Thursday, February 28, 2008
Take a Giant Step Back
Americans, especially those blathering into right-wing AM radio microphones, like to goof on the 'wacky' aspects of Islam. Culturally crazy things to most Americans like polygamy (sorry Mitt!), wacky dietary and worship practices (sorry AIPAC), and that whole '100 virigins in paradise' trope that comes after the average Hussein (sorry Barack) detonates his explosive vest.
But in an apparent confluence of both wackiness and virginity we've now been let in on our own home grown Christian wacky fad: Re-virgining. Geez, and some people thought virgin birth took alot of faith!
Of course, I have much sympathy for people who lost their virginity under questionable or circumstances against their will. But as reading this story it comes across mostly as one big 'Bible Belt do-over'. Sure many people wish their pasts were different, especially where sex is concerned. But is 'believing that it didn't happen' really better? People can change, people can have new and better lives. But does it require 're-virginization'? Even to the point of hymen replacement surgery?
Americans, especially those blathering into right-wing AM radio microphones, like to goof on the 'wacky' aspects of Islam. Culturally crazy things to most Americans like polygamy (sorry Mitt!), wacky dietary and worship practices (sorry AIPAC), and that whole '100 virigins in paradise' trope that comes after the average Hussein (sorry Barack) detonates his explosive vest.
But in an apparent confluence of both wackiness and virginity we've now been let in on our own home grown Christian wacky fad: Re-virgining. Geez, and some people thought virgin birth took alot of faith!
Of course, I have much sympathy for people who lost their virginity under questionable or circumstances against their will. But as reading this story it comes across mostly as one big 'Bible Belt do-over'. Sure many people wish their pasts were different, especially where sex is concerned. But is 'believing that it didn't happen' really better? People can change, people can have new and better lives. But does it require 're-virginization'? Even to the point of hymen replacement surgery?
Allah, Allah, Oxen free
Even at this early stage the McCain attack strategy against Obama is clear. Sure, publicly go after his record or lack thereof, but always keep in the back of the mind, in the mailers that go to the republican masses, in the slimy comments of low-level hacks that are quickly repudiated by the candidate and his officials, the whole islam black terrorist islam, his name is 'Hussein', islam, black connection. Oh, and he's anti-semitic, too.
But of course the campaign will never say those things. Just let them out there, fully repudiated mind you, to fester like a deep, irritating splinter in the body politic for a few months.
Even at this early stage the McCain attack strategy against Obama is clear. Sure, publicly go after his record or lack thereof, but always keep in the back of the mind, in the mailers that go to the republican masses, in the slimy comments of low-level hacks that are quickly repudiated by the candidate and his officials, the whole islam black terrorist islam, his name is 'Hussein', islam, black connection. Oh, and he's anti-semitic, too.
But of course the campaign will never say those things. Just let them out there, fully repudiated mind you, to fester like a deep, irritating splinter in the body politic for a few months.
Surge Update
Quick follow-up to our surge discussion earlier. McClatchey notes that a key bit of legislation touted by McCain and TeamBush as key evidence of Iraq's new direction was, ahem, vetoed by the presidential panel of Iraq. , You know, our lackeys, I mean allies. As the article noted, "The rejected bill, which sets out the political structure for Iraq's provincial governments and establishes a basis for elections in October, was only the second of 18 U.S.-set political benchmarks that the war-tore nation needs to reach."
And lest we forget, 'victory' by original surge standards, was to create (in this now-closing window of time) political space for the Iraqis to agree on these points. Well, I guess we got the oil one, who cares about the others? Ahh. . . I love the smell of napalm in the morning.
Quick follow-up to our surge discussion earlier. McClatchey notes that a key bit of legislation touted by McCain and TeamBush as key evidence of Iraq's new direction was, ahem, vetoed by the presidential panel of Iraq. , You know, our lackeys, I mean allies. As the article noted, "The rejected bill, which sets out the political structure for Iraq's provincial governments and establishes a basis for elections in October, was only the second of 18 U.S.-set political benchmarks that the war-tore nation needs to reach."
