Quick Reaction to Edwards Affair

So, John Edwards admited to having an affair in 2006.  I've heard the reaction of those in the media, of David Bonier, former Edwards campaign manager, and of bloggers from the right and left.  My reaction: Who cares?  Who cares what someone does in their personal life unless they make that aspect of their personal life into a public issue (i.e. Vitter and Craig)?  Who cares about an affair that someone had who hasn't held elected office since 2005 and is not running for office currently?  Why is this such a big story when there are so many issues that matter so much more?  

The media is covering this story non-stop.  It is ridiculous.  Why not inform the American people about where the Presidential candidates stand on the issues instead?  What is this affair story doing to advance the much needed conversation among Americans of all backgrounds about the future of this country?  Nothing, nothing at all.  

For once, I wish the media would leave these tabloid stories to the tabloids. There is nothing wrong with the media pointing out the hypocrisies of  David Vitter and Larry Craig, or the illegal doings of Elliot Spitzer, but this John Edwards story has none of that.  John Edwards is not a hypocrite; he never put himself and his morals on a pedestal while criticizing those of others and, of course, Edwards did nothing illegal.  

Too often we let politicians' personal lives get in the way of what they do for the country.  Some of our best Presidents have been lacking in the morality department --- Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Clinton, etc.  And the Presidents who arguably have been the most moral --- Nixon and Bush --- have turned out to be two of the worst Presidents in American history.  The bottom line is this: we elect politicians to better this country and to advance the issues we care about.  We do not elect them for their morality.  John Edwards was a politician, a great one at that.  He served the people of North Carolina well and advanced the issues they cared about.  He then went on to represent and become a strong voice for the hard working men and women of America in this campaign season.  John Edwards tried and succeeded in many of those ways, both as a Senator and a Presidential candidate.  That is what should be discussed when we talk about John Edwards --- not this man's personal life.   

Edwards Out; Who Benefits?

Much to my surprise, former North Carolina Senator, John Edwards, ended his presidential ambitions today in New Orleans, the same place where he announced his '08 candidacy.  This was shocking to say the least.  I had expected Edwards to stay in the race until the convention.  After all, what does he have to lose?  Or more importantly, what else can he do?  He has been, for the last 5 years, a professional Presidential candidate.  

Despite the shock and surprise of this drop-out, the media has already begun speculating on whom Edwards will endorse.  As I've stated in the past, I'm not sure how much endorsements matter.  I know several Edwards supporters and they have already made up their mind on who they will vote for now that he's out.  Some say Clinton; others Obama.  They assure me that whomever Edwards endorses is no more likely to get their vote than that person was before that potential endorsement.  

With that said, the Edwards vote is really split in my mind.  You have those Edwards supporters who are low-income, white, mostly rural voters.  Those voters are pretty much exactly how one would describe Clinton voters, minus the rural part.  You also have the labor unions, which, in some states, are heavily hispanic.  Those votes would also vote for Clinton, although the Kennedy endorsement might help slightly with latinos.  

Then there are those liberal "change" voters, whatever the hell that means.  They are Daily-Kos and Huffington Post Democrats, who support Edwards simply because of his far-left positions on some of the issues.  Those are, clearly, Obama voters.  

So the question should not be who Edwards will endorse, although it is more than likely to be Obama, considering all his anti-Clinton talk as of late, but who Edwards voters will break for.  Right now, my estimation is a 50-50 split, which leaves this race just as dead-locked as before Edwards got out. 

Dems Hail McCain The GOP Frontrunner---But Who's Best To Defeat Him?

It's clear from watching Monday's debate that the Democratic candidates have focused in on whom they believe will be the Republican nominee, and hence their opposition, heading into the November general election---John McCain.  All three major candidates---Clinton, Obama, and Edwards---have made the argument that they themselves would be the strongest nominee to best McCain and win the Presidency.

So who is truly the strongest candidate?  The truth is that they all have points that need to be taken into account.  Obama says that he can bring in independents.  Edwards claims he can bring more rural, traditionally red, states into play come November. Clinton's argument is that she is the only Democratic candidate who keep up with McCain on foreign policy issues.  All the above are excellent points made by each of the candidates.  

So, we've heard the arguments, but what about the numbers?  Well just today, the LA Times and Bloomberg released polling data pitting Clinton and Obama against McCain (sorry Edwards, you weren't included), and here are the results:

-Clinton 46% McCain 42%   (Clinton +4%)

-Obama 41% McCain 42%   (McCain +1%)

As I pointed out before, Clinton has to be considered the best Democrat to go against McCain.  Why?  Because McCain could easily beat Obama over and over again with the claim to experience in general as well as foreign policy experience.  Clinton would cede neither the experience argument nor the foreign policy experience argument to McCain.  She could go toe to toe with McCain on those issues.  Giving McCain Obama as an opponent would be giving him a huge advantage.  What's his advantage over Clinton? Is there one?  We haven't seen one yet.  

1/21 Democratic Debate Analysis

Wow!---thats all I can say.  Watching last night's CNN Democratic debate felt like watching a high speed car crash---where you just know it's going to get uglier and uglier but you just can't turn away.  

