 |
January 03, 2008Predictions, Predictions!Spurred on by Larison, I'll risk showcasing my potentially pitiable prognostication skills too. Here goes. Obama wins Iowa tonight, if narrowly (but hopefully by more than 2-3%, so it feels somewhat convincing). Edwards comes in second, but just by a hair breadth or two north of HRC. Edwards spins this as the second coming, but of course Obama heads to NH w/ the most mojo. The Clinton camp speaks of early exuberances that will fade, and caution sobriety and, er, experience! They also stress they basically placed a de facto second, as they'll argue Edwards won't be able to maintain the momentum into NH (which is likely right, as lots of Edwards support post-Iowa--amidst the Barack-mania--may steer towards the Senator from Illinois). Also, Richardson comes in 4th. Dodd, notwithstanding the good guy that he is, doesn't pull off any miracles, nor the (cheerily loquacious) Biden. On the Republican side? I'm going to say Huckabee pushes past Romney (love him or hate him, Huck feels real, and Mitt just screams phony), and Thompson and McCain battle it out for a lackluster third. While Thompson maybe ekes out a bit ahead of McCain, it doesn't matter, as McCain is able to portray for a NH audience a pretty solid 3rd place type finish, and deep down (isn't it painfully clear?) Thompson doesn't have the fire in the belly for this job regardless (and a good thing too, as he's terrifyingly mediocre). Meantime, Paul surprises clipping at Thompson and McCain's heels in Iowa perhaps more than expected, so is still positioned with reasonably strong momentum for a potentially higher than expected finish in NH (wouldn't 3rd be an earthquake, or even a strong 4th?). Oh, and the 'small man in search of a balcony' comes pretty much last, and waddles in NH too--helping erode going forward support in places like FL and NV (well, here's hoping). Yes, some of the above handicapping is admitedly aspirational (I'd like to see Obama, Paul and McCain perform well--I still respect McCain as an honorable man--but one whose overarching strategic antenna on foreign policy have failed him, so can no longer support him). And to be sure, I still wish Hagel were running (when I see the passionate support for Ron Paul I wonder how much better Hagel might have done calling B.S. to Rudy's tired 9/11 nostrums at major debates instead?). Last, the Bloomberg, Nunn (and now, Hagel) etc. centrist players should keep bobbing around, as this field is too chaotic and in flux to not merit some close monitoring in the coming months in case of any strategic openings. All this said, my preferred candidate at this time (of which more soon) is Obama. Going forward, I see this as becoming a HRC and Obama race coming out of NH pretty quickly, with McCain, Romney, and Huck becoming the three leaders in the Republican camp. Rudy and Thompson may stagger on for a while, but I can't imagine either goes the distance. And Paul keeps up the fight, as he's flush w/ cash, but of course won't be the nominee. All right, so I guess we'll see how much I get wrong pretty soon.... UPDATE: This is so sweet, so sweet indeed! When the establishment of both parties is rotten--and the American people are awake enough to reward the anti-establishment insurgents--it gives hope. And helps make me proud to be an American again. Barack made history tonight, and if he can repeat the feat in NH, he may well be our next President (though let us not underestimate Huck, or the staying power of McCain or the Clintons, and yes, even a dissed Romney). So, I know. These are early days. But allow me some excitement on this incredible evening. MORE: HRC is giving what feels like an uber-reluctant concession speech delivered through clenched teeth. Reading Bill's body language, I can't help feeling, deep down, he thinks the gig may well be up. And does having Madeline Albright stand behind a placard reading "Ready For Change" only feel oxymoronic to me? STILL MORE: Obama's victory speech was a barnburner. He was on fire, and yet Presidential. There was a sense of history in the making. This guy is the real thing. And he's a tsunami rolling into New Hampshire now... Posted by Gregory at January 3, 2008 03:33 PMComments
Whatever happens with McCain the MSM is going to furiously spin it as a success, and say he has big MO, going into NH. And indeed, they may be correct. But they are going to spin it whether they are correct or not. St John is back. In their eyes. Posted by: jonst at January 3, 2008 05:12 PM | Permalink to this comment
I'd like to wager 1000 on your "Huckabee pushes past Romney" pick. I think McCain's sudden surge (OMG! not that word again), will deplete Huckabee's apple-pie support and allow Romney to prevail. Sorry. Let's face it; he's Bill Clinton turned inside out, a centrist in touch with the lunatic fringe. Posted by: resh at January 3, 2008 05:29 PM | Permalink to this comment
I believe the media will spin any showing by McCain as some kind of upset, and I believe he may well take New Hampshire. But doesn't his comeback fall apart in South Carolina, as it did 8 years ago? Posted by: Ethel at January 3, 2008 08:50 PM | Permalink to this comment
Resh--Do you 'owe' me a G? Posted by: greg djerejian at January 3, 2008 08:57 PM | Permalink to this comment
GD- Ok. Let's get this over with....Kudos aplenty to our semi-omniscient host. Your brilliance in foreign affairs is obvious; now I'm going to have to deal with and accept that it extends to the domestic political front. Congratulation, pal. I'm looking forward to your Obama evaluations, especially with regard to his foreign policy bona fides, impelling style and apparent path to a manifest destiny. I'm starting to think that JFK, somewhere, is smiling. Ps. The check's in the mail. Posted by: resh at January 3, 2008 11:09 PM | Permalink to this comment
Geez dude--ya did good! Posted by: anti-neill at January 3, 2008 11:14 PM | Permalink to this comment