And lest we forget, 'victory' by original surge standards, was to create (in this now-closing window of time) political space for the Iraqis to agree on these points. Well, I guess we got the oil one, who cares about the others? Ahh. . . I love the smell of napalm in the morning.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Iraq is Back: The Surge Debate Renewed
Iraq is back on the official news cycle radar screen. Which makes a certain sense if you're GOP leaning since its really the only thing McCain is running on. And he's gone national last week, his remarks at campaign stops clearly now directed at Clinton and Obama, increasingly mostly the latter. The Washington Times (cough! cough! Moonie owned!) passed on this journalistic nugget today about the military having "trepidations" about Obama as Commander-in-Chief. OK, well it turns out they were speaking to retired military guys, and one of them was actually endorsing Obama. But they did find a retired USAF General who said that he knew "many" other retired brass who "(w)ere very concerned about his apparent lack of understanding on the threat of radical Islam to the United States. " BTW, he also happens to be a pro-Iraq War commentator and analyst for Fox News. Still, it shows one attack that the GOP are floating as trial balloons at the start of the campaign that we'll likely continue to see in coming months.
Another Iraq story that has resurfaced in the last week is the one where Democratic candidates are blind to the successes in Iraq. This piece by Mark Bowden in the Inky is typical of the genre. There's alot more to say about this topic than the Times hack piece above, but the slant still leans to McCain. I think Democrats do mostly keep the message to 'pulling out the troops' and not acknowledging the GOP version of current affairs in Iraq, but contrary to Bowden's view, they are changing the message in subtle yet crucial ways. Sure, they're both still trying to win election by a Dem base that is universally against the war, but each of their positions have been carefully vetted to hedge the bets. All the "I'll pull the troops out in 60 days of becoming President" sound bites have significant caveats such as depending on the situation in Iraq on the ground; based on military, diplomatic, or civillian contractor safety; or any perceived international or terror group threat. Those are alot of potential changes that could slow the pullout of US troops, and all of them hinge on conditions in Iraq.
Contrary to that however, AM talk radio has been full of the typical language of 'surrender' positions (e.g. femmy, pinko, wimp) of Dems and the 'victory' position (e.g. manly, gunslinger, courageous) of McCain and Company who support the surge. And by all statistical metrics the surge does seem to have worked. Deaths of troops, security folks and Iraqi civillians are down. But how much of that is actually US doing? And how long will this last? These are questions that even McCain acknowledges can make or break his run.
The fact is the successes of the surge will not lead to the 'Victory' the dittoheads envision. Regardless of when we finally leave Iraq, I can guarantee they'll be no surrender ceremonies, ticker-tape troop parades down Broadway, nor any chants of "USA! USA! USA!" Yes, things are better than they were at the moment, but it can be argued that little of that is due to our specific policies. Successful ethnic cleansing attacks and temporary arrangements between well-armed conflicting sects have created a lull. And indeed our current military leaders don't think that all of this progress is sustainable or inevitable. Sadr just called another Mahdi Army truce, which for him is wise since doing so keeps US pressure off of him, and he's already succeeded in marginalizing Sunni Baghdadis to de-populated ghettos and getting his minions established in power positions. Also from Slate.com, Mike Kinsley argues that the surge is in fact not working, rather that the US has so lowered its expectations for success to make it so.
Still, for McCain, Obama, and Clinton, none of the rhetoric of 'supporting the surge' may mean much very soon anyway. . . because its over.
Troops are being rotated home and there are no combat brigades replacing them. . . mainly because THERE ARE NONE available to do so. The surge was our last gasp. The Army and Marines are officially out of people to send to Iraq. With our other world commitments, rotation times that have already been increased to the breaking point, a fleeing junior officer corps, and increasingly-lame standards regarding violent criminals and lower IQ recruits, we simply can't maintain the numbers. So before November there will be 100-130,000 troops in Iraq. These are pre-surge or lower figures. With so much still in flux there are any number of outcomes that our president will not have a whole lot of say in determining. Stump speeches may win elections, but they don't really solve intractable world problems.
But I do agree with Mark Bowden about one thing: the candidates' messages should change. I'd be willing to accept something even resembling the truth. But that would mean it would have to sound something like this:
"The last administration misled our nation into a costly and unnecesessary war that distracted our attention from real problems both at home and abroad. The Iraq war planners displayed a combination of ignorance, hubris, and flawed ideological and tactical orthodoxy that has cost numerous lives and diminished our nation's image and trustworthiness for decades to come. Nevertheless, I must admit that we have a responsibilty to the country that we destabilized. As Colin Powell was reputed to have said of Iraq to GW Bush on the eve of the invasion, "its the Pottery Barn rule: If you break it, you bought it." Until Iraq is a reasonably stable nation we must continue to garrison troops there, knowing that they will be in harm's way and some will not come home. This is the course that the Bush administration and its pro-war supporters have navigated for us, and one we must sadly continue to chart as we attempt to undo the damage that has been done to us, and in our names, for the past eight years."
