Will going negative work for McCain?

There's been a lot of hub bub in the World of the Politicos lately about the closing gap between McCain and Obama in national polls (Rasmussen even had the cajones to release a poll showing McCain leading - albeit by a statistically insignificant 1%). It isn't clear (to me at least) why this happened, but it is worth considering that McCain's nasty Paris Hilton/Britney Spears ad was released just days before this sudden closing of the gap (According to Rasmussen, Obama was leading by 6% on July 26 - that's a 7% move in a matter of ten days. Although, to be fair, Rasmussen seems to be gaining notoriety - in my eyes, at least - for releasing polls that are clearly outliers). So, it's worth asking: will going negative win the election for McCain?

Well, no. I don't think anything other than a meltdown by Obama will win this election for McCain. But, I think McCain would have a better chance of winning if he stayed positive - in other words, if he stayed the McCain of the 2000 campaign. I'm not naive; I know that negative campaigning works. But, I think there is a limit to how negative a candidate can go. Remember when Mitt Romney was the golden boy of the Republican Primaries Season (before any of the primaries actually happened, that is)? Granted, he probably wouldn't have won had he stayed positive (that whole Mormon issue was tough on him), but I think he shot himself in the foot by going so negative. He became labeled as "The Sleaze." Okay, maybe I'm the only one who called him that, but the perception abounded. After he slimed McCain, he had to do a lot of backtracking to make it seem like he didn't actually go negative, and people saw right through that. I think people are going to see through McCain's claims that he is a positive, bipartisan maverick and label him "The Sleaze" if he keeps running negative (and irrelevant) ads.

It certainly isn't helping McCain that Obama isn't taking the bait. He is responding with ads that simply say "That isn't true. Here is what I really stand for. Let's get beyond old-fashioned negative politics." McCain's negativity has allowed Obama to hone in on what has been a talking point throughout his whole campaign: we need a new kind of politics. If McCain wants any chance of winning, he can't give the Obama campaign ammo. In essence, he needs to play their game.

How low will he go?

You know, I used to have a great amount of respect for John McCain. In 2000, when he got slimed by the Bush campaign as being father to an illegitimate black child, I was outraged. My outrage was increased by the fact that this tactic actually worked. It's this kind of politics that keeps good men from becoming President.

So, to see Mr. McCain resort to the same kind of slimy tactics really turns my stomach. First, he blamed Barack Obama for high gas prices. A ridiculous claim to be sure, but at least it's related to politics. His latest ad, featuring Paris Hilton and Britney Spears is simply inexcusable. Bob Herbert has a good op-ed in The New York Times today about how this ad injects race into the campaign.

Referring back to an infamous ad in 2006's race for the Senate seat from Tennessee, Herbert states...

Both ads were foul, poisonous and emanated from the upper reaches of the Republican Party. (What a surprise.) Both were designed to exploit the hostility, anxiety and resentment of the many white Americans who are still freakishly hung up on the idea of black men rising above their station and becoming sexually involved with white women.

Now, McCain is accusing Obama of playing the race card. Apparently McCain can make quasi-racist ads, but when Obama suggests that McCain is painting him as "The Other," he's the one who's injecting race into the campaign. As Herbert points out, "[Obama] does not want the race issue to be front and center in this campaign. Every day that the campaign is about race is a good day for John McCain."

It seems the media is finally hounding McCain, making him answer the charges that his ads are, well, revoltingly negative. His response? "I don't think our campaign is negative in the slightest... We're having fun and enjoying it."

Oh, okay. As long as you're having fun doing it, it can't be negative.

I'm seriously wondering if this guy might have Alzheimer's. Has he really forgotten who he was eight years ago? I miss that John McCain.

The down side of Obama's South Carolina Victory

As you likely know, Barack Obama won the South Carolina primary. Big time. But, there is perhaps something troubling behind the numbers. He attracted 80% of African-American voters (who made up over 50% of total voters) while attracting only 25% of white voters. This can be seen a number of ways. First, some may suggest that South Carolina white Democrats are racist. While probably not outrightly true, they may "favor" whites over blacks. Second, some may suggest that Bill Clinton's racial discussions turned South Carolina into a race war. Third, some may suggest that Bill's mentions of race turned the entire process forward into a race war.