The real shocks of the night were on the GOP side: (1) Huckabee won because three-fifths of the people who turned out for the GOP caucus were evangelicals, and they voted for him practically in lockstep -- 45% chose him against all the rest of the field combined! (The NY Times blog's cover photo earlier this evening showed a bunch of Huckabee supporters praying with their eyes closed and ecstatic grimaces on their faces, surrounded by glowing candles. I imagine that the GOP's masterminds are feeling rather like the Sorcerer's Apprentice tonight.) (2) Fred Thompson, given up for dead, seems to have narrowly edged out McCain for third place, which ain't gonna help McCain any in NH. (But then, neither will he be helped much by the fact that he got caught on TV tonight announcing, in a fight with a war protester, that it would be "wonderful" if US troops were in Iraq for "a hundred -- or even a million -- years.") (3) Giuliani's collapse was staggering, far more than anyone anticipated -- he ended up getting a grand total of 3.5% of the vote. Of all tonight's results, that pleases me most. As for the omens for the general election -- well... (1) Twice as many people turned out for the Dem caucuses as the GOP ones -- in an evenly split state with lively races on both sides. (2) 1/4 of the Dem caucus goers were Independents -- half as many people as the entire turnout for the GOP caucuses -- and they overwhelmingly preferred Obama (and Edwards). (3) Only 1/7 of the GOP caucus were Indies -- and they overwhelmingly preferred Ron Paul (and, as a distant second, McCain). They were far less fond of Huckabee (and somewhat less fond of Romney) than the registered Republicans were. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at January 3, 2008 11:35 PM | Permalink to this comment
I should add that those Huckabee supporters with the ecstatic closed eyes and the candles were his supporters actually AT THE CAUCUS. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at January 3, 2008 11:36 PM | Permalink to this comment
Congratulations on calling the Iowa primary results so accurately. I'm a little surprised that you have jumped so wholeheartedly on the Obama bandwagon. I've been reading this blog off and on since the last election, and I have tremendous respect for your judgement, but I honestly don't understand the appeal of Obama. To me, a lifelong party-loyal democrat, he simply has failed to demonstrate that he has either the experience or the substance to be considered presidential material. Honestly, I'd just as soon vote for his speechwriter for president as for him. Nothing Obama has said has impressed upon me the fact that he has an accurate grasp of the way things work in the "real" world. I'm all for change, but I can't support change simply for change's sake. Offer me a reasonable alternative that makes sense, please -- and Obama has not done that in my opinion. He makes political hay of the fact that he was opposed to the war early on -- conveniently enough, the war was already widely opposed by the time he was elected into office, so he was never really tested in the way other candidates were on that issue. I believe (if memory serves) that over 70 percent of Americans supported the war in Iraq at the time of invasion. I know I did, and most people consider me a die-hard liberal. Based on the intelligence we were given at the time and the way the issue was presented, it seemed to actually be the most prudent action. Are we now to believe that anyone who felt differently was somehow prescient? I don't buy that theory. I believe that thinking people realized, over time, that we had been sold a bill of goods inconsistent with the facts. Am I mistaken, or has your attitude towards the war also changed in just this manner? I'm sure you'll be writing more on this subject in the future, and I look forward to being convinced otherwise (smile). Posted by: JaeJ at January 4, 2008 01:22 AM | Permalink to this comment
You, sir, were amazingly correct. Posted by: Patrick at January 4, 2008 02:33 AM | Permalink to this comment
Impressive GD! Good to see your slack blogging hasn't completely dulled your ability to throw out a few pearls now and then. It's still early doors, but Obama looks like he may be set. His performances in the debates were flat, filled with "emms", lacking clarity, punch and soundbites, but he is a great orator, and his victory speech may have sealed the deal for him in NH. As for his presidential pedigree, he seems no less qualified than Edwards or Clinton. Biden's plans for Iraq apart, there wasn't much to pick between any of the Democrats. And I have no doubt that each one of them would disappoint in some way, if any were to be elected. But Obama's thoughts on Iraq prior to the invasion displayed an uncanny grasp of how things work in the "real" world. I would ponder the futility of engaging with anyone who could look back at this speech and not comprehend Obama's prescience. His judgment was (almost) as good as BD's prediction tonight, but Obama was weighing up the single most important foreign policy decision in recent history. He went against the flow of conventional wisdom, against the "70%" who believed that Iraq was a threat. And he was right. And while he didn't have to vote on it at the time, am not sure if he could have been any more reasoned or unequivocal in nailing his colors to a particularly unpopular political post. Again, I'm sure if elected he'll disappoint in some way, but for the moment at least, Obama is that rare candidate who believes in evolution, hasn't seen aliens, isn't scared of gay people, doesn't want to double gitmo, sing about bombing Iran or castrate the constitution to secure the homeland, but when it mattered, did speak out against invading Iraq. It doesn't take any great prescience to see that he is no more lacking in presidential minerals than any of the alternatives. Posted by: bobbyboulders at January 4, 2008 05:14 AM | Permalink to this comment
JaeJ, I agree with you that opposing the foolish Iraq invasion was not prescient at all. It was simply common sense. I certainly opposed it -- it was obvious to me at the time that it was mostly based on waving anti-semitic fears around a la Goebbels and Hitler, and that people in the US were eating it up in the same way the "good Germans" ate up Hitler's anti-semitic appeal -- because they liked having a convenient demon to hate and to blame their failures on. Seeing that took no prescience at all, nor did observing that Bush' speeches were based on emotional appeals (and transparently silly ones) and remarkably devoid of any practical sense or more importantly factual basis. I'd award noone any prescient medals for seeing that! Heck, I saw that, and I'm not remotely prescient.