Iraq is back on the official news cycle radar screen. Which makes a certain sense if you're GOP leaning since its really the only thing McCain is running on. And he's gone national last week, his remarks at campaign stops clearly now directed at Clinton and Obama, increasingly mostly the latter. The Washington Times (cough! cough! Moonie owned!) passed on this journalistic nugget today about the military having "trepidations" about Obama as Commander-in-Chief. OK, well it turns out they were speaking to retired military guys, and one of them was actually endorsing Obama. But they did find a retired USAF General who said that he knew "many" other retired brass who "(w)ere very concerned about his apparent lack of understanding on the threat of radical Islam to the United States. " BTW, he also happens to be a pro-Iraq War commentator and analyst for Fox News. Still, it shows one attack that the GOP are floating as trial balloons at the start of the campaign that we'll likely continue to see in coming months.
Another Iraq story that has resurfaced in the last week is the one where Democratic candidates are blind to the successes in Iraq. This piece by Mark Bowden in the Inky is typical of the genre. There's alot more to say about this topic than the Times hack piece above, but the slant still leans to McCain. I think Democrats do mostly keep the message to 'pulling out the troops' and not acknowledging the GOP version of current affairs in Iraq, but contrary to Bowden's view, they are changing the message in subtle yet crucial ways. Sure, they're both still trying to win election by a Dem base that is universally against the war, but each of their positions have been carefully vetted to hedge the bets. All the "I'll pull the troops out in 60 days of becoming President" sound bites have significant caveats such as depending on the situation in Iraq on the ground; based on military, diplomatic, or civillian contractor safety; or any perceived international or terror group threat. Those are alot of potential changes that could slow the pullout of US troops, and all of them hinge on conditions in Iraq.
Contrary to that however, AM talk radio has been full of the typical language of 'surrender' positions (e.g. femmy, pinko, wimp) of Dems and the 'victory' position (e.g. manly, gunslinger, courageous) of McCain and Company who support the surge. And by all statistical metrics the surge does seem to have worked. Deaths of troops, security folks and Iraqi civillians are down. But how much of that is actually US doing? And how long will this last? These are questions that even McCain acknowledges can make or break his run.
The fact is the successes of the surge will not lead to the 'Victory' the dittoheads envision. Regardless of when we finally leave Iraq, I can guarantee they'll be no surrender ceremonies, ticker-tape troop parades down Broadway, nor any chants of "USA! USA! USA!" Yes, things are better than they were at the moment, but it can be argued that little of that is due to our specific policies. Successful ethnic cleansing attacks and temporary arrangements between well-armed conflicting sects have created a lull. And indeed our current military leaders don't think that all of this progress is sustainable or inevitable. Sadr just called another Mahdi Army truce, which for him is wise since doing so keeps US pressure off of him, and he's already succeeded in marginalizing Sunni Baghdadis to de-populated ghettos and getting his minions established in power positions. Also from Slate.com, Mike Kinsley argues that the surge is in fact not working, rather that the US has so lowered its expectations for success to make it so.
Still, for McCain, Obama, and Clinton, none of the rhetoric of 'supporting the surge' may mean much very soon anyway. . . because its over.
Troops are being rotated home and there are no combat brigades replacing them. . . mainly because THERE ARE NONE available to do so. The surge was our last gasp. The Army and Marines are officially out of people to send to Iraq. With our other world commitments, rotation times that have already been increased to the breaking point, a fleeing junior officer corps, and increasingly-lame standards regarding violent criminals and lower IQ recruits, we simply can't maintain the numbers. So before November there will be 100-130,000 troops in Iraq. These are pre-surge or lower figures. With so much still in flux there are any number of outcomes that our president will not have a whole lot of say in determining. Stump speeches may win elections, but they don't really solve intractable world problems.