I like to think there isn't a race war a-brewin'. Obama has made it a prerogative to not be pigeon-holed as "the black candidate." However, it seems that Clinton (Bill, at least) is trying to do just that. Take, for instance, when he compared Obama's victory in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson's victories there in previous nominating contests. Clinton is implying, "Yeah, he won, but these South Carolinians were dumb enough to support Jesse Jackson!" Or, alternatively, "South Carolinians only voted for him because he's black." Either way, the Clintons are trying to downplay the victory.

I think the Clinton strategy has been working relatively well. Obama seems to have lost some of his sparkle and most of his momentum. I anticipate big wins for Clinton on Feb 5, although, if this really does become a race for single delegates, who knows what could happen?

How John Edwards is Hindering Change

During the New Hampshire debate, it was clear that John Edwards considered Barack Obama something of an ally in his fight for change and that he considered Hillary Clinton no more than a determined advocate of the status quo. Well, John Edwards, by stubbornly refusing to get out of this race (maybe he'll bail after South Carolina), is giving the status quo pretty good odds of prevailing.

It's rather simple, really. The Democrats are divided into two camps: the ones who want change and the ones who trust the establishment (of course it isn't really that simple, but that's how the media is spinning it, so bear with me). Well, the change voters have two candidates to pick from: Barack Obama and John Edwards. The establishment voters have only Hillary. So, by splitting the "change" vote, Edwards is giving Hillary a better shot at victory. Polls have shown that Edwards supporters overwhelmingly choose Obama as their second choice. So, if Edwards were to drop out, Obama would see a huge jump in his numbers, probably securing the nomination in the process.

If John Edwards is sincere in his call for change, he will drop out of the race as soon as possible in order to actually give change a fighting chance. On the other hand, if he wasn't lying when he said he was in this until the convention, then all my bets are on Hillary getting the nomination.

Who knows, maybe Obama will offer Edwards the veep spot if he agrees to drop out.

A Word or Two on Racial Tensions

Up until recently, the biggest "racial moment" in this election season occurred months ago when Joe Biden called Barack Obama "clean," sending Al Sharpton into something of a tizzy while Obama politely took it as a compliment. Well, that's all changed. And in such a historic election, we knew it would.

I'm sure you've heard about Hillary Clinton's remarks about Martin Luther King, Jr. and Lyndon Johnson (find a refresher here). In short, she stated that it took a well-seasoned politician (LBJ) to get the dreamer's (MLK's) ideas put into action. So, she is LBJ, and Obama is MLK? Or, she is LBJ, the Democratic Party is MLK, and Obama is... I don't know what. Either way, comparing one's self to Lyndon Baines Johnson does not seem like a wise strategy.

So, anyway, the Obama campaign is saying that Hillary (and Bill, too) are downplaying the importance of civil rights activists like Dr. King. Hillary is saying that she is simply being pragmatic, that Dr. King was a great man with great ideas, but those ideas needed someone sympathetic to the cause within the system in order to get them to become a reality.

Really, Hillary is right. Civil rights legislation wouldn't have been passed without a president fighting for it. But, there's an important caveat: a president wouldn't have been fighting for it without activists like Dr. King fighting for it. So, it's rather circular. MLK wants change, pressures LBJ. LBJ enacts change. LBJ wouldn't enact change without MLK's pressure. So, who is really responsible for civil rights legislation?

It's a stupid question, isn't it?

Sure is. The answer doesn't really matter, and Hillary was rather stupid for throwing the question out there in the first place. I mean, come on! It's basically as if she is saying "Hey, you remember that famous civil rights activist, MLK? Yeah, I don't want to be like him. I want to be like that guy who tried to take credit for his work."

Seriously. Comparing yourself to LBJ? What the Hell is the matter with you, Hillary? You'd be better off continuing your habit of taking credit for your husband's eight years.

On the Michigan Primaries

With the Michigan Primaries coming up, Michigan Democrats will have some interesting choices. The DNC stripped the state of all its delegates and the only Democratic candidate on the ballot is Hillary, although, she isn't actively campaigning (Michigan broke some Democratic Party rules and got bitch slapped, as it were). However, the other candidates are telling their supporters to vote "uncommitted," as these delegates (assuming the DNC gives them their power back) will not be committed to any candidate and can thus vote for Obama, Edwards, or whomever. Plus, wouldn't it be a smack in the face for Hillary to lose to "uncommitted?"

