Showing posts with label 2008 Presidential Campaign. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008 Presidential Campaign. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Will Bloomberg Run?

Here's my take. All he has said that I've seen is "I'm not running." Seems clear to me he is not saying "I will not run." My guess: If Obama gets the nomination (or looks likes he will), Bloomberg will not run; if Hillary gets it (or looks like she will), Bloomberg will run. There's just no question that Hillary is flawed and beatable. If she's the Democratic nominee, there is an opening for an independent to jump in.

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

Obama in the Lead ...

... in one poll anyway. Hopefully more to follow.

Faith in the 2008 Campaign

It strikes me that the three leading Dems may be talking more about their faith than the three leading Republicans. Very strange turn of events.

Monday, June 04, 2007

Hillary is Just Unbearable

How on earth is Hillary Clinton leading in the polls? Here's what I'm worked up about:
Clinton stood by her actions in the aftermath of former President Clinton' admission that he had an affair, including presumably her decision to stay in the marriage.

"I am very grateful that I had a grounding in faith that gave me the courage and the strength to do what I thought was right, regardless of what the world thought," Clinton said during a forum where the three leading Democratic presidential candidates talked about faith and values.

"I'm not sure I would have gotten through it without my faith," she said.

What an absolutely ridiculous poll-driven thing to say. Here's how I picture it happening. She and her advisers were sitting around talking about how to defend her decision not to leave Bill, and they hit upon the answer: Faith. It's perfect. It completely distracts from the issue AND it plays up her religious nature. Will anyone really buy this, though? Is "faith" an answer to why you did something stupid and unreasonable? And does anyone believe she actually has religious faith? I hope people start seeing through her soon.

Sunday, June 03, 2007

Fred Thompson: Worth a Look

I had never really seen what the fuss was about Fred Thompson, but now Greg Mankiw points out this great defense of federalism by Thompson. It definitely inspires me to look at him more closely. But will federalism really sell with the masses? I'd like to think so, but I'm not confident.

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Ron Paul Takes it to Giuliani

I'm glad to see that Ron Paul is not backing down in the face of criticism:
Longshot Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul (news, bio, voting record) on Thursday gave front-runner Rudy Giuliani a list of foreign-policy books to back up his contention that attacks by Islamic militants are fueled by the U.S. presence in the Middle East.

I doubt I agree with all/most/many of Ron Paul's views, but Giuliani's claim that we were attacked because of our freedoms is one of the dumbest things to come out of the mouth of one of the serious Presidential candidates. People on all sides really need to challenge him on this.

Sunday, May 20, 2007

Dem Polls

The latest Iowa polls:
Edwards, who ran second in the 2004 Iowa caucuses and has worked hard to maintain his organization in the state, is at 29 percent. That's about where he has been for some time in Iowa, where caucus goers will do much to define the direction of the 2008 race as it hist full speed next January.

In second place is Illinois Senator Barack Obama with 23 percent.

Clinton musters a mere 21 percent -- down significantly from her position in several previous polls -- to secure the No. 3 position.

But nationally things are different:
Among Democrats Clinton has strengthened her status as front-runner, putting the brakes on a surge from rival Barack Obama, according to a Harris poll.

The poll found Clinton ahead by 13 points, 40 percent to 27 percent among Democratic voters nationwide. Her showing was better than a similar poll
in April which showed her leading Obama 37 to 32.

Three questions: (1) Does this mean anything at this point? (2) Who on earth supports Hillary Clinton? (3) And Why?

Saturday, February 24, 2007

Romney's Mormon Burden Rises Again

The AP reports:
While Mitt Romney condemns polygamy and its prior practice by his Mormon church, the Republican presidential candidate's great-grandfather had five wives and at least one of his great-great grandfathers had 12.

Polygamy was not just a historical footnote, but a prominent element in the family tree of the former Massachusetts governor now seeking to become the first Mormon president.