But I do agree with Mark Bowden about one thing: the candidates' messages should change. I'd be willing to accept something even resembling the truth. But that would mean it would have to sound something like this:
"The last administration misled our nation into a costly and unnecesessary war that distracted our attention from real problems both at home and abroad. The Iraq war planners displayed a combination of ignorance, hubris, and flawed ideological and tactical orthodoxy that has cost numerous lives and diminished our nation's image and trustworthiness for decades to come. Nevertheless, I must admit that we have a responsibilty to the country that we destabilized. As Colin Powell was reputed to have said of Iraq to GW Bush on the eve of the invasion, "its the Pottery Barn rule: If you break it, you bought it." Until Iraq is a reasonably stable nation we must continue to garrison troops there, knowing that they will be in harm's way and some will not come home. This is the course that the Bush administration and its pro-war supporters have navigated for us, and one we must sadly continue to chart as we attempt to undo the damage that has been done to us, and in our names, for the past eight years."
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Shifting Political Winds of Change
Elections, resignations, and allegations are playing a big role in reshaping, or potentially reshaping the world this week. Let's take a brief look at whats been going down.
Adios Fidel!
After holding power since 1959, longest lasting pol in existence, Fidel Castro has resigned from his position as Generalissimo Numero Uno in Cuba. He's been replaced by his brother Raul. Don't expect much change. Raul has been slightly opening up some things since he took over de facto leadership of the country over a year ago, but he's in no mood to give up power that easily. The next period politically will probably see some realignment of the junior members of the party that were in limbo while Fidel's status was in question. Most likely expect more economic and market liberalization and the same old, same old when it comes to human rights and participation in government. And why not? As Robert Sheer points out, "Mao Tse-tung is still honored in communist China, the fastest-growing capitalist power in the world, and former KGB agent Vladimir Putin is, at least for now, a very popular elected Russian leader."
Plus when you factor in the irrational US embargo of Cuba over the years, which has oddly had the effect of making Cuba more self-reliant than almost any nation on the planet, you realize that any further development there will be coming from Canadian, European, and Chinese investment. It'll be fun to watch how long US big business will let the fanatical voting bloc of anti-Castro Cubans in swing state Florida continue to force, or in the case of TeamBush even strengthen, the GOP to toe the embargo line. They want a chance at that pie real bad.
Pushed out Pervez
Now that he lost a disasterous election, will (former general) Musharraf get pushed out of the political scene in Pakistan? You know, 'nuclear-armed' Pakistan. It clearly didn't help that he was Our man in Havana, um sorry Fidel, Islamabad, these last few years. He became untrusted by the US for not doing enough to curb radical islamic insurgents, while being similarly reviled at home for kow-towing too much to US demands to pressure radical islamic insurgents. The dude just couldn't win for tryin'. BBC reports today a meeting of the two winning parties in the Parliamentary contest to try and form a coalition government--the question is if Musharraf's ouster will be part of the eventual deal?
There is some good news: secularists won decisively in the tribal regions made up of ethnic Pashtuns. There are signs of 'Mullah fatigue', which could really be useful not only for long-suffering Pashtuns on the Afghan border, but for a new US president who can come in with a
less 'cowboy diplomacy' attitude (e.g. not McCain). Regardless, the person to watch here is Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, former Chief Justice of Pakistan's High Court who was deposed by Musharraf and is still under house arrest. Speaking to supporters from a cell phone smuggled into his home after the elections he said, "There are occasions when a nation passes through defining moments and the Pakistani nation is passing through this defining moment now. If we lose this opportunity no one can then change the affairs of this nation ever." How funny will it be, at least by US standards, if the lawyers in a nation start a revolution?! I mean y'know, a positive one.
McCain's skeletal closet
Big John is facing his first crisis scrutiny of the election. NYT reports of a sex scandal that happened in 2000 between McCain (like his MILF wife isn't enough for the geezer pervert?) and a female lobbyist with whom he had work-related business. The better backstory is how much the current McCain staff 'went to the mattresses' (quoting Josh Marshall at TPM) to keep this at bay. . . it's been waiting to be published since December, meaning it was likely compiled even earlier, but the McCain boys forced everyone to lawyer up and hash out the story line-by-line. The result was something that looked very-well vetted. Still, the Washington Post followed up with a similar story, leaving Marshall to believe that :
Obama-nation?