The first half of the debate, in addition to housing the fireworks between Clinton and Obama, had some rather odd moments. For one, it seemed as if Obama had rehearsed lines that he was determined to get in on Clinton regardless of what the topic of the question was.  In the first ten minutes, Obama was asked a question about the economy, but instead of spending his one minute of time answering the question, he attacked Bill Clinton.  It was just plain weird to see a question on the economy turn into an attack on Bill Clinton, which of course drew a response from Clinton, and then one back again from Obama and so on. 

One thing I was shocked to see, and I say this from a completely unbiased point of view, was that Obama took the Clintons' bait. It was overtly obvious to anyone watching the past few days that Bill and Hillary wanted to distract Obama from the issues and get inside his head.  And to my surprise, Bill threw out the bait and Obama jumped on it.  It was unproductive for Obama last night, it terms of the more or less national race coming February 5, to attack Bill Clinton.  Obama has South Carolina locked up with its 50% + African American vote, but Super Tuesday is another story.  And by taking the Clintons' bait and attacking Hillary and Bill, rather than answering the questions, Obama was reduced to nothing more than a mere politician.  If I was Obama and I was put in his position, going up against the Clinton machine, I would have risen above the fray and tried to appear untouchable.  

Why Obama aggressively and persistently went after the Clintons, particularly Bill, is beyond my comprehension.  Does he not understand that he played right into the Clintons' hands last night?  This should be common sense for anyone, especially someone with the savvy of Obama---you don't attack Bill Clinton in a Democratic Primary race. It's just plain stupid.

And to make matters even worse for Obama last night, he was the one who started the entire fight, and trust me, it was a fight. Usually it's Hillary who makes a charge against her opponents and more or less starts the dialogue.  Last night it was Obama who appeared overly eager to throw the first punch.  But as Obama found out, Clinton can hit back pretty hard too.  After several minutes of back and forth bickering, Obama made a comment about Clinton and Wal-Mart.  Clinton, clearly having had enough, hit Obama back with the whole Rezco scandal, which does deserve more attention than it's gotten.  You could just tell by the look on Obama's face that he was not ready for that, and he was pretty much "well-behaved" for the rest of the debate.

  

Again, I'll say that those opening moments clearly rattled Obama.  The candidates were asked about a bill that came to the Senate that would put a cap on interest rates for credit cards at 30%.  Clinton voted for it, Obama against it.  Clinton made the charge that by not voting to put a cap on how high credit cards could charge a customer interest, Obama was playing right into the corporate lobbyists' hands. Obama then gave the most bizarre comeback of this campaign season: he voted against it because he though that 30% was too high.  John Edwards, who has mostly sided with Obama in previous debates, turned to Obama, with the a priceless look on his face, and simply asked Obama how the hell does it make sense that you vote against a 30% cap, which by default would allow a company to charge as much interest as they like, and then say it was because the cap was too high.  Isn't a 30% cap better than a 100% cap?  

Edwards also went after Obama over his liberal use of the "present" vote in the Illinois State Senate.  This is really telling, because as Edwards said, if you agree with a bill, you vote yes, if you don't, you vote no.  The present vote is nothing more than a cheap shot at political cover.  Instead of taking a stand on tough issues, Obama decided to straddle the middle.  As Edwards said, America needs a President who is not afraid to take tough positions; America needs a President who will stand up and fight for a progressive agenda.

The best and most substantive policy debate of the night came over the issue of healthcare.  From what I could tell, both Clinton and Edwards looked great defending true universal healthcare.  Democrats have wanted universal healthcare for over a decade, and it's appealing to many to hear Clinton and Edwards stand up firmly for it.  They both correctly pointed out that Obama's plan is not universal.  Every American will not be insured; in fact, an estimated 15 million or more would be left without healthcare coverage.  In 2008, with a Democratic Congress and Democratic President, universal healthcare can get passed.  It would be sad to pass up that opportunity, both in my mind and in the mind of many other Democrats.  

So who won the debate?  Clearly Edwards.  Not because he was particularly great last night, but because the spat between Clinton and Obama virtually cancelled each candidate out.  Unfortunately for Edwards, it's just too late for him to make a comeback.  So in that sense, when you realize that it's now a Clinton-Obama race, Clinton won the debate.  Obama played to the South Carolina base, and did well on that front.  But on the national scale, Clinton was the winner.  

ABC's Republican and Democratic Debates

The back to back Republican and Democratic debates in New Hampshire demonstrated to the American people that their choice for the next president really does matter.  The Republican candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, would continue the same policies of George Bush and are still quoting Ronald Reagan nonstop.  Rudy Giuliani still talks about a reduced government role like Reagan, but he is clearly not in command of the facts.  As George Will wrote a long time ago, the federal government grew and spending increased on Reagan's watch. 

 

As far as Republicans go, I thought Romney won the debate based on his answers to the questions.  People were able to understand what he was saying.  On the issue of healthcare, he knows more about the subject than his Republican opponents and explains it well.  I thought it odd that there were two questions that brought a good response but McCain, Huckabee and Giuliani were almost silent.  In fact, those three seemed to be detached at times.  The other Republicans are lost when Ron Paul talks about the fiscal disaster the Bush administration has put our country in.  They can't answer him because they bought into this fiscal disaster.