Kos, in his mischievous way, has another plan. He wants Democrats to vote for Romney.

Meanwhile, poor Mitt Romney, who’s suffered back-to-back losses in the last week, desperately needs to win Michigan in order to keep his campaign afloat. Bottom line, if Romney loses Michigan, he's out. If he wins, he stays in.

And we want Romney in, because the more Republican candidates we have fighting it out, trashing each other with negative ads and spending tons of money, the better it is for us. We want Mitt to stay in the race, and to do that, we need him to win in Michigan.

Not to mention that if Mitt somehow continues on to win the nomination, this will benefit Democrats. National polls have shown that Mitt is one of the weakest candidates that the Republicans have. If he gets the nod, I have complete confidence that the Democrats will win. Now, if McCain gets the nod, I would bet on the Republicans winning. But I'm not a betting man.

I'm not sure Kos' logic makes all that much sense, though. First off, there are no indications that the Democratic nomination will be settled any time soon. On This Week this morning, George Stephanopoulos said that there's a theory going around that the Democratic nomination won't be settled until April 22 -- Pennsylvania's primary (here's hoping). So, if the Democrats are still duking it out, there won't be much of a difference. Granted, I guess he would argue that both parties being in disarray is better than the Democrats being in disarray while the Republicans are settled. But, I'm not so sure of that logic, either.

For once, I think I actually agree with Newt Gingrich. On This Week, he noted how easily Americans get bored. If the Democrats are settled on a candidate after February 5 (which I doubt), people will get bored with the candidate. I don't think inter-party (or is it intra-party?) conflict is a bad thing. Having a lot of choices can be exciting. And it's good for the political process.

So, I'm not so sure I agree with Kos' strategy. Although, I have to admit, it would be rather funny to see the pundits discussing how Romney's victory came at the hands of Democrats. I wonder how Mitt would handle that hot potato...

Kerry Endorses Obama

Senator John Kerry plans to endorse Barack Obama. I'm not sure what point these Senate endorsements have except for creating possibly awkward moments in halls of the Capitol.

Hillary: "Hello, John."
John: "Oh Hillary, hi! You know, I really like you, but it's just that, Obama, you know... he's so... fresh and vibrant."
Hillary: "Oh, and I'm stale and dull?"
John: "No, no! You're... you're lovely. It's just... Uhh... I have to go make a speech."

Honestly, how many people are going to be swayed by John Kerry? I once read that there is a John Kerry Fan Club, and it only has one member: John Kerry. I mean, I guess the point is to show that presumably credible people (again, we're talking about John Kerry, so this is up for debate) support a given candidate. Indeed, they're willing to risk said credibility on such an endorsement. I mean, if it was found out that Obama was a mass-murdering illegal immigrant, endorsers could be harmed, too. I don't see this as much of a risk, though.

So, I guess it's all for show. We get to see Obama embracing and joking with this elder statesman, which I guess could be good for his campaign? Perhaps it could say "Hey, we're not just a bunch of young morons like the Ron Paul campaign!"

But, really, are old morons any better than young morons?

Even though he lost, Obama gets the same number of delegates as Hillary in NH

Despite the fact that Hillary won the New Hampshire Democratic primary, she and Barack Obama will receive the same number of delegates to the party's nominating convention:

Sen. Hillary Clinton picked up nine delegates after winning Tuesday's New Hampshire Democratic primary by almost 8,000 votes. Sen. Barack Obama, who finished in second place, also earned nine delegates. Wait a second—since Clinton won, how come she didn't get more delegates?

Rounding and remainders. Democratic presidential candidates gain delegates in each state as long as they capture at least 15 percent of the votes, and they're awarded delegates in proportion to the amount of votes they receive in each district and statewide. New Hampshire had 22 delegates up for grabs this week. Clinton, who received 39 percent of the vote, got 39 percent of the delegates. Obama, who won 37 percent of the vote, got 37 percent of the delegates. That rounds down to eight delegates each. John Edwards, who just made the cutoff with 17 percent of the vote, received three delegates. This leaves three extra delegates, who are then allocated to the three candidates in turn.