With his 10th victory in a row momentum continues for Obama's campaign. There is further dissonance in Clintonland, where strategists are divided on how best to confront him in media and an upcoming crucial debate in Austin. {former Austinite comment--I've got to think that it's pretty hostile territory for Hillary; Dallas or Houston would've worked better for her, at least in terms of the sometimes-crucial audience response.} Even still, the numbers might not be there for her overall. Even if Clinton wins in both Ohio and Texas, she must do so decisively, and as go further contests, consistently. In order to end up with a voted delegate count (e.g. not the now-vilified Superdelegates), she must by the last primaries be pulling something on the order of 60-70% of the vote to nullify Obama's advantage. Other than that she is left with legal-yet-scuzzy convention manuvering that will, according to a number of pundits and casual observers, decimate the democratic party and destory its chances of capturing the White House in November. Even all but the most ardent Hillary supporter doesn't want to see that scenario in play come the general election. Prediction: Hillary's done, even though the chefs in charge of her campaign want to keep her in the oven a while longer to see what happens. Come March 5th I expect her built-in-timer to visibly pop.
Elections, resignations, and allegations are playing a big role in reshaping, or potentially reshaping the world this week. Let's take a brief look at whats been going down.
Adios Fidel!
After holding power since 1959, longest lasting pol in existence, Fidel Castro has resigned from his position as Generalissimo Numero Uno in Cuba. He's been replaced by his brother Raul. Don't expect much change. Raul has been slightly opening up some things since he took over de facto leadership of the country over a year ago, but he's in no mood to give up power that easily. The next period politically will probably see some realignment of the junior members of the party that were in limbo while Fidel's status was in question. Most likely expect more economic and market liberalization and the same old, same old when it comes to human rights and participation in government. And why not? As Robert Sheer points out, "Mao Tse-tung is still honored in communist China, the fastest-growing capitalist power in the world, and former KGB agent Vladimir Putin is, at least for now, a very popular elected Russian leader."
Plus when you factor in the irrational US embargo of Cuba over the years, which has oddly had the effect of making Cuba more self-reliant than almost any nation on the planet, you realize that any further development there will be coming from Canadian, European, and Chinese investment. It'll be fun to watch how long US big business will let the fanatical voting bloc of anti-Castro Cubans in swing state Florida continue to force, or in the case of TeamBush even strengthen, the GOP to toe the embargo line. They want a chance at that pie real bad.
Pushed out Pervez
Now that he lost a disasterous election, will (former general) Musharraf get pushed out of the political scene in Pakistan? You know, 'nuclear-armed' Pakistan. It clearly didn't help that he was Our man in Havana, um sorry Fidel, Islamabad, these last few years. He became untrusted by the US for not doing enough to curb radical islamic insurgents, while being similarly reviled at home for kow-towing too much to US demands to pressure radical islamic insurgents. The dude just couldn't win for tryin'. BBC reports today a meeting of the two winning parties in the Parliamentary contest to try and form a coalition government--the question is if Musharraf's ouster will be part of the eventual deal?
There is some good news: secularists won decisively in the tribal regions made up of ethnic Pashtuns. There are signs of 'Mullah fatigue', which could really be useful not only for long-suffering Pashtuns on the Afghan border, but for a new US president who can come in with a
less 'cowboy diplomacy' attitude (e.g. not McCain). Regardless, the person to watch here is Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, former Chief Justice of Pakistan's High Court who was deposed by Musharraf and is still under house arrest. Speaking to supporters from a cell phone smuggled into his home after the elections he said, "There are occasions when a nation passes through defining moments and the Pakistani nation is passing through this defining moment now. If we lose this opportunity no one can then change the affairs of this nation ever." How funny will it be, at least by US standards, if the lawyers in a nation start a revolution?! I mean y'know, a positive one.
McCain's skeletal closet
Big John is facing his first crisis scrutiny of the election. NYT reports of a sex scandal that happened in 2000 between McCain (like his MILF wife isn't enough for the geezer pervert?) and a female lobbyist with whom he had work-related business. The better backstory is how much the current McCain staff 'went to the mattresses' (quoting Josh Marshall at TPM) to keep this at bay. . . it's been waiting to be published since December, meaning it was likely compiled even earlier, but the McCain boys forced everyone to lawyer up and hash out the story line-by-line. The result was something that looked very-well vetted. Still, the Washington Post followed up with a similar story, leaving Marshall to believe that :
Reading all of this stuff I have the distinct feeling that only a few pieces of
the puzzle are now on the table. Given unspoken understandings of many years'
duration, a lot of reporters and DC types can probably imagine what the full
picture looks like. But we're going to need a few more pieces before the rest of
us can get a sense of what this is all about.
Obama-nation?