 

The Democrats debated issues that are more related to the problems facing the people.  Good thing Obama has his stump speech down pat on the campaign trail, because his answers in the debates are usually incoherent, off the mark, fragmented, and rarely, if ever, answer the question asked with any substance.  

 

John Edwards would get my vote for winning the first half of the debate, and Hillary Clinton for winning the second half.  Both of them gave answers to the questions that were good and could be understood.  Hillary was a little late getting started but she finished strong and well.  Obama talks about change, but he has yet to articulate how or what he would change.  Edwards and Clinton have done a much better job in that regard.

 

Richardson is a capable candidate, but lacks the ability to stay focused on the questions and the issues and therefore his answers are not easily absorbed.  He loses his chain of thought.  The biggest void in the debate was the absence of Biden and Dodd.  They are two people who know the issues and who can articulate what they would do if elected president.  A 20% turn out in the Iowa caucus eliminated them from the campaign.  Their valuable thoughts will be missed.

 

Edwards was the most inspired I thought and Hillary was able to make her point that you can't make change simply by talking about it.  I think the best thing that could come from the New Hampshire vote is a close race with no real winner.  That would bring out the best in the remaining candidates because they would all be forced to articulate their positions more sharply and then the people would really be able to make a decision based on some thing concrete rather than a stump speech.  Besides it would balance the sides because Obama is the darling of the news media and is getting all the positive attention.

 

It requires winning over 2000 delegates to win the Democratic nomination, so we have a long way to go.  I can not agree that a quick knock out in either party serves the American people well.  If a quick knock out occurs, then the issues will lay dormant.  That is not good for America.  We have seen that happen in the past.

Hillary: Strongest Dem In Key Swing States

Here are the results of two polls that don't seem to be getting much play by the Obama-loving media. They clearly show, as many other polls do, that Hillary is the Democrat best positioned to win in 2008.  The polls that are shown by the media show Obama and Edwards doing better across the board, in a popular vote scenario.  But Obama and Edwards do little to nothing to win states that weren't won by Kerry and Gore in the previous two elections.  As we all know, it is not the popular vote that will matter in November, it is the electoral vote.  And when you look at the two most important swing states---Ohio and Florida---it is clear that Hillary has the advantage.

Florida Quinnipiac Poll (full polling here):

-Hillary 48%      Rudy: 41%

-Obama 37%       Rudy 45%

-Edwards 39%    Rudy 43%

Although it is highly unlikely that Giuliani will be the GOP nominee, poll results are similar when the top Democrats are polled against McCain, Romney, and Huckabee.  Hillary beats McCain by 7%, Romney by 14%, and Huckabee by 15%.  Edwards and Obama either lose or win by a much smaller margin.

Ohio Survey USA Poll  (full polling here):

-Hillary 49%     Rudy 40%

-Obama 40%     Rudy 46%

-Hillary 51%      Romney 40%

-Obama 43%     Romney 42%

-Hillary 51%      Huckabee 39%

-Obama 43%     Huckabee 42%

-Hillary 45%      McCain 45%

-Obama 38%     McCain 47%

Sorry Edwards supporters, he was not polled here, but as is demonstrated yet again, Clinton can win those swing states; it would be much harder for Obama to do so.  And if these Ohio polls weren't convincing enough, Ted Strickland, Governor of Ohio, has said that Clinton has the best chance to win Ohio and also said he would campaign heavily for her.  

Another potential victory for the Democrats, if Clinton is the nominee, is Virginia, a state that has not been considered a swing state in years.  But, as a new Survey USA poll shows (available here), Clinton beats Giuliani 47-46, Romney 51-41, and Mike Huckabee 52-28.  In Kentucky, another GOP stronghold, Clinton also does surprisingly well.  She beats Giuliani 47-45, Romney 50-41, and Huckabee 49-39.  

So remember when voting on who's most electable, that it's the electoral vote that matters, not the popular vote.  So while Obama and Edwards may do better across the board with Republicans, they do not win over any states that Clinton doesn't, but Clinton does win over states that they do not.  

Anything Can Happen: My Analysis For How The Democratic Nomination Process May Play Out

With the pivotal Iowa caucuses just 11 days away, one thing is clear: anything, and I do mean anything, could happen.  So here are a few possible scenarios that could shape the outcome of this Democratic nomination process.

One scenario is that Hillary Clinton wins the Iowa caucus.  If she does that, then I would bet everything I have that she will be the nominee.  Iowa is Hillary's big hurdle and the biggest obstacle in her inevitability at becoming the nominee.  Hillary started out this year behind Edwards in Iowa, but by mid-July she began topping the Iowa polls.  She maintained her lead, although not a huge one, until November, when Barack Obama began pulling ahead.  Now, just a little over a week to go, Clinton is creeping up on Obama's lead.  In fact, Real Clear Politics has averaged the last 6 polls from Iowa, and the result is a literal tie between Clinton and Obama.