You missed the big story, especially for a blog dedicated to foreign policy- Biden is out. In a time of great unease you're getting all excited about a guy with zero foreign policy credibility while the one guy with some actual heft viz FP is gone like a whisper - you don't find that odd if not even disturbing Greg? Disturbing that at this time in history last night was about a god kissing bumpkin who doesn't believe in evolution and seems clueless about anything more complex than Christian homilies and a neophyte who gives pretty speeches and is more media star than serious politician? Kinda disturbs me - and I didn't even mention the evil that is Oprah. Only bright side is Romney's decline adds to McCain momentum and he's the only legitimate choice right now for people who think the next administration will be ALL about FP. Posted by: goatboy at January 4, 2008 08:31 AM | Permalink to this comment
Maybe you should go into the prognostication business - except you aren't that much of a blowhard. You pretty much nailed it - except the numbers for Obama were much better than you guess. The talking heads had to rewrite their post caucus yammering - and will have to think before they speak/write now. Posted by: ET at January 4, 2008 08:36 AM | Permalink to this comment
I've been reading this blog off and on since the last election, and I have tremendous respect for your judgement, but I honestly don't understand the appeal of Obama. To me, a lifelong party-loyal democrat, he simply has failed to demonstrate that he has either the experience or the substance to be considered presidential material. Honestly, I'd just as soon vote for his speechwriter for president as for him. I think it's because his followers see exactly what they want to see in him. His biggest assets are the very traits that (correctly) put you off. I wouldn't worry too much about Obama's "change" mantra. He keeps it so vague and fluffy and pleasing that "change" slides pretty easily into "not all that much different from what we've got now". Posted by: sglover at January 4, 2008 10:27 AM | Permalink to this comment
bobbyboulders, thanks for the link to that Obama speech. You're right, it's good -- a concise summary of just what a crock the "case" for war always was. You know where Obama lost my vote? When he started talking up the "need" for another 90,000 troops. That is close to the last thing I want to hear from a self-appointed "change" agent. What I want to hear is something like, "Let's think hard about what 60 years of military-centric foreign policy has got us." Posted by: sglover at January 4, 2008 10:37 AM | Permalink to this comment
Great call! And I thought the same thing when I saw Madeline Albright standing behind Hillary. Posted by: John at January 4, 2008 11:26 AM | Permalink to this comment
Greg - can't wait for your defense of Obama, pretty young lamb that he is in a field full of lions. Hope it doesn't come down to him not supporting the war - because any would be presidential candidate who did not support that war would have been handing decades of unbridled political hegemony to Bush and acolytes had there been found in Iraq what everyone expected to be found there - stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. The wise move, the politically savvy move was to support the war - and if you wanna reward Obama for being merely lucky as opposed to wise or savvy then I've got to hear your defense of that. Posted by: earl at January 4, 2008 11:33 AM | Permalink to this comment
Earl is right - there's a whole lot of assumptions underlying enthusiasm for Obama that defy common sense viz current international complications. People give him credit for opposing the war because the war turned out so badly - but that's threadbare logic at best. Anti-war youth gave Obama the decisive advantage in Iowa - you're telling me that's the constituency you want to rely on come November? Seems foolhardy. What are you going to do if Iraq dramatically turns around this summer or a big crisis that involves the military crops up? You really want a candidate who will owe his ascension to the anti-war left? HRC's approach is the most reasonable which is why I support her - but there was always the fear that the far left youth wing of the party would subvert her chances - and after Iowa that seems to be the case. I just don't understand why you'd support that Greg - you always seemed something of a realist to me. Posted by: joy at January 4, 2008 12:21 PM | Permalink to this comment
Great calls on the caucuses! I admit, as an Obama supporter, I'm pretty happy today. I think his campaign's ability to build a superior organization speaks to Obama's underrated skills as a manager and leader. He held fast to his strategy and his message, even when he was under intense pressure to "go on the attack" in the late summer. He just kept building the infrastructure he needed to bring out the vote. He's steadily building a national organization. I'm in Tennessee--not known as a center of the national political universe--but seeing how the Obama campaign has harnessed and nurtured the energy of his supporters here is impressive. Yes, he has less than a full term as a U.S. Senator behind him. But he's worked for years in local (community organizing) and state politics, and that matters, as does his work as a civil rights lawyer. I don't know why people so quickly dismiss state legislative experience. On a day-to-day basis, state legislatures affect us as much if not more than Congress, and the political environment is just as cutthroat and challenging, even if the media profile is lower. As for Obama's position on the war--are some of you saying that even though he was proved right, he should have supported the war because that was the politically prudent thing to do? There were plenty of people who thought the rush to war in Iraq was misguided, including General Wesley Clark. Hans Blix said on the BBC he'd "be surprised" if WMDs were found. Bush bullied the country with militaristic fear-mongering, and too many Dems went along because they were afraid of seeming weak. Obama's analysis of the situation at the time was dead on. As a state legislator, he was not under pressure to take a stand, but he did. I find it impossible to find fault with that. All that said, NH should make for an exciting race! Posted by: Lisa at January 4, 2008 01:02 PM | Permalink to this comment
More on state legislative issues here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html
What are you going to do if Iraq dramatically turns around this summer.... Heh. Yeah. The light's really at the end of the tunnel there, you bet.