With his 10th victory in a row momentum continues for Obama's campaign. There is further dissonance in Clintonland, where strategists are divided on how best to confront him in media and an upcoming crucial debate in Austin. {former Austinite comment--I've got to think that it's pretty hostile territory for Hillary; Dallas or Houston would've worked better for her, at least in terms of the sometimes-crucial audience response.} Even still, the numbers might not be there for her overall. Even if Clinton wins in both Ohio and Texas, she must do so decisively, and as go further contests, consistently. In order to end up with a voted delegate count (e.g. not the now-vilified Superdelegates), she must by the last primaries be pulling something on the order of 60-70% of the vote to nullify Obama's advantage. Other than that she is left with legal-yet-scuzzy convention manuvering that will, according to a number of pundits and casual observers, decimate the democratic party and destory its chances of capturing the White House in November. Even all but the most ardent Hillary supporter doesn't want to see that scenario in play come the general election. Prediction: Hillary's done, even though the chefs in charge of her campaign want to keep her in the oven a while longer to see what happens. Come March 5th I expect her built-in-timer to visibly pop.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Hatin' and Waitin'
This has become a really fun and quite unique primary election season. And while the black v. woman candidate situation on the Dem side is indeed historic and interesting, for my money what's going on over in GOP-land is the real action.
The GOP supposedly had this primary thing down. Unlike the messy Dems, whose proportional divsion of delegates is based on percentage of vote garnered in each state, the GOPs winner-take-all primary strategy is designed to have an early front runner coalesce quickly to secure the party's nomination. Usually that person is an agreed-upon Washington outsider (e.g. Reagan and W. Bush) or a longtime party stalwart who has earned the spot (e.g. H.W. Bush or Bob Dole). But consensus, among the GOP establishment, is key. With the GOP base now split between 'establishment conservatives' voting for Romney and 'movement, or social, conservatives' largely backing Huckabee, John McCain, he of the floundering, moneyless campaign just last June, is now practically guaranteed the party's top spot. Not since Barry Goldwater captured the 1964 nomination, and got crushed by LBJ, has a GOPer with less institutional support been anywhere near as successful.
This came amidst much in-fighting and wringing of hands for the otherwise-disciplined Repos. Rightwing talk radio's rabid slash-and-burn against McCain, the goal of which was to convince GOP primary voters to pick Romney over Huckabee, failed wildly (Rush reportedly asked his listeners to vote Clinton over McCain if it came down to it--note: he choked on his piggy little tongue shortly thereafter and was only saved by a big dose of Mexican bootleg Oxy). Mitt bailed last week, although in the manner of 'slick willie politics' that gave many folks a real distatse for him anyway, he merely suspended his campaign rather than withdraw. That allows him to keep his delegates going into the convention and may make him something of a king-maker come August.
My only (mischievous) wish was that McCain would've taken the stage at the rightwing CPAC convention before Romney, where he announced his 'campaign suspension.' But of course the party insiders still had control over that. Had he done so the boos and guffaws for the GOPs putative candidate would've made for excellent YouTube viewing. As it was the stunned convention of conservative faithful had to bite their tongues, supress their anger and bile, and acknowledge their most-hated candidate as the likely standard bearer of the party.
Huckabee remains in the race and snagged a few post Uber-Tuesday wins in states with a large fundie voting blocs. They are, of course, pretty much the only folks who vote for him, but in GOP primaries especially, they're a force to be reckoned with. Here's what I think we should all be looking for come the next few weeks:
GOP
Rallying around McCain The Christian conservatives just weren't ever going to vote for an archangel Moroni-believing, heretic LDSer like Romney. Will they do so for McCain, who has just received the support of super-fundie Gary Bauer? Can they get past his opposition to outlawing Roe v. Wade and an anti gay marriage Constitional Amendment? Look for more fundie endorsements as movement conservatives who have drank the Kool-Aid of DC-based power show a real reluctance to give it up, self-righteous principled stands be damned.
Huckabee What's Mike in it for? If he continues to embarass McCain by winning conservative voters in upcoming primaries, the GOP establishment won't look favorably upon that for future consideration (clearly Romney was banking on such future options when he bailed). But he's pretty much established himself as the new-generation torch-bearer for the religious right. If that's his main political goal then he won't care, much as Goldwater didn't end his quixotic campaign of '64. In the end he dragged the party way to the right for the next 40 years. Hardly a bad strategy if that's his goal.