But just because Edwards isn't tied for the coveted first place spot in Iowa polls, he is, as Newsweek put it, the wild card in this caucus.  The reason for this is that Edwards has the most support among traditional caucus goers and hence his support is the most solid of the top 3.  Edwards is also the leading choice among caucus-goers when asked who their second choice is.  If I had to pick right now who had the best shot at winning Iowa, I would have to say Edwards.  Clinton has strong support, as does Obama, but both are counting a great deal on first time caucus goers, especially Obama.  

I'll go out on a limb here and say that Obama may actually perform the worst out of the top 3 in Iowa.  Why?  As I mentioned in a previous article (available here), Obama's support comes mainly from younger voters, the group that is historically the least likely to actually show up on caucus night.  Obama might have the momentum in Iowa right now, but the question that we'll have to wait to have answered is whether his supporters actually get out and take part in the grueling caucus process.  In short: Obama may be 2008's Howard Dean.

Going back to Edwards, the sad thing about him is that he could win Iowa by a large margin and still lose every other primary/caucus.  Unlike Clinton and Obama, Edwards is lacking in the financial resources to take his campaign through Super Tuesday.  Indeed, an Edwards' win in Iowa could all but guarantee that Clinton will be the nominee.  

So while this race is as unpredictable as ever, I will say with rather certainty that if Clinton finishes ahead of Obama in Iowa, then she will be the nominee.  On the other hand, if Obama finishes better than Clinton in Iowa, he will most likely be the nominee.  Sadly for him, Edwards has no real shot at being the nominee, although he has an excellent shot at winning Iowa.  

John Edwards----My Take

Sen. John Edwards used to be considered a frontrunner in the crowded race for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Well now that frontrunner status of Edwards has faded to a point where, at best, Edwards is in the upper second-tier of candidates. There are several reasons to blame for his political demise, all of which were brought upon by John Edwards himself.

The John Edwards of 2004 was a cheerful, hopeful, friendly, semi-populist candidate. His message was one that resonated with many Americans. So when John Edwards entered the 2008 race, he was immediately one of my favorites. But as the campaign dragged on, Edwards underwent a noticeable transformation. He went from the cheerful candidate of '04, who always had a smile on his face and appeared to be the nicest person in the world, to a harsh, angry populist. Now, don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with the populist message, and in fact I agree with much of it, but any candidate who appears angry is an immediate turn-off.

And while Edwards was getting angrier and angrier, he was simultaneously moving further and further to the left of his opponents. The mainstream appeal that Edwards had in '04 was quickly eroding. I would find myself watching clips of Edwards' speeches or reading transcripts and thinking to myself, "what exactly is this man thinking?" He began saying the most radical things and, at times, sounded certifiably insane. I suppose Edwards moved radically to the left to pick up the support of the far left wing of the Democratic Party, but if anything, his leftward journey backfired. As Edwards was pulled to the left, his poll numbers, both in Iowa and nationally, dropped. He may have picked up the votes of the more radical liberals, but he alienated mainstream Democrats and Independents, including myself. Edwards had always been my second choice after Sen. Clinton, but I was and still am baffled by his dramatic shift to the left. I consider myself a 100% liberal Democrat, but not a radical left wing Democrat. I'll also point out that the further a candidate moves away from mainstream America's ideals, the harder it is for him to win a general election. And to anyone who disagrees with that point, how exactly would you explain the fact that Sen. Clinton, and to a lesser extent Obama, run better against top GOP candidates than Edwards? The more centrist positions of Edwards in '04 led me to become a supporter of his, but this time around he has completely turned me off on the idea of voting for him.

The final straw for Edwards came in September when he was (despite what he would want you to believe) forced into taking public financing for his campaign due to his dismal fundraising. The fact is that by doing this, Edwards appeared desperate and needy. Voters want someone who is strong and has the ability to out raise the Republican opposition. For those that know and follow politics, they know that by taking matching funds, Edwards severally handicapped himself if he was to somehow win the nomination. From the start of the primary season to the DNC in August, Edwards would essentially be broke, and hence unable to respond to the sure firestorm of attacks by the Republicans. The last thing Democrats need is a candidate who is unable to put up a fight against the GOP for nearly 6 months. Its hard to make-up for 6 months of constant onslaught and attacks in just 2 and half months. Democrats would fare much better with a candidate who can respond to Republican attacks and put up their own ads to gain crucial momentum and support heading into November 2008.

And now, just under 6 weeks from the Iowa caucus, John Edwards is trying to fight his way back up to the top. The problem for him is that many Democrats, such as myself, have completely tuned Edwards out. His constant negativity and growing unelectablity have put him out of the running for the Democratic nomination. It is no longer Clinton vs. Edwards vs. Obama, but rather its just Clinton vs. Obama with Edwards being the pesky little fly that just won't go away but has no shot at stopping the big dogs.

11/15 Debate: Hillary "Turns up the Heat"

I just finished watching tonight's Democratic Presidential Debate on CNN and I must say I was very impressed with Sen. Clinton. I commented after the last debate in Philly that there was no clear winner. Well tonight, there was definitely a clear winner. Like her or not, Sen. Hillary Clinton won the debate hands down.