The rise of Obama means McCain will be the next president - Obama draws his advantage from a fragile constituency - people are not thinking about the war or military matters right now but that can change very, very quickly and what makes Obama strong now can easily turn into a weakness later - especially when his thin resume is put up against McCain's hefty one. The worm will turn here - bet on it. People want to think he's the second coming of JFK - but JFK was a war hero and had been tutored all his life for the presidency. Once you get past the pretty speeches there's no comparison. Posted by: ted at January 4, 2008 02:02 PM | Permalink to this comment
not to mention JFK only won because daddy bought the election for him - who will buy the election for Obama? Posted by: Roger at January 4, 2008 02:05 PM | Permalink to this comment
"Honestly, I'd just as soon vote for his speechwriter for president as for him." I agree. However, Sen. Obama writes his own speeches. Posted by: S.G.E.W. at January 4, 2008 02:51 PM | Permalink to this comment
Greg, congrats for your excellent predictions! Great job! And just when I think that sanity is finally returning to America, I need to read comments on this blog, my my... now Obama needs to be "defended" for having been consistently right on the issues when over 70% of Americans was screaming for war? > The wise move, the politically savvy move was to support the war - Scuse me Earl, but are you feeling alright? Back then, Obama didn't simply gamble and say "to heck of it, all of it on red" and won at roulette, he gave a succinct explanation back them why he opposed it, and history has proven him right on all accounts. So he wasn't "savvy" by howling with the wolves when it was safe to do so? Are you aware what this stupidity you called "savviness" or "wisdom" has cost the western world? The war-drunken smart alecks are no "lions", they are sheep. Sorry, but if so-called "experience" causes you to consistently make disastrous decisions, then please for the love of god give me _inexperienced_ people instead. The sheer arrogance of demanding a "defense" for being correct all the time is mindblowing, and it reveals exactly the kind of inbred stupidity which caused the current mess in the first place - when so-called "experts" rather pat each other on the back commending themselves how shrewd they are while reality is spinning out of control. Jesus Christ almighty. Posted by: Mentar at January 4, 2008 03:12 PM | Permalink to this comment
The rise of Obama means McCain will be the next president Wrong. As accomplished as the Dems are at screwing up -- and they are the Genghis Khans of the squandered opportunity -- I don't think it's possible to throw this election to the Republicans. For starters, the GOP field is practically a vaudeville troupe. They may as well nominate the bones of Alf Landon and call it a day. But what's really going to hand it to the Dems is the economic shitstorm that's brewing. Posted by: sglover at January 4, 2008 03:46 PM | Permalink to this comment
So many great comments! Thanks, sglover, earl, joy, goatboy, et al for articulating so much better than I, some of my concerns about the viability of this candidate to effectively assume the presidential mantle. Thanks for the link to the early antiwar speech, bobbyboulders. I read it, and agree that it is an impressive and well-researched piece of work. But it is predicated on the assumption that Iraq was not a threat, i.e. that Iraq had not, in fact, stockpiled WMD. Lisa is right that Hans Blix did say he'd be surprised to find WMD in Iraq. However, he said that (if memory serves -- please correct me if I'm wrong) after Iraq had very reluctantly allowed UN inspectors into the country. So this would have been after US troops were already in the mideast poised to strike, finally forcing Saddam to allow UN inspectors into the country. I think we have to remember that, at the time, there was very little question but that Iraq did have WMD stockpiled. Even most of those opposing the invasion did not question this assumption. After all, Saddam had engaged in chemical warfare previously, dropping poison gas on up to 40 Kurdish towns and villages, most notably, the city of Halabja. That was back in 1988; one might reasonably assume that in the intervening years, he had propagated his supply of WMD and refined his technique. Thus, the intelligence reports of WMD were credible. Again, thanks BB and Lisa for the courteous and well-reasoned responses. S.G.E.W. I researched your claim that Obama does not have speechwriters, but was unable to verfiy that fact. I failed to find information supporting your contention, while I did find muliple references to Obama's "speechwriters." sglover, your concern regarding a disconnect between Obama's words and actions (request for 90,000 more troops) reflects a legitimate concern, in my opinion. To quote David Sirota back in 2005: Despite his anti-war positions as a candidate in 2004, Obama's second vote as a U.S. Senator was in support of confirming Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. He also voted to confirm John Negroponte as Director of National Intelligence, despite Negroponte's involvement in Iran-Contra and other situations that clearly raise questions about his ethics and discretion. Obama also voted for a bill to limit citizens rights to seek legal redress against abusive corporations. During the bankruptcy debate, he helped vote down a Democratic amendment to cap the abusive interest rates credit card companies could charge. And now, Obama cast a key procedural vote in support of President Bush's right-wing judges ... Speculation about why Obama has cast these votes centers around the typical posturing that has created the soulless image of the Democratic Party for the last few years - namely, that he's just opportunistically angling for higher office. http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/05/whats-happened-to-barack-obama.html