Romney's great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, married his fifth wife in 1897. That was more than six years after Mormon leaders banned polygamy and more than three decades after a federal law barred the practice.

Seriously, his great-grandfather? How about checking on the all the other candidates' great-grandparents to see if there is some dirt? Did any of them support segregation? Oppose women's rights? Hate Jews? It wouldn't surprise me if at least some did. But are we going to hear about it? Doubtful. This story is inappropriate. It serves no purpose other than to make the "Mormons are weird" point.

Monday, February 19, 2007

Obama / Warner ?

After Va. Governor Tim Kaine endorsed Obama, Obama mentioned Mark Warner. At that point:
The crowd of VIPs roared, and then began to chant: “VP! VP! VP!” Smiling, Obama only referred to his and Warner’s matching blue ties. “I want you to notice how we’re dressed tonight,” he said.

Warner for VP. I like that idea a lot. Warner is a centrist, pro-business Democrat (and pretty damn smart as well). That will certainly help Obama with those like me, who fear many Democrats are closet socialists. Think about it, Barack!

Elizabeth Edwards on Gay Marriage

After John Edwards says he is "not there yet" on gay marriage, George Stephanopoulos asks Elizabeth her view. She says: "Well, it's not particularly important whether I am, but I guess I come from a more eclectic background and so it's less problematic, I think, probably for me." I think this says a lot about how John Edwards' view will evolve if he is elected. He's not ready to commit right now, but he'll get talked into it as soon as it won't cost him votes.

Romney on Abortion

Mitt Romney talks about abortion with George Stephanopoulos:
Mitt Romney: My view is that we should let each state have its own responsibility for guiding its laws relating to abortion.

...

But I'd like to see the Supreme Court allow states to have greater leeway in defining their own laws.

Very nice answer. I like it.

But Stephanopoulos has a tough follow-up. Uh-oh:
Stephanopoulos: But if it's killing, why should states have leeway?

Romney replies:
Mitt Romney: You know, that's one of the great challenges that we have. There are a lot of things that are morally very difficult and, in some cases, repugnant that we let states decide. For instance, Nevada allows prostitution. I find that to be quite repugnant as a practice.

OK, that's not bad. Some moral choices are tough, so maybe it makes sense to let people in different places choose their own way.

But Stephanopoulos won't let up:
Stephanopoulos: But murder is illegal in every state.

Nice! Go for the jugular. At this point, Romney kind of falls apart:
Mitt Romney: And so we let states make some of these very difficult decisions. That's one of the difficulties here. Also, I feel a great empathy for women who have difficult decisions in this regard. I don't want to impose my view on the lives of women, and yet this is one of those points where mature men and women have to come together and say, "What's the right course?" And in my particular view, I believe in life, I believe in respecting life, and I believe that we should, as a series of states, allow states to make their own choice in this regard.

Eventually he just sums up with: "I'm saying that, in my view, we should let the states make that decision and I am in favor of life and in favor of choosing life."

That's about all he can do. He doesn't want to say "abortion is different than murder" and he doesn't want to say he's going to lead the drive against abortion state-by-state if the Court overturns Roe, so he's kind of stuck. Ultimately, I like where he comes out. It is a bit of a waffling, though. It's hard to know which will hurt/help him more: A stronger anti-abortion position or this kind of waffling.

McCain: Roe v. Wade Should Be Overturned

John McCain says:


"I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned,"
I think this is definitely good for the overall abortion debate, such as it is. Maybe now we can talk a bit about how abortion law should be made. As for McCain's political prospects, it might help with the religious conservatives, but hurt with moderates. He may have to explain a bit more, and his explanations will be key.