What is interesting to note is that most of the sparks in the debate took place in the first 15 minutes or so. Right from the start, Obama and Edwards went after Clinton, but unlike previous debates, Clinton responded. Clinton's forceful responses were spot on and she super-effectively made the case that she is the most qualified candidate to be President. I also find it interesting that after Clinton responded to her attackers, both Edwards and Obama left her alone for the remainder of the debate; she essentially shut them up.

Clinton's best response came when she was asked about playing "the gender card". Clinton correctly responded by saying that her opponents were not ganging up on her because she was is a woman, but rather because she is ahead. Another fact that will play to Clinton's favor is that she answered every question directly. No one can accuse her of parsing her answers or trying to get around the question. If anything, Obama had problems answering the questions directly; he himself got tripped up on the immigration question that Hillary messed up on in the last debate.

In the past few weeks, Obama has really grown as a candidate. He got a huge boost coming out of the last debate, but he completely failed to capitalize on that momentum tonight. Obama completely lost tonight. He indeed had one of his worst debate performances.

It would not surprise me if Hillary regains her strength and Obama loses his. Tonight was a complete win for the Clinton campaign and really a huge loss for everyone else involved. You could tell this by the crowd reaction. At the start of the debate, the audience was evenly split between Hillary, Edwards, and Obama. By the end of the night, the crowd loudly booed anything Obama or Edwards said negatively about Clinton. Clinton had managed to win over about 90% of the Las Vegas audience by the end of the night. And possibly the most important thing of all, Clinton looked the most presidential and she succeeded in presenting herself as the strongest, toughest, and most experienced candidate in the race.

As many of you know, I typically rank the candidates in the order in which I think they scored, but tonight there is simply no need for that. Sen. Clinton is the solid #1 winner. There is no reason to rank anyone else, because frankly, Clinton was in a totally different league then everyone else tonight.

With that being said, if you saw the debate and have any thoughts, please share them. I want to know what you think.

The Truth about Sen. Clinton and Her Iran Vote

Barack Obama and John Edwards have jumped on Hillary Clinton for voting for the Kyl-Lieberman non-binding resolution. That resolution declares the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. What is important to understand is the fact that no where in this resolution was there talk of military action. This was a purely diplomatic bill that put economic sanctions on Iran in an attempt to slow their development of nuclear weapons and the development of weapons that are used against our troops in Iraq. As Sen. Durbin, a prominent Democrat, said:

"Nothing in this Act should be construed as giving the president the authority to use military force against Iran...(The resolution was) To say we need to pressure the Iranians to change their course in the Middle East and I want to do it by nonmilitary means, that's what my vote was all about.''

And now all of sudden we have Barack Obama attacking Hillary for "giving the President the authority for war". I have no problem with Sen. Obama pointing out differences between him and Clinton, but there is no need to present the public with misleading information. If Obama felt so passionately that the resolution was wrong, he should have voted against it. Insead of being in the Senate to vote, however, Obama was "too busy" campaigning. Senators were informed well before that day when the vote on the resolution would take place. Obama has no excuse for not being there. It is a fact that Obama, although he has been in the Senate just a little over 3 years (far less than any other candidate), has missed far more time from the Senate than any other Presidential candidate. The candidate who has missed the least is indeed Sen. Clinton. While I completely understand the importance of campaigning, it is not a valid argument to say that campaigning is more important than voting on issues that are deeply important for the American people. If anyone has shown leadership by standing up for the American people, it has been Sen. Clinton; certainly not Obama.

Another thing that is important to note is that although Obama has been outspoken on not giving Bush the authority to go to war, he did not bother to sign a letter to the President that 30 other Democrats signed. This letter clearly states that the President does not have authority to go to war. So, if Obama is against going to war, why didn't he sign the letter? Also, why didn't he co-sponsor Jim Webb's bill that would require Congressional approval for war with another country? In case you're wondering who did co-sponsor it----it was Hillary Clinton.

It also might help if Obama and Edwards went and looked at Clinton's past speeches on the Senate floor. Back in February, Sen. Clinton was the 1st Senator to say that the Bush administration had no authority to go to war with Iran. You read right guys, she was the first Senator. So all this talk is baseless about it being Sen. Clinton who is "saber-rattling" war. Sen. Clinton, perhaps more than anyone, has been an outspoken advocate for not going to war with Iran. Sen. Clinton does, however, realize that it is important to put sanctions on Iran as part of diplomacy. It was sanctions that gave diplomacy the backbone to work with North Korea; Sen. Clinton is right in wanting to try to get sanctions to work with Iran as well.

My point is this: enough is enough. Obama and Edwards are trying to distort that facts and, may I suggest, trying to make up for their own lack of leadership on this very important issue. Hillary Clinton is ahead in the polls; she will likely be the nominee. And because of that, Obama and Edwards feel a need to go on the attack. I know and respect the fact that Obama and Edwards want to be President and need to take Clinton down to do so, but what I do not respect is lying to the American public on such a critical matter as Iran.

10/30 Democratic Debate Review-----Hillary Thrown Under the Bus

Wow, what an interesting debate last night. If anyone watched the debate, you know exactly what single issue the entire 2 hour debate was about----Sen. Hillary Clinton. I know I talked about Barack Obama coming out and highlighting the differences between him and Clinton, and he did indeed do that...and more. I'll start with that issue first.