I'm sure that there are lots of good reasons that the parties don't do something crazy like use a simple popular vote to determine their nominees. I just can't think of any right now.

Germany goes wild for Obama

Yes, Germany. Check out this post over at the Caucus for a taste of how electing Obama president could affect the world's view of America:

Germany has developed a serious case of Obama-mania.

Barack Obama’s high standing in Germany goes beyond his opposition to the unpopular war in Iraq. The country’s sudden crush is bound up with near-constant comparisons here between the young senator from Illinois and President John F. Kennedy Jr. – still admired in Germany and particularly in Berlin.

The Berliner Morgenpost over the weekend ran with the headline, “The New Kennedy.” The tabloid Bild declared, “This Black American has become the new Kennedy!” And the headline for the editorial in the Frankfurter Rundschau read simply: “Lincoln, Kennedy, Obama.”

Electing Obama won't make anti-Americanism disappear. (I believe that a lot of anti-Americanism exists simply because of our sheer economic, military, and cultural weight, not just because of specific actions or who the president is.) But it certainly could make an impact.

The Fall of Rudy

This will be a very brief post, as I just want to share with you a poll I came across. Rasmussen Reports has been testing hypothetical match-ups for the general election. Typically, Giuliani has done the best among the Republicans (even managing to beat Hillary and Obama in some polls), while Romney has done the worst. Well, these results show something interesting.

In a hypothetical match-up of Obama v. Romney, Obama garners 45% while Romney snags 39%. A pretty hefty defeat, if I do say so. However, when we consider Obama v. Giuliani, Obama garners 47% while Giuliani only gets 37%. So what does this mean? It would seem to mean that independent voters or wary Republicans are more likely to support Romney than Giuliani. This could be because Giuliani's approval rating has dropped 30% (from 70% to 40%) in less than a year.

I'm ready to make another prediction: Rudy Giuliani will not be the Republican nominee for President.

Concerning Concessions

John Edwards and Hillary Clinton gave us two very interesting, very different concession speeches. Both have reflected the candidates' style throughout this campaign.

First, Edwards offered up a shout-fest not unlike Howard Dean's infamous post-Iowa speech/scream. At one point, Johnny started to list the states that his campaign would continue on in, and I sat waiting for a "Yeeeargh!" Alas, it did not come. But, nonetheless, the tone of the speech was as combative as Edwards has been throughout this whole thing. Indeed, one would not have even thought this was a concession speech given Edwards' discussion of success and lack of mention of that guy who actually succeeded. Yes, in a move that showed Mr. Edwards' lack of class, he did not congratulate Barack Obama on his victory. After he said "thank you" and "God bless you," he finally referenced his loss (after being reminded by Elizabeth, apparently), saying rather smugly "Thanks for second place." While this speech won't go down in history like Dean's did, I think it effectively marks the end of Edwards political future, at least as far as the presidency is concerned.

Hillary gave a much calmer, and really much better concession speech. She did not speak of her own success (or lack of) like Edwards, but spoke of the success of the Democratic party. The Democratic turnout was amazing (twice what it was in 2004), showing that Democrats are excited about this election. Republican turnout was lackluster. If "purple" states like Iowa can get high Democrat turnouts in November as well, this election will be in the bag. Anyway, Hillary spoke of "us" as Democrats while still maintaining her own personal image. This dichotomy has defined her campaign (and seems to have stumped it). She is trying to suggest that all Democrats are alike and a Democratic victory in November is all that matters. At the same time, though, she is trying to suggest that she is the best candidate. It is rather confusing. It is if she were saying "These results show a bright light at the end of the tunnel for Democrats, even if that isn't me. But, it should be me!" I think her split personalities (i.e. "We're all the same" v. "I'm better!" and "I'm the candidate of change" v. "I'm the establishment candidate") will be her undoing. She needs a unifying theme, and she needs it quick.

I'm not ready to predict an Obama victory in New Hampshire yet (indeed, if I had to make a prediction today, I'd give it to Hillary), but I think Hillary is in trouble.

And that makes me happy. This reminds me, I don't know if I've ever expounded why I favor Obama. So let me do that.

