than 15% makes the candidate "viable." But that first vote isn't the last. If your candidate isn't viable, you can join your second choice candidate, or the group that remains uncommitted.

This is why polls ask for "second choice" candidates, but that doesn't say a lot because whether your second choice will matter depends on who your first choice is--that is, if your first choice is a second tier candidate unlikely to get 15%, your second choice matters more than if your first choice is one of the top tier, who are more likely to get 15%. Unless of course your second choice is also a below 15% candidate--then it's your third choice that matters.

Then again, there's nothing preventing anyone from switching for any reason or no reason, from any candidate (viable or not) or the uncommitted, until the final tally is taken.

The big variable is who will attend. Some of the problem is who can attend: even though the caucuses are held in the evening, lots of people work then--in retail, restaurants and other places open until 9, and notably police, fire and medical personnel who often belong to politically active unions. Employers are not required to give time off, because technically it isn't an election--it's a internal party matter.

In all, only about 10% of Democrats and 12% of Republicans are expected to caucus.

As things are shaping up now, if Obama wins it may be because of what some are reporting is a very strong new speech in the closing days, or because college students are able and willing to caucus; if Hillary wins it may be because her experience argument grafts onto concern about events in Pakistan, or because of her ad blitz or women who want to vote for a woman for President once in their lives; if John Edwards wins, it may be because of his strong organization in rural areas and the resonance of his anti-corporate argument where jobs moved offshore have created hardship and insecurity.

If Huckabee wins, it may be because his heavy fundie appeals have worked; if Romney wins it might be because his organization turns people out and some have become leery of Huckabee's weirdness; if McCain does well, it may be because the others seem untrustworthy and unappealing.

Who knows? Nobody. Who cares? Everybody involved. Iowa caucuses on Thursday, and New Hampshire votes the following Tuesday. The difference between who places first and third may be very slim, which may mean it means a lot, or not so much. All the chatter will immediately be about how the outcome will or won't affect New Hampshire. And nobody knows that, either.

At this point, it seems to me that if the top three Democrats finish as close as they appear to be in the polls (and once again the cell phone argument is being raised--the polls don't reach them, and lots of young people use them as their one and only phone), Iowa may not matter as much as it did last time.

But of course no one will be able to say that until a week from Wednesday, when the New Hampshire results are known. If Edwards wins Iowa (and I still think he's got the inside track) then he has to win New Hampshire--but it's not a given. If Hillary clearly wins Iowa, then she is likely to win New Hampshire--but that's not a given either. Last time, John Kerry from neighboring Mass. had an early lead there, and lost it in the Howard Dean (of Vermont) surge. But Kerry winning in the fields of Iowa made New Hampshire feel better about returning to him. Hillary's had a lead there for some time, but New York is not quite so close, and the suspicion has always been that her support was wider there (and nationally) than deep.

If Obama wins in largely rural white Iowa, he's got a better chance in not so entirely rural white New Hampshire. At the moment he's close enough in New Hampshire polls that an Iowa victory could well put him over the top in NH.

Sound like tapdancing? You bet. Personally I'm betting that there will still be three Democrats standing--and three Republicans--by the time I vote in February.

Watching Iowa...Listening to New Hampshire

The Iowa caucuses are less than two weeks away, and the final polls will be starting soon. I have the sense that Hillary has made up some ground, although I totally don't respect the tactics employed. Her campaign has made one voter's decision: I definitely will not vote for her in the California primary. But she is closer to winning Iowa than she was even a week ago, is my guess.

She has been helped, I fear, by John Edwards and Barack Obama going after each other. You'd think they would have learned from Howard Dean and Richard Gephardt knocking each other out last time. While the national talking head consensus has become that the electorate is in the mood for a big change, which doesn't favor Hillary, Edwards and Obama are making it hard for people to feel good about supporting them, while Hillary smiles and smiles.

On the Republican side, the Huckabee boom doesn't seem to have collapsed yet, and it's a question now of whether Iowa Republicans have soured on Mitt Romney even more than they are skeptical of Huckabee, and whether the religious right has actually gone to Huckabee, with sufficient fervor to show up and caucus. Right now I'd say the chances of Huckabee coming in first have improved.

The New Hampshire primary has some markedly different dynamics than Iowa--including the mechanics of a primary (which requires only simple voting) versus the caucus (which requires more time and actual discussion.) But at the moment both Democratic and Republican primaries are so close and in such flux that Iowa could be decisive.

Right now it appears that John McCain is rising and could very well win the Republican contest. He's been endorsed by newspapers and his policy positions are closer to New Hampshire, particularly in recognizing the reality of the climate crisis, which that state is seeing within its borders. McCain's age is a problem, but his biggest ally is the general disenchantment with Mitt Romney.

However, a strong first place for Huckabee in Iowa could present another alternative to those who have soured on both Romney and Rudy. (Huckabee has less of a natural constituency in New Hampshire than Iowa.) If McCain at least places in Iowa, his chances to win in New Hampshire are enhanced. At the moment, I'd suggest he's on track to win NH.

Among the Democrats, the key may be how Hillary's attacks on Obama affect Iowa. Obama is from neighboring Illinois, so his record is more likely to be known in Iowa than in New Hampshire. If Iowa swallows the Hillary campaign's largely false attacks, it could be tougher for him to sustain his current momentum in New Hampshire. A third place showing in Iowa could be fatal to Obama, resurrecting the Hillary coronation scenario. A second place to Edwards won't hurt him, though it won't help him. A second place to Hillary will hurt him, but maybe not fatally. It's hard to see how Edwards wins anywhere else if he doesn't win Iowa.

Not Safe

Making us safe has been a Bushite mantra, but it's mostly been very expensive marketing for a nonexistent product. When it comes to protecting citizens from the effects of disasters and emergencies at home, a new study by the nonprofit Trust for America's Health concludes, "the United States is not safe."

Individual states and the federal government are at fault: Many states still lack a stockpile of drugs, masks, gloves and other equipment needed to battle a pandemic of diseases, despite five years of constant and detailed warning, the Trust for America's Health said in its report. Overall, federal funding for state and local preparedness will have declined by 25 percent in 3 years if the president's FY (fiscal year) 2008 request is approved," the report reads.

The report focuses on pandemics and public health consequences of emergencies. Also out this week, a Washington Post story that lists some (but by no means all) of the possible consequences for health of the climate crisis."We are not dealing with a single toxic agent or a single microbe where we can put our finger with certainty on an exposure and the response," said Jonathan A. Patz, a physician and epidemiologist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. "Climate change affects everything."

It is the complexity of climate crisis effects that would test even a system ready to respond to known kinds of emergencies--and we still aren't anywhere near that. Public health is still in shambles, and the general infrastructure for emergencies found wanting in the above report applies to more than the health aspects. These effects are already happening, and they will happen more and more in our immediate future.

Months ago, Keith Olbermann quoted Winston Churchill: "The responsibility of government for the public safety is absolute and requires no mandate. It is in fact, the prime object for which governments come into existence." This basic civics lesson is also a question for 2008 candidates. What will you do to truly prepare, to truly try to make America safe?