From the first question of the night, Obama "laid the smackdown" on Hillary Clinton. And for the most part, for his campaign, his policy attack's on Clinton were effective. I might not agree with Obama at all on policy issues, but I'm glad he at least laid the differences out on the table. The only problem I had with Obama's, and for that matter Edwards', performance was that they began to personally go after Clinton. At times, both men basically called Clinton a liar to her face and, in my opinion, there is no need for that. As Bill Richardson said, Hillary is no doubt a trustworthy, honest candidate. Richardson went on to say that although he disagrees with Clinton on many levels, he trusts her and he knows she is honest and would never question that. Quite frankly these personal attacks by Obama and Edwards are sickening to me. They started to act like Republicans by attacking Hillary on a personal level. And I'm not just saying that because I support Sen. Clinton. I feel all attacks on a candidate's integrity, honesty, and truthfulness are wrong except when an issue is explicitly obvious. There is no evidence what so ever to back up Obama and Edwards' claim that Clinton is a phony and a liar. She has stayed true to herself for years. But, none the less, Obama and Edwards still did themselves good by going after Clinton----I just wish they had done it in a more respectful way. We should leave nasty personal attacks to the GOP. I don't want our party to become corrupted with constant, unwarranted personal attacks.

Sen. Clinton too had a good night. I will say, because of her being taken on by Obama and Edwards, she was not the clear winner of the debate as she was of past ones. I must say that I, as many, was surprised and confused by Clinton's answer on immigration. I don't think she was double talking, as Edwards' claimed, but I'm not sure what her point was. Other than that moment, Clinton held her own. It can't be easy taking a constant barrage of attacks for 2 hours straight. Despite the attacks, Clinton stayed strong and presidential. I think Obama and Edwards were trying to "draw blood" and fluster Clinton. But they didn't succeed. Just as well as Obama and Edwards dished it out against Clinton, Clinton convincingly defended her positions. It was ironically Chris Dodd, who is one of the tiniest threats to Clinton, who appeared to have flustered Clinton. If Obama or Edwards were able to do that, I may have been able to declare one of them the winner. I also must note that Clinton still appears the most electable in these debates regarding the general election. I talked to some moderate Republicans today who watched the debate and came away saying, "She's actually not that bad." Her tough, yet diplomatic, stance on foreign policy is possibly her biggest asset in winning in 2008.

As far as the other candidates go, there is not much to say. Joe Biden certainly had the best line of the night when he talked about every sentence from Rudy Giuliani going, "noun, verb, 9/11." Biden has been consistently good in these debates and last night was no exception. Dodd and Richardson were kind of "just there". Kucinich definitely gave me a good laugh when he admitted to seeing a UFO. Other than that, there was nothing that special about the "2nd and 3rd tier" candidates.

I'll close by saying that there truly was no clear winner. Obama and Edwards can be seen as winners for finally making clear distinctions between them and Clinton. Clinton can be seen as the winner for so effectively rebutting those attacks. At the same time, Obama and Edwards can be seen as losers for stooping to the Republican's low of cheap, baseless, personal attacks. Clinton could be seen as a loser for not clearly articulating her position on the immigration issue. I will also say that I was disappointed in the moderating. I knew from the last debate that Russert wasn't going to be any good, but I expected better from Brian Williams. Well, thats my rap-up. I am excited to see how Obama and Edwards will capitalize after a good showing last night and if Clinton sees a dip in the poll numbers after the attacks against her.

I look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts on the debate, please comment below.

The Politics of Meet the Press (a special editorial by John Lucia)

Tim Russert, who moderated the Democratic Debate at Dartmouth, New Hampshire a week or so ago, had John Edwards as his guest on Meet the Press today. He asked Mr. Edwards once again the same question he asked him at the debates about all troops being out of Iraq by 2013.

Mr. Edwards gave his reply again. Evidently Mr. Russert has a problem understanding an answer. It has become a habit of Russert to ask questions of non events. He then asked Mr. Edward a question concerning a remark his wife made and put the remark up on the screen. Mr. Edwards then had to tell Russert his question was different than what he put up on the screen.

It has become evident that Russert has let his Republican leanings show when interviewing his guests. He often promotes the self serving statements of the Republican party. Now, it is the Republican hype that Senator Clinton can't win in the general election and he interjected some of those comments to John Edwards. Instead of focusing on what John Edwards would do if elected president, he talks about Senator Clinton. Tim Russert has a way of bringing discredit upon his profession. The previous moderators of Meet the Press must be holding their breath. Journalists need to start talking about the future when interviewing candidates, that is what the election is all about.

This is it....the final quarter---my early predictions for the nominees

I think it just hit me today, this is the last day of the 3rd quarter for 2007. That means that we are essentially a little over 3 months away from the Iowa Caucus...and then New Hampshire....and South Carolina....and so on. This is the time when people really start paying attention and when candidates really get serious. Now, unlike the summer, there is absolutely no room for mistakes or slip-ups. With only a few more months to go, let me give you my predictions for what will happen in the January caucuses and primaries and the rest of the nomination process.