I have a rather unorthodox view of the presidency. While I recognize the great power that comes with the office, I also recognize that a lot of that power is symbolic, and that power isn't simply to be put to use in "getting stuff done." The president isn't simply the Chief Politico. Rather, he (or she) is (or should be) a symbol of America. A good president should be a unifier, and if that means getting less stuff done, I'm okay with that. The president is given the duty of setting the tone for our political discourse. Edwards' "I want to steal everyone else's power!" and Hillary's "I can do things... lots of things!" are not representative of a high and lofty political discourse. Sure, Obama may be naive, and he may lack experience, but I don't think that is important. I think presidents should be a bit naive. Setting our goals too high allows us to constantly try harder and not stagnate. And experience really isn't that important. As long as a president picks experienced advisers, he'll be fine. I trust that Obama won't surround himself with morons like Bush did.

Look, if Hillary gets the nod, I'll vote for her. Ditto on Edwards. Their politics really aren't different enough for me to base a primary-level decision on "issues." So, I have to base the decision on something else. So, I've based it on tone and personality. I think Obama would be the most presidential (I use this word in a higher way than when people say "Oh, Mitt Romney looks presidential.") of the candidates. He would give us hope for change, even if that change doesn't come. Hope is important in politics. When a top tier candidate like Hillary thinks that renouncing hope in politics is a good strategy, something is wrong.

A Bit of Gloating

You may remember that a couple of days ago, I announced my predictions for the Iowa Caucuses. Well, I was right. Obama and Huckabee won. I am hoping that this gives Obama the push he needs to catch up to Clinton in all those other states. If anything, it proves that Clinton doesn't have this thing clinched.

Kudos to you, Barack Obama. And you too, Mike Huckabee. Way to stick it to Mitt.

On the Quality of Candidates

The New York Times has an article about a strange phenomenon happening in Iowa. Democrats are happy with their options. Indeed, perhaps they're even too happy. While Republican Iowans seem either set on Huckabee or Romney (they've been snubbed by McCain and Giuliani), Iowa's Democrats, even those committed to a specific candidate, seem willing to consider other options. I've been experiencing much of the same, to be honest. While I consider myself part of the Obamanation, I recognize that there are other compelling candidates. This really is a strong group of candidates we've got. If the Dems can't pull a victory out of this bunch, they ought to just dissolve themselves as a party. Let's consider...

First, we have the possible History Makers, Clinton and Obama (maybe I should throw Richardson in here, but I think he belongs in a later group). Even though I am rooting against Clinton perhaps even more than I am rooting for Obama, the notion of a female President is, at the very least, interesting. It may not be "compelling," but it adds an element of excitement to the race. The same goes for Obama. The fact that we could have a black President being inaugurated in about a year is very exciting.

Next, we have the Resume (there should be an accent over that e, I know) Kings. These guys (Biden, Dodd, and Richardson) have long lists of accomplishments and probably "deserve" to be President more than the front-runners. The fact that candidates of this caliber are being snubbed should speak to the level of excitement among Democrats.

Then, we have the Wannabe RFK -- John Edwards. He's bringing back (or trying, at least) a style of populism that we haven't seen in mainstream politics since the death of RFK. I'm not too keen on Edwards these days, but I think this style of politicking is pretty compelling and makes for exciting television.

And there's the Token Kill-'em-with-Kindness, All Carrots, No Sticks, Hippie Dippie Lover of the Trees -- Dennis Kucinich. Always fun when he's around.

These folks have made for what I think is a fantastic group of candidates. Let's consider the Republicans for a moment.

First, we have Mr. 9/11. As we all know, Rudy is only in this race because he happened to be the Mayor of New York on September 11, 2001. That's his only "qualification." He claims that this "qualification" makes him the Anti-Terror Candidate. Sorry, Rudy, but having your city attacked doesn't count as military experience. You're no John McCain. Giving patriotic speeches doesn't count as valuable foreign policy experience, either. You're no Joe Biden. You're Rudy, the scumbag from New York who has grotesquely turned a national tragedy into a political windfall. For shame.

Next, we have The Latter Day Flip-Flopper who Saved the Olympics. Seriously, when your biggest accomplishment is putting on the Winter Olympics, should you really be President? Oh wait, apparently Mitt's running an ad about how he saved his friend's daughter! Mitt is a national hero!

Then there's the Varicose Frog Man. Reading about Thompson's sad romps through Iowa have made me pretty depressed. I mean, it's great that Thompson seems to be realizing that he has no business being in this race, but it's sad that even 1% (let alone 9%) of Iowans haven't caught on.