Saturday, February 17, 2007

Views on Mormons: Not Good for Romney

I like Mitt Romney and I hope he does well. But there's no doubt his Mormonism is going to make things tough in this race. On top of the explicit bigotry, even an article that tries to take a detached view and examine public perceptions of Mormons shows how people have trouble getting over their anti-Mormon bias. The author writes:
But even the story about the church's founding is unusual to nonbelievers: God appeared to Joseph Smith and told him that all existing forms of Christianity were "an abomination" and then directed Smith to a hillside in upstate New York where, with the help of the angel Moroni, Smith recovered a set of golden tablets that revealed the real word of God. Smith had further revelations, which Mormons treat as scripture alongside the Bible, including that Jesus would eventually return to reign from Missouri. Smith was eventually killed by vigilantes.

The story is "unusual"? How is it any more "unusual" than the stories of the origin of other religions?

The author also mentions that the Mormon church used to be formally racist and a long, long time ago officially practiced polygamy. OK, sure, these are skeletons, but are they worse than what other religions have? Not to me.

If this is what people are writing in the Washington Post, I hate to hear what they are whispering in private.

Giuliani's Speaking Style

Watching Giuliani on Larry King some time last week, I was struck by how unpolished and unscripted some of his answers seemed. Now, it may be that this speaking style was by design and he gave the answers exactly as he prepared them. But it also may be that he is taking an approach in which he does not try to script all his talking points perfectly. Some of his off-the-cuff remarks seemed to indicate this (such as a joke to the effect that he thought he had married only male/female couples as Mayor, but he couldn't verify this completely). Regardless of why he was speaking this way, I wonder how this style will play. It definitely has some appeal to me, as I'm tired of listening to the standard smooth talk of politicians. But even to me it seemed something less than Presidential. So, I could appreciate it, but I wasn't sure it was for me. How will mass audiences take to it?

Memo to Republicans: Jeb Bush for VP!

Yesterday I suggested that Mitt Romney, if he gets the Republican nomination, should think about Jeb Bush as his VP. With another day to think about it, I like this idea even more. In fact, I think all the leading Republicans -- Giuliani and McCain, in addition to Romney -- should consider it. Bush would be a great asset in getting religious, national security, and business-minded voters. (Not to mention Florida voters.) He's really the best right wing candidate out there. Whether he'll do it remains to be seen, but it can't hurt to ask.

ADDED: Not surprisingly, it turns out I'm not the only one to think of this: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/06/26/jeb_bush_eyed_for_number_two_spot.html

Sunday, February 11, 2007

Obama's "Blackness" Again

The LA Times asks, "Would Obama be 'the black president'?"

My answer: Who cares, that's a stupid question.

Saturday, February 10, 2007

Obama's Speech

Just watched Obama's announcement that he's running. Wow! The guy is an amazing speaker, both in terms of style and command of substance. He still has to back it all up with some specifics, but he's off to an amazing start. Hillary must be trembling after having watched that.

MORE: What really impresses me is his understanding of his own words. With most politicians, I get the sense that somebody else wrote the speech and the politician has little feeling for the content; or they have been coached to such an extent that they are over-thinking each syllable and intonation, and have lost sight of the meaning; or they can't articulate their thoughts very clearly even though they may be quite smart (e.g. Joe Biden). Now, somebody else may have written part or all of Obama's speech, and he may have been coached a bit, but nevertheless it comes across as authentic. And he articulates his thoughts very clearly. Speeches are just one element of many in a political race, of course, but in this area Obama is head and shoulders above the rest.

Friday, February 09, 2007

Stewart and Colbert Should Moderate a Debate

Wouldn't it be interesting to have Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert moderate a Presidential debate? They know the issues well enough to ask good questions, and they could make it entertaining as well. I doubt the Republicans would go for it (except maybe McCain and Giuliani), but maybe the Democrats would agree to it for the primary.

Sunday, February 04, 2007

John Edwards on the Iraq War, Nuclear Waste and Gay Marriage

John Edwards was on Tim Russert today, talking about a number of issues. Three in particular stood out to me.