I am not yet totally sold on Obama; but one of the things that I do respect him for is that he does not take crap from opponents lying down. Had Gore and Kerry been able to respond the way that Obama does to mud-slinging, we would not have had the Bush administration's object lesson on why Republicans are unfit to run the United States. Posted by: Tom S at January 4, 2008 09:56 PM | Permalink to this comment
> he's just opportunistically angling for higher office. A real problem, but, is there anyone besides possibly Ron Paul, who has any immunity from this charge?
> > What are you going to do if Iraq dramatically turns around this summer.... > Heh. Yeah. The light's really at the end of the tunnel there, you bet. Now I have to clean up the beer I spilled laughing at this witticism...
> For starters, the GOP field is practically a vaudeville troupe. What's sad is that I'm not sure whether this is good or bad -- on the one hand, it means the current juggernaut of Republican corruption and incompetence is likely to be at least massively slowed in the next administration, but on the other hand, it means that if the Democrats pull off one of their beloved tricks of squandering advantage, we may get one of these GOP clowns, who might be even less competent than what we have now! > Saddam had engaged in chemical warfare previously But, this he did with Reagan's funding and backing. Eventually the US quit funding his war & semigenocide machine. I'm not sure he found any other major superpower as willing to fund him? Altho, probably someone here is much more informed on this than I?
> dropping poison gas on up to 40 Kurdish towns and villages, most notably, the city of Halabja. I may be mistaking rumors for fact, but I thought that I'd heard that the gassing of Halabja was done with US helicopters, that Reagan's people had pushed to give to Saddam for (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) "crop spraying" ?
You know, these people worrying about Obama's age really crack me up. I'm 35 and a proud member of Generation X. Obama will turn 47 3 months before the election. He is a married father of two grade-school age girls. He's been a University of Chicago law professor, and has currently 7 years of actual state and federal senator experience. Anybody who can refer to someone like that as a "pretty young lamb" or just a product of mindless "youth" fads is nothing but an out of touch old fart. Seriously. There. I said it. Can we move on now? Posted by: zooguitar at January 5, 2008 05:21 AM | Permalink to this comment
In Obama I see another Jimmy Carter in so much as Carter benefited from people being sick of Watergate and sick of Vietnam, in short sick of politics, and embraced the feel good Carter as the antidote. It' a pretty stupid reason to pick a president but our electoral process is pretty stupid - we go through months and months of campaigning and then after one silly caucus suddenly the race is over and everything is about momentum, as if that's any reason to vote for some one, making one sadly accept that democracy has more to do with emotion than reason.
Maybe its my aversion to any candidate who is embraced by the beltway pundit class, but IMHO Obama doesn't have what it takes to be President at this time in our history. Give Obama eight years more 'practical' experience in the way that DC works, and a less dangerous world thanks to Democratic leadership, I'd probably be willing to support him....but at this point, what I see is a lot of charisma and high-blown rhetoric, and very little in the way of readiness for the challenges of the Presidency. Obama owes his success not to who he really is -- the candidate that was slipping in the polls a couple of months ago -- but because he has taken John Edward's arguments and repackaged them in a much shinier rhetorical box. Obama started out with the "politics of hope" -- and when that didn't work out so well, he suddenly became the advocate of the "politics of change". There is a naivete in Obama that I find disturbing -- its the naivete of someone who owes most of his success to looks and charm, and is about to be thrust into a position where charisma is not substitute for knowledge, experience, and an understanding of hard-nosed political reality. and given GD's tendency toward political realism, I don't understand what he sees in Obama -- and am curious as to his rationale. (His antipathy toward Edwards is easily explained -- in his professional capacity, Greg represents everything that Edwards has been attacking when he talks about the corrupting power of corporations on our political process. But Clinton would be a far more likely choice for him -- she's a hard-nosed political realist like he is, and is more than happy to play ball with corporate America, and the only explanation for his non-support of Hillary is residual Clinton Derangement Syndrome that continues to infect so much of what passes for the conservative intelligensia.) Posted by: p_lukasiak at January 5, 2008 09:02 AM | Permalink to this comment
hey, Sean Penn opposed the war, maybe we should make him president. I'm sure he'd give great speeches too. Or how 'bout Nader? Chomsky? Or fat boy Mike Moore? Since we seem to think Obama's a good candidate simply because he opposed the war why limit ourself to just him? Elect Sean Penn! Maybe he'll be the first president to use the f word in his state of the effing union speech. Oprah can't top that. Posted by: overman at January 5, 2008 12:04 PM | Permalink to this comment
Greg,
There was an note on Acropolis Review a while back about Obama's hidden strength in the South. Will be interesting to see the final 2007 numbers when they're released.