And we can't forget The Chuck Norris-Approved Pastor of Disaster. Huckabee shouldn't be lumped in with these other three, because he is slightly compelling. He brings a kind of economic populism that is unheard of in Republican circles and hey, he's funny. Kind of. Relatively speaking. Sure, generally speaking he is just a pawn of the evangelicals, but he's more compelling than most evangelical pawns.

Alas, a candidate worth supporting: John McCain. Now, if he somehow gets the nod, I sure as hell won't vote for him, but at least his candidacy makes sense. When we ask "why should you be President?" he can respond with something other than a blank stare and a line about the sanctity of family. His moderate politics are refreshing in a Republican party (and really a broader political scene) dominated by extremists.

And there are some others, but they're really not important.

So, congratulations Democrats. You've got a wide range of good choices. And Republicans, you have one, so go ahead and pick someone else. It just wouldn't be becoming to pick the good guy, right?

P.S. Here's a great op-ed about the ridiculousness of the Iowa caucuses. I was going to write a post about my hatred of the caucuses, but this summed it up better than I could.

To come: The promised discussion of primary reform and an update on Michael Bloomberg.

Some predictions and their unimportance.

I hope you readers and, perhaps more importantly, DC, will forgive my unexplained absence. Like my cohort, I too will make an effort to blog more often this year. On with the post.

The Des Moines Register (which made the nearly unforgivable mistake of endorsing Hillary for no other reason than that she is a Washington insider -- but I suppose that is irrelevant to this post) released their final poll before the Iowa caucuses. For the Democrats, it shows Obama in the lead with Clinton and Edwards lagging seven and eight points behind, respectively. For the GOP, it shows Huckabee in the lead with Romney six points behind. McCain is coming in third, thirteen points behind Romney. So, it looks like we've got a three-way race for the Democrats and a two-way race for the Republicans. My predictions, even before seeing this poll, were that Obama and Huckabee would win (I swear). But, I'm not sure how important these predictions are; I don't know that Iowa is worth all of this hype.

In short, I'm not convinced that the winners on Thursday night will be the eventual nominees. I think the Democratic race will turn into a two-way race between Hillary and Obama, while the Republican race will remain pretty wide open. I imagine a four-way race between Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, and McCain. It pains me to say it, but I think Hillary will eventually get the nod, but I'm not prepared to make a prediction for the Republicans. They're all (except for McCain) such terrible candidates; I can understand why the race is so wide-open.

So, really, I think the only thing that Iowa will show is that Edwards isn't a viable candidate. He is the only one of the "Big Seven" who seems to need a victory in Iowa in order to survive in this race.

Look for an upcoming post about primary reform. It's nice to be back.

Edit: I forgot to mention one of my hopes for Iowa. I hope that the caucus results reflect how much of a joke Fred Thompson is. I've made a point of saying (or at least implying) how my least favorite person in this whole race is Mitt Romney, but I think I want to amend that. At least Romney tries. Granted, his "trying" shows that he is both a cry-baby, a scumbag, and a liar, but at least he tries. Thompson hasn't tried. He has just hoped that people would think Romney, McCain, and Giuliani are all too liberal. He's presented no substance. As much as I disagree with Mike Huckabee's politics, I'm glad he has taken over the mantle of the "conservative candidate" from Old Man Thompson. I'm already pretty cynical about American politics, but I still retain some hope; a Thompson nomination would've shredded that last bit of hope.

Although, a Hillary nomination risks doing the same. Oh well.

Some Musings on the Youtube Debate

CNN held a debate tonight in which viewers submitted questions via Youtube. Of course, CNN got to choose which questions were asked, but still, it was revolutionary... or so CNN tells us.

My favorite point of this two-hour debate came right at the end. There was a ridiculously naïve question posed asking each candidate to say something good and something bad about the candidate to his or her left (it was naïve because Gravel was the only one to actually criticize the candidate to his left). The ever-classy turned to Dennis Kucinich and said, “the thing I like best about you is your wife.”

And I see why.

And she's British! I can’t explain how he wound up with her. Maybe they got stoned and spun into each other at the latest Phil Lesh concert.

On to some specific thoughts on