I'll start with the Democrats. Iowa will be the true battle-ground state, as Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are virtually tied in polls and have been for quite some time. If Clinton can win here, it's all over. She has a 20 point lead in New Hampshire and its growing. She is also polling ahead in South Carolina and Florida. Even if Edwards was to win Iowa, I don't believe he could get the nomination. He wouldn't have enough money to compete with Hillary in New Hampshire and the other states. On the other hand, if Obama wins Iowa, Hillary would face some serious problems. He is the only candidate who could match her money-wise and he could essentially use the momentum from Iowa to catapult himself through New Hampshire and so on. So my recommendation for Hillary is to do everything humanly possible to win Iowa, or at least make sure Obama doesn't win. An Obama win wouldn't necessarily end her chances, but he would make her fight for the nomination, and I'm sure thats something the Hillary campaign wouldn't like. So my prediction for the democratic nomination right now is Hillary, but as Obama continues to gain in Iowa, he might be able to make me change my prediction.

Now onto the Republican candidates. First of all I will start by saying that the Fred Thompson excitement is gone. I will guarantee that Fred will not be the nominee. I'll also confidently say that I don't think John McCain will be the nominee either. It boils down to Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani. Romney looks like a sure thing when it comes to winning the Iowa caucus. He is polling ahead in New Hampshire, but his lead there has shrunk dramatically and Rudy is gaining. If Romney can win both Iowa and New Hampshire then I see him being the nominee. However, if Rudy can win New Hampshire, or at least keep Romney from winning, then the race is wide open. Guiliani is stronger than Romney in South Carolina and Florida. They only way Romney could win those states would be to use the momentum from two huge wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, much like John Kerry in '04. So for my pick for the GOP, I'm going to go with Guiliani, but don't, by any means, count Romney out of this race. He could still very much win the GOP nomination.

And for my prediction for the general----I see a Democrat winning and I think Hillary has the best chance of any Democrat to do so. If Romney is the GOP nominee I see him being easily defeated in a general election. Guiliani would be a much stronger candidate and could potentially lead to a GOP upset in '08, although I am very skeptical it will happen.

9/26 Democratic Debate Analysis

Yesterday, the eight Democrats running for their party's nomination for President met in New Hampshire to debate. Some had a good night, others, not so good.

Senator Hillary Clinton entered the front-runner and left the front-runner, and when you're running this far ahead in polls, thats a good place for Hillary to be. She was pressed hard on many issues, and quite frankly, I'm surprised at how well she handled them. Edwards grilled her on several issues, including her vote on the Iraq War and her healthcare plan. Gravel said that he was disgraced at her vote earlier in the day on Iran. Notably absent from the seeming slaughter of Clinton was the man who needed to do it the most, Barack Obama (but more on him in a little bit). The best moment of the night for Hillary came when moderator Tim Russert asked her whether or not she would condone torture, and Hillary forcefully said absolutely not. Russert then brought up the fact that Bill Clinton, Hillary's husband, had once said that he would support it. Hillary responded with, "Well he's not standing up here right now is he?" With that one line, Hillary did what she needed to do this entire campaign: make the point that her last name might be Clinton, but her first name is not Bill. She is not Bill Clinton, she is Hillary Clinton.

Barack Obama could have ruined months of hard work he and his campaign put in to New Hampshire. His performance was absolutely horrendous. His campaign claim that Obama was ill, but that is no excuse. The charisma that we have all grown to love from Obama was completely absent. He was cloudy with most of his answers while at other times he literally just re-worded the answers from other candidates. His failure to go after Hillary will cost him. If anyone can stop her, it's him, and he must do it soon. In fact, in might be too late. Last night was Obama's chance to make an impact and begin to break Hillary's campaign down. But I'm afraid for Obama that he may have done the opposite. He may have lost himself supporters, and those supporters might just jump to the Hillary, or even Edwards, campaign.

John Edwards was on fire last night. Other than Hillary, he was the winner. He came off strong and forceful, yet kept his southern charm. I won't be surprised if Edwards gets a little boost in the poll numbers, especially in New Hampshire, from his performance. Unlike Obama, he made his differences clear from the other candidates, and gave Americans his plan for the country.

Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Kucinich, and Gravel were all okay. None of them made any huge mistakes, but they, yet again, fail to ignite a flame under their campaign. That, with their lack of money, will keep them from winning the primaries. A few might even want to consider dropping out.

The Democratic Candidates' major flaws

There are currently eight democrats with the hope of winning the 2008 Presidential Election. All eight have some great upsides and major pluses, but they also have some key flaws. These key flaws are what divides democrat's on who their nominee should be; there is no "perfect" or ideal candidate.

1. Hillary Clinton- Hillary's major flaw is her image. A lot of people picture Clinton as a cold, stiff person. In other words her appeal and favorability is believed to be limited and democrats don't want to go into a general election with a losing candidate again.

2. Barack Obama- Obama's main issue that he will have to overcome is his experience..or lack there of. With having only spent two years in the U.S. Senate, Obama is still seen as a rookie. The fact that he has had numerous slips and mess-ups in the debates, further speculation as to whether or not Obama is ready to run a general election campaign and ultimately run this country.