Dems
Clinton Its almost tied in terms of delegates, but given the strength and staying power that Obama has shown since Iowa, even with a few slips, she has to be worried. There's reported infighting about strategy in her camp, and a few more less-than-stellar showings could portend serious problems for the woman about whom it was once assumed would casually waltz to the nomination.
Funding Obama has an advantage here in that he not only has momentum (crucial for brining in the bucks) but also alot more cash to be potentially received. Most of Clinton's donations came from bigwigs, a large number of whom have reached their donation caps and can't give anymore. Obama has alot of small contributions in his war chest, and could still get alot more money from heavy hitters if Clinton continues to show signs of fatigue.
Obama There's some talk that his message, while reassuring or inspiring in a MLK-style, is pretty much played out. While it has no doubt woo'ed moderates and lulled some GOPers into a 'this-guy-ain't-that-bad' slumber, there's a concern that he's just not as good as Hillary on substance and policy. I agree. But as a guy who's fluent in wonk speak I must say that in the end policy, except as broadly outlined and generally perceived, doesn't seem to sway voters much. Can you say Dukakis? Gore? Sure, Clinton was an acknowledged wonk but also a master pol and speaker. Still, its further been said that a novel, big-ticket initiative that's passionately articulated could be enough to put Obama over the top. I agree with that, too.
Electability Woman or black guy? Its a perception game, but one that Obama seems to have been winning. He comes off like a candidate who 'happens to be black' rather than a 'black candidiate' ala Jackson or Sharpton (fyi Alan Keyes is still in the GOP race--ah to have a rematch of the Senate race that took Obama to Washington in the first place! Too bad he's polling at less than zero). Hillary is dogged by her Clinton-ness. The GOP, especially the rabid, red-meat dittohead constituency, hates her. She definitely will inspire a greater GOP turnout in November than Obama. This was made even worse by Bill Clinton's outbursts after South Carolina. Even though he's muzzled now he reminded Dem voters of the liability yet another first family approach to the presidency could bring. Generic polls continue to show that Obama could beat McCain but Clinton would have a harder time. Again, this is months-out and mostly perception at play, but it's important. The Dems dearly want the White House (and Christ, after eight years of TeamBush it would seem they deserve it); they would be willing to jettison either candidate of it looked like they didn't much up well against the GOP contender (now clearly McCain).
Superdelegates This is what's wrong with the Democratic Party. They allow all of this tussle in the primaries and then have some 900-plus uncommitted delegates that can go to the convention and essentially sway it anyway they want should the count be close--which is likely this go 'round. Since these folks are made up of elected Democrats, party insiders, and bigwigs this would seem to favor Hillary. But again, they'd willingly toss her under the campaign bus if it seemed the smart money come November was on Barack Obama.
This has become a really fun and quite unique primary election season. And while the black v. woman candidate situation on the Dem side is indeed historic and interesting, for my money what's going on over in GOP-land is the real action.
The GOP supposedly had this primary thing down. Unlike the messy Dems, whose proportional divsion of delegates is based on percentage of vote garnered in each state, the GOPs winner-take-all primary strategy is designed to have an early front runner coalesce quickly to secure the party's nomination. Usually that person is an agreed-upon Washington outsider (e.g. Reagan and W. Bush) or a longtime party stalwart who has earned the spot (e.g. H.W. Bush or Bob Dole). But consensus, among the GOP establishment, is key. With the GOP base now split between 'establishment conservatives' voting for Romney and 'movement, or social, conservatives' largely backing Huckabee, John McCain, he of the floundering, moneyless campaign just last June, is now practically guaranteed the party's top spot. Not since Barry Goldwater captured the 1964 nomination, and got crushed by LBJ, has a GOPer with less institutional support been anywhere near as successful.
This came amidst much in-fighting and wringing of hands for the otherwise-disciplined Repos. Rightwing talk radio's rabid slash-and-burn against McCain, the goal of which was to convince GOP primary voters to pick Romney over Huckabee, failed wildly (Rush reportedly asked his listeners to vote Clinton over McCain if it came down to it--note: he choked on his piggy little tongue shortly thereafter and was only saved by a big dose of Mexican bootleg Oxy). Mitt bailed last week, although in the manner of 'slick willie politics' that gave many folks a real distatse for him anyway, he merely suspended his campaign rather than withdraw. That allows him to keep his delegates going into the convention and may make him something of a king-maker come August.