I just want to point out one thing: All those esteemed "experienced" candidates have been _wrong_ in their assessments to basically every single foreign policy decision since 9/11. They have been _wrong_ in their readiness to cripple civil rights within America either, leading to the embarrassing excesses about disabling habeas corpus, illegal wiretapping etc etc. They have been _wrong_ when they attempted to engineer the next war with Iran (I still have HRC in mind when she leaned on Bush not being tough enough - a bit BEFORE the NIE came out which basically stopped her dead in her tracks). Now please tell me: Is this the kind of "experience" you're really looking for? How do you reconcile the seemingly total inability of these "experienced" people with making reasonable decisions which stand up the reality test? Posted by: Mentar at January 6, 2008 03:43 AM | Permalink to this comment
It is good to see that the electoral fire has returned to the belly of this blog!! Both conventions will end up being brokered. The Clintons will fight to the death and at the end of super-tuesday, neither Obama nor Clinton will have a definitive and adequate lead. If Clinton is ahead by a hair, the powers that be will be fearful that she is not electable. If Obama hasn't run away with it, the same fears will arise. Behind the closed doors and in the midst of smoke (what kind??) will emerge our old friend Al Gore as the Democratic nominee with Obama as VP. On the GOP side, the candidates will gradually grind each other down with no definitive controlling winner. McCain will be standing as will the Huck. Rudy will also be there and Romney will be able to keep on spending. There will be threats of a third party (Blumberg) who will be seen by the Repubs as the same kind of spoiler as Ross was in his day. There will be a need to appeal to the right and the middle. In the meanwhile, Pakastan will have gone to hell in a handbasket and we probably will be fighting there. The ticket will be Rudy and McCain, but I am not sure of the order. You heard it first here. By the way, I find myself with the same Obama facination that has been expressed above. I remember well the incredible spirit I felt when JFK spoke at the Michigan Union, and the optimism that the country felt until that fateful day. I could see voting for Obama if that kind of energy was assembling. Michael Posted by: Michael Pecherer at January 6, 2008 03:54 AM | Permalink to this comment
Rudy and McCain ... Not in that order please -- surely it would be better to have the slimy one on top, and the lunatic beneath him. Rather like we have now, actually :)
Both conventions will end up being brokered. Unfortunately, the media is doing everything in its power to turn Edwards into a non-candidate -- and you really need three "viable" candidates for a brokered convention, so I don't think the Dem one will be brokered -- but it isn't going to be decided on Super-Duper Tuesday either. I do agree that the GOP will likely be brokered. Regardless of what happens in NH, Mitt is likely to "rebound" in Michigan. Huckabee should take South Carolina, and the media will make sure that everyone still sees McCain as viable even if he has a massive stroke and is declared brain-dead. Rudy has an enormous war chest, and even if he falters in Florida, the simple fact that McCain, Romney, and Huckabee have been at each others throats for a full month will mean that he comes out of Super Tuesday as a major contender. But the person who is going to get the nomination is Huckabee. Simply put, in a whole bunch of very important states, Huckabee is going to be getting 30-35% percent of the vote -- the Christian Supremacists have prayered over, and annointed, Huckabee as their candidate, and that 30-35% of the vote is enough to keep him in a four way race indefinitely --- and emerge as the candidate with the most elected delegates at the end of the primary season. The GOP bosses can already see the writing on the wall, and realize that this is going to be a Democratic year, and that whoever the GOP standard-bearer is, he's gonna lose. If Huckabee has all these delegates going into the convention, and is denied the nomination, that will signal the end of the stranglehold that the GOP has on the evangelical vote. So, since whoever is the GOP nominee is probably gonna lose anyway, letting Huckabee have the nomination will be their smartest choice in terms of regaining the White House in 2012. This also assumes that Huckabee really wants the nomination this year -- I personally think that he ran this year in order to set himself up for a serious run in 2012, and wasn't really thinking that he had a shot at the nomination. If Huckabee really wants to be President, the smart thing to do would be to demand the VP spot behind McCain -- and using that to catapult himself into the 2012 nomination when McCain loses.) Posted by: p_lukasiak at January 6, 2008 10:46 AM | Permalink to this comment