The Iraq War

Russert asked Edwards why he still supported the war a year and a half into it, during the 2004 Presidential campaign. Edwards responded:
SEN. EDWARDS: Mm-hmm. Perfect—that’s a very fair question. I can tell you what happened with me, personally. We got through—I was—at that point, I was in the middle of a very intense campaign, one that I thought was very important for America. When the campaign was over and the election was over, we had a lot going on in my own family. Elizabeth had been diagnosed with breast cancer, we were taking care of her. And for the first time I had time to really think about, number one, what I was going to spend my time doing, and, number two, my vote for this war. And over time, when I reflected on what I thought was going to be necessary going forward, to have some moral foundation to work on issues like poverty and genocide, things that I care deeply about, I could no longer defend this vote. It was pretty simple. And I got to the place I felt like I had to say it and had to say it publicly. And so—what?--a year—a year or so ago I did that.

So basically, he was busy campaigning and didn't really have time to think about it. After the campaign, he gave it some thought and changed his mind.

That sounds a bit inauthentic to me. Seems to me the answer is he thought it was too risky politically to change his view at the time of the campaign, but later, as support for the war declined and he wanted to run in 2008, decided it was too risky not to.

Nuclear Waste

MR. RUSSERT: But now you’re saying that maybe the nuclear waste should be stored locally where the waste was produced. Is that your position?

SEN. EDWARDS: My position is that, that what’s happened with Yucca Mountain is there’ve been serious questions, including the, the possibility of lying and fraud in the scientific evidence of—that Yucca Mountain would work. I was always concerned, still am, about this nuclear waste being transported around the country. I, I think, at this point in time, it does not make sense to do—to do Yucca Mountain. So the, the, the answer is we have nuclear plants, the, the stuff has to be stored—waste has to be stored somewhere, so it has to be stored where the plants are.
MR. RUSSERT: So in...
SEN. EDWARDS: Or in the vicinity.
MR. RUSSERT: So in Seabrook, New Hampshire, the nuclear waste has to be stored in New Hampshire.
SEN. EDWARDS: It has to be stored somewhere close by.

I'm no scientist, but that strikes me as ridiculous. Nuclear waste should be stored as far away from people as possible, not in the "vicinity." Perhaps under a mountain somewhere? Hmm ...

Gay Marriage

MR. RUSSERT: It’s next up after Nevada. Gay marriage. You said this: “ It is [a hard issue] ... because I’m 53 years old. I grew up in a small town in the rural south. I was raised in the Southern Baptist church and so I have a belief system that arises from that. It’s part of who I am. I can’t make it disappear. ... I personally feel great conflict about that. I don’t know the answer. I wish I did. I think from my perspective it’s very easy for me to say, gay civil unions, yes, partnership benefits, yes, but it is something that I struggle with. Do I believe they should have the right to marry? I’m just not there yet.” Why not?

SEN. EDWARDS: I think it’s from my own personal culture and faith belief. And I think, if you had gone on in that same quote, that I, I have—I, I struggle myself with imposing my faiths—my faith belief. I grew up in the Southern Baptist church, I was baptized in the Southern Baptist church, my dad was a deacon. In fact, I was there just a couple weeks ago to see my father get an award. It’s, it’s just part of who I am. And the question is whether I, as president of the United States, should impose on the United States of America my views on gay marriage because I know where it comes from. I’m aware of why I believe what I believe. And I think there is consensus around this idea of no discrimination, partnership benefits, civil unions. I think that, that certainly a president who’s willing to lead could lead the country in the right direction on that.
Man, what a wuss. Will any of the leading Democrats have the guts to be for gay marriage? His answer seems like such a transparent attempt not to seem too extreme and to maintain his viability with moderates. But I suppose he figures that's the only way to win.

Edwards to Raise Taxes

Edwards to raise taxes:
Democratic U.S. presidential candidate John Edwards' on Sunday said that he would raise taxes, chiefly on the wealthy, to pay for expanded healthcare coverage under a plan costing $90 billion to $120 billion a year to be unveiled on Monday.

Well, the honesty is refreshing. Not a good way to get my vote, though.