My only (mischievous) wish was that McCain would've taken the stage at the rightwing CPAC convention before Romney, where he announced his 'campaign suspension.' But of course the party insiders still had control over that. Had he done so the boos and guffaws for the GOPs putative candidate would've made for excellent YouTube viewing. As it was the stunned convention of conservative faithful had to bite their tongues, supress their anger and bile, and acknowledge their most-hated candidate as the likely standard bearer of the party.
Huckabee remains in the race and snagged a few post Uber-Tuesday wins in states with a large fundie voting blocs. They are, of course, pretty much the only folks who vote for him, but in GOP primaries especially, they're a force to be reckoned with. Here's what I think we should all be looking for come the next few weeks:
GOP
Rallying around McCain The Christian conservatives just weren't ever going to vote for an archangel Moroni-believing, heretic LDSer like Romney. Will they do so for McCain, who has just received the support of super-fundie Gary Bauer? Can they get past his opposition to outlawing Roe v. Wade and an anti gay marriage Constitional Amendment? Look for more fundie endorsements as movement conservatives who have drank the Kool-Aid of DC-based power show a real reluctance to give it up, self-righteous principled stands be damned.
Huckabee What's Mike in it for? If he continues to embarass McCain by winning conservative voters in upcoming primaries, the GOP establishment won't look favorably upon that for future consideration (clearly Romney was banking on such future options when he bailed). But he's pretty much established himself as the new-generation torch-bearer for the religious right. If that's his main political goal then he won't care, much as Goldwater didn't end his quixotic campaign of '64. In the end he dragged the party way to the right for the next 40 years. Hardly a bad strategy if that's his goal.
Dems
Clinton Its almost tied in terms of delegates, but given the strength and staying power that Obama has shown since Iowa, even with a few slips, she has to be worried. There's reported infighting about strategy in her camp, and a few more less-than-stellar showings could portend serious problems for the woman about whom it was once assumed would casually waltz to the nomination.
Funding Obama has an advantage here in that he not only has momentum (crucial for brining in the bucks) but also alot more cash to be potentially received. Most of Clinton's donations came from bigwigs, a large number of whom have reached their donation caps and can't give anymore. Obama has alot of small contributions in his war chest, and could still get alot more money from heavy hitters if Clinton continues to show signs of fatigue.
Obama There's some talk that his message, while reassuring or inspiring in a MLK-style, is pretty much played out. While it has no doubt woo'ed moderates and lulled some GOPers into a 'this-guy-ain't-that-bad' slumber, there's a concern that he's just not as good as Hillary on substance and policy. I agree. But as a guy who's fluent in wonk speak I must say that in the end policy, except as broadly outlined and generally perceived, doesn't seem to sway voters much. Can you say Dukakis? Gore? Sure, Clinton was an acknowledged wonk but also a master pol and speaker. Still, its further been said that a novel, big-ticket initiative that's passionately articulated could be enough to put Obama over the top. I agree with that, too.
Electability Woman or black guy? Its a perception game, but one that Obama seems to have been winning. He comes off like a candidate who 'happens to be black' rather than a 'black candidiate' ala Jackson or Sharpton (fyi Alan Keyes is still in the GOP race--ah to have a rematch of the Senate race that took Obama to Washington in the first place! Too bad he's polling at less than zero). Hillary is dogged by her Clinton-ness. The GOP, especially the rabid, red-meat dittohead constituency, hates her. She definitely will inspire a greater GOP turnout in November than Obama. This was made even worse by Bill Clinton's outbursts after South Carolina. Even though he's muzzled now he reminded Dem voters of the liability yet another first family approach to the presidency could bring. Generic polls continue to show that Obama could beat McCain but Clinton would have a harder time. Again, this is months-out and mostly perception at play, but it's important. The Dems dearly want the White House (and Christ, after eight years of TeamBush it would seem they deserve it); they would be willing to jettison either candidate of it looked like they didn't much up well against the GOP contender (now clearly McCain).
Superdelegates This is what's wrong with the Democratic Party. They allow all of this tussle in the primaries and then have some 900-plus uncommitted delegates that can go to the convention and essentially sway it anyway they want should the count be close--which is likely this go 'round. Since these folks are made up of elected Democrats, party insiders, and bigwigs this would seem to favor Hillary. But again, they'd willingly toss her under the campaign bus if it seemed the smart money come November was on Barack Obama.
Labels: Elections