Luka, good to hear your thoughts. I hope all is well with you and your family! (Enough vanity, but we are old friends.) I wouldn't be too complacent over a Democratic win. I was absolutely astonished at how inspired my suburban white college student children were over Obama and they report that he is very popular among their fellow students. However, Clinton is not going away and the two of them will battle to the end. Without a clear winner, the convention can still be brokered as the delegates are only pledged on the first ballot. Once the kids are disillusioned, a lot of the umph will be gone. For years, the Democrats have been preaching to the African-Americans that without the Dems, they have nowhere to go. Now, we have a Black American who is a viable candidate. When the convention sinks him, there will be hell to pay and I suspect that the New Deal coalition could be threatened this time around. I don't think the Dems can win with Clinton, and I don't think they are going to let Obama be the standard bearer no matter what. I don't agree on Huck. He may do well in those states where the religious folks are in the majority, but those states collectively are not nearly enough to secure the nomination. McCain, Rudy and Romney will be the last three standing. Finally, a major terrorist attack and all bets are off. Michael Posted by: Michael Pecherer at January 6, 2008 12:44 PM | Permalink to this comment
He may do well in those states where the religious folks are in the majority, but those states collectively are not nearly enough to secure the nomination. McCain, Rudy and Romney will be the last three standing. my point is that religious folks don't have to be the majority for Huckabee to emerge with the most delegates at the end of the primaries. All they have to be is about 30% of turnout -- and if there are three other candidates "standing" dividing the remaining 70%, the math works in Huckabee's favor. And I think 30% is about the minimum for the Huckabee vote. Pollster.com (a site that I love, and if you aren't obsessed with it, you should be! ;-) ) has all sorts of trend data on national and (early) state polls, and there is a consistent trend -- Huckabee is picking up the vast majority of Thompson's supporters. IMHO, the "religious conservative" vote "parked" with Thompson, and when Huckabee emerged, it was at Thompson's expense. Nationally, Thompson plus Huckabee is at about 35%, and there are still about 10% that express no preference, so once Thompson finally throws in the towel, I expect to see Huckabee hitting 30% nationally with great ease. PS: Happy Holidays and my best to your family!
Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but there is another factor in the "Huckabee Advantage" -- the delegate apportionment process. (sources drop down menu at http://www.republicansource.com/states/connecticut.htm ...And in general, the states that are most consistently republican are the same states with the highest proportion of "religious conservative" voters. Posted by: p_lukasiak at January 6, 2008 02:09 PM | Permalink to this comment
What are the odds that McCain will run as an Independent if he is denied the GOP nom? Posted by: jaej at January 6, 2008 06:45 PM | Permalink to this comment
What are the odds that McCain will run as an Independent if he is denied the GOP nom? if McCain comes in a strong second behind Huckabee at a brokered convention, and Huckabee gets the nomination... I'd say about 00.0001% Posted by: p_lukasiak at January 6, 2008 07:00 PM | Permalink to this comment
That low! I'm interested in hearing your thinking if you don't mind explaining. And sorry to sound so ignorant, but what exactly do the two of you mean when you write of a "brokered" convention? Posted by: jaej at January 6, 2008 07:10 PM | Permalink to this comment
REmember when Cheney was viewed as the "responsible" aspect of the Bush/Cheney ticket? It appears folks don't know sh1t about "experience." Posted by: someotherdude at January 6, 2008 07:46 PM | Permalink to this comment
That low! I'm interested in hearing your thinking if you don't mind explaining. well, I don't think that McCain would ever seriously consider an independent run -- if not out of party loyalty, then out of a sense of the futility of trying to do so. The electorate seems to want a Democrat this year, and without the Christian Conservative vote that would go for Huckabee, I don't see how he wins. The best he could do is win enough states to deny a democrat a clear electoral majority, at which point the thing would go to congress --- and again, you're looking at a Democratic year for Congress where the Dems already have the majority. And sorry to sound so ignorant, but what exactly do the two of you mean when you write of a "brokered" convention? technically, its a convention where none of the candidates has a majority of committed delegates for the first ballot going into the convention -- which means that some kind of deal has to be "brokered". But in reality, it means a convention where there is no clear winner, and there is endless media speculation about the outcome. Posted by: p_lukasiak at January 6, 2008 09:30 PM | Permalink to this comment
A brokered convention is the political equal to three-card monte. After months and millions wasted and no candidate doing well enough to establish his primacy, a fractured nominating process gravitates to the black-hole agora where shifty-eyed mob bosses, party hacks, junkies and whores get to decide the partial fate of a wounded democracy. It gets even worse when the beer runs out and the lights come on. Despair not, since that is more or less how the USA configured its constitution-the finest legal document yet devised. Booze and back-slapping. Fortunately, hi-tech tools like the net have made shady, 11th hour machinations a thing of the past, since now nearly everyone knows who's in the catbird seat and who ought to be riding shotgun. 24 hour news coverage and blogs make us all a kind of Boss Tweed. Also, any brokered convention today would virtually require a statistical Rubik's cube to materialize. Don't hold your breath. Posted by: resh at January 6, 2008 10:46 PM | Permalink to this comment
Thanks for the great answers. Love the colorful imagery, Resh! Posted by: jaej at January 6, 2008 11:24 PM | Permalink to this comment