3. John Edwards- Edwards has become the populist candidate. He has taken a sharp turn to the left and is appearing to be more and more liberal each day. This might have appeal to the far-left faction of the democratic party, but to moderate democrats and the American people, Edwards is seen as just a little to "out there".

4. Bill Richardson- Bill's huge issue is getting a point across. He has performed horribly in the debates and whenever he makes a speech, he fails to get his message out there. In this day and age, ability to deliver a speech is a key asset needed to reach out and appeal to people. Richardson's inability to reach out to an audience greatly hurts him as people don't get to see Richardson's views adequately expressed.

5. Joe Biden- Joe Biden is the angry candidate. When you see him in the debates, he always seems angry. While a little force in your voice can be a plus, Joe takes it a little to far. His passion comes off as anger, and instead of people listening to what Biden is actually saying, all people hear is enraged yelling.

6. Chris Dodd- Chris has the exact opposite problem that Biden has. Dodd comes off as too sub-dued. His passion for this country fails to come out in his speeches and his debate performances are forgettable.

7. Dennis Kucinich- Dennis has very little appeal to main-stream democrats. He is by far the most far-left candidate in the race. He is the democrat who would do the worst in a general election, as his message just doesn't resinate with the majority of the American people.

8. Mike Gravel- The question for this guy is, "where were you the last 30 years?" In fact my favorite interview of this campaign came when Chris Matthews asked Gravel that exact same question and Gravel responded, "under a rock!" (get it, gravel..rock) Another major issue for Gravel is his over all wackiness. Its not something you can pin-point, the man just comes off as crazy.

There you have it, what I think are the flaws of the democratic candidates. None are the perfect candidate, but then again there has never been a perfect candidate, but I feel confident that one of those people in that list will be our next president.

Be sure to check out my blog on the flaws of the GOP candidates as well.

John Edwards risks losing the New Hampshire primary

John Edwards' campaign is putting all their money on the first-in-the-nation caucus, Iowa, even at the risk of losing New Hampshire. Edwards has spent more than twice as much effort in Iowa than in New Hampshire. And it could be with good reason, for Edwards' country personality has more appeal to Iowa voters than in New Hampshire. Also the populist message, which Edwards is currently running on, is much more appealing to Iowa residents than those in New Hampshire, as New Hampshire is one of the richer states in this country.

You must give John Edwards his credit though, he is polling very well in Iowa, in fact it is the only state in which he has been able to poll well against Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. But Edwards may have to switch to a plan "B", as Clinton and Obama are rising in the polls in Iowa. In the most recent survey, Edwards leads the pack with 26%, down 8% from a few months ago. Clinton and Obama poll at 25% and 19% respectively. While we have seen candidates use a win in Iowa in the past to propel them through New Hampshire and beyond, Edwards needs to have at least some organization in New Hampshire. At the rate he is going right now, Edwards could win Iowa and still lose badly in New Hampshire. But at the same time, Edwards knows that Iowa is a must win situation for him. If he doesn't win in Iowa, he won't win anywhere else. The question for the Edwards campaign is how do they distribute their efforts. My personal suggestion would be 60% in Iowa, 40% in New Hampshire. But the bottom line is that Edwards must spend more time in New Hampshire and must get better organized there if he wants a possible Iowa win momentum to push him through. And let it be known that I called it back in August: If Edwards loses Iowa, he is out of the race; he has no chance of winning; and if Clinton wins Iowa, forget it, she's the nominee, hands down!

New study shows Clinton appealing to Democrats more and more

In research conducted by CNN, Democrats say that Hillary Clinton is the most experienced with 59%, followed by John Edwards at 11%, and Barack Obama with 9%. When asked who the strongest leader was, Democrats again chose Clinton with 47%, with her rivals Obama and Edwards, scoring 22% and 13% respectively. Clinton also polled ahead, with 46%, when Democrats were asked who is most qualified to be commander-in-chief. Obama followed with 15% and Edwards with 13%. When Democrats were asked who is the candidate for change, 40% said Clinton, 27% said Obama, and Edwards came in third with 13%. When asked who is the most honest candidate, Clinton came out again the winner with 28%, followed closely by Obama at 24%, and Edwards with 19%. When asked who is the best choice to defeat a Republican and lead the Democrats to a victory in '08, Clinton won by a landslide 55%, way ahead of the 19% for Obama and the 12% Edwards received. She also scored the highest when democrats were asked whether Clinton could beat the GOP, 72% say she definitely can, while only 57% feel the same about Obama.

Clinton is indeed in a very good place right now. With her support on a consistent rise, it may only be a short time before some of the other contenders must drop out of the race. The most interesting finding of the poll is that democrats feel Hillary is the candidate of change over Obama, who has been running as the change candidate. Obama has spent so much time casting himself as the candidate of change, one would have to have expected Obama would win that category. The fact that he didn't demonstrates something I've touched on before: you have to be change itself, not just talk about change. Actions speak louder than words, and at this point, it seems Obama's rhetoric can only take him so far.