To add to resh's comments, the most likely scenario for a brokered convention would arise when there is no winner of the nomination on the first ballot. There follows ballot after ballot until a winner emerges. Remember that the elected delegates are only bound on the first ballot. Remember that the Democrats have so-called "super delegates" who collectively have disproportionate weight. As each ballot progresses, behind the scenes the power brokers within the party meet and confer. What goes on at these meetings is not public and is not immediately shared with the delegates. Deals are cut and recut until a winner emerges and it is just possible that the winner will be someone that the public at large never expected. On the Republican side as my friend Luka points out, there are weightings amoung the state delegations that do not correspond to the populations of the particular state, or to the results of the primaries. When the first ballot fails to produce a winner, the same process goes on until a candidate garners the majority or whatever supermajority is required. The key point is that both parties are controlled by persons who want to win the election. Questions of electability that are being tossed about regarding both Clinton and Obama and about Huckabee are going to be carefully considered in these back room negotiations. Loyalty to a candidate is not likely to trump perceived electability. When you see Harold Ickes and Ann Lewis abandon Clinton, you will know for sure that a brokered Democratic convention is going to happen. One other note, resh, the Constitution does not address the machinations of political parties and in fact, none such existed at the time of its adoption. One of the founders, and I forget which at the moment, warned about the formation of political parties. I think it was Jefferson. Michael Posted by: michael pecherer at January 6, 2008 11:28 PM | Permalink to this comment
Well, turns out that Sen. Obama doesn't write all of his own speeches: he wrote the 2004 DNC speech, but now travels with a (27 year old!) speechwriter. http://www.newsweek.com/id/84756 In my defense (for not knowing about the speechwriter), this Newsweek article is brand new. 27 year old speechwriter! Ye Gods I'm old. And no wonder the youth come out to vote for him . . . . Posted by: S.G.E.W. at January 7, 2008 12:05 AM | Permalink to this comment
Read up on elections of medieval Popes and I think you'll get the idea.... Posted by: grumpy realist at January 7, 2008 12:29 AM | Permalink to this comment
re: McCain/Rudy, so slimy over lunatic It occurs to me that the cynic might hope for the same thing on the other ticket -- Clinton/Obama for slimy/lunatic. :) Posted by: Howard Stern at January 7, 2008 01:43 PM | Permalink to this comment
If you read the article, it's clear the core of the speeches is coming from his words; the speechwriter is more of an editor and polisher than a "ghost writer": Favreau and Obama rapidly found a relatively direct way to work with each other. "What I do is to sit with him for half an hour," Favreau explains. "He talks and I type everything he says. I reshape it, I write. He writes, he reshapes it. That's how we get aAs the article says elsewhere, Obama only has a speechwriter because there aren't 48 hours in the day. Posted by: Woodrow at January 8, 2008 12:03 PM | Permalink to this comment
Post a comment
|
|
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
Recent Entries
More Predictions
Predictions, Predictions! A 'Sick Man of Europe' Reprise? Addingtonism (Belatedly) Ripe For A Comeuppance? Pakistan On the Brink Post-Bhutto Assassination In-House Note The 24%'ers An Edifice of Half-Truths, Lies & Obfuscations Pervez Hearts Honest Abe The Highs and Lows...
Search
English Language Media
New York Times
Financial Times The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation WSJ Opinion Matt Drudge Real Clear Politics
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
The Blogs
Across the Aisle
Marc Ambinder America Abroad American Footprints The American Scene Armavirumque Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice &C (TNR) Phil Carter Chequer-Board Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Clive Davis Brad DeLong Democracy Arsensal Ross Douthat Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Hendrik Hertzberg Huffington Post Innocents Abroad Mickey Kaus Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Josh Marshall Eric Martin Obsidian Wings Oxblog Foreign Policy's Passport The Plank Post Global Gideon Rachman Red State Romenesko Laura Rozen Andrew Sullivan James Taranto Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias
Columnists
Anne Applebaum
Tony Blankley David Broder David Brooks Roger Cohen Jackson Diehl Maureen Dowd Thomas Friedman Bob Herbert Fred Hiatt Jim Hoagland Richard Holbrooke David Ignatius Robert Kagan Michael Kinsley Charles Krauthammer Nicholas Kristof Paul Krugman Howard Kurtz Sebastian Mallaby Robert Novak The Reliable Source Frank Rich Mark Steyn John Tierney John Vinocur Washington Whispers George Will
Think Tanks
Law & Finance
Barron's
Bloomberg Bruce MacEwen Bull and Bear Wise CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog D.C. Toedt DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance
Security
Books
The City
Curbed
Gawker Lockhart Steele NY Magazine Nick Denton NY Post NY Press New York Observer On The Inside Tribeca Trib Walk Through Village Voice
Archives
January 2008
December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 Syndicate this site:
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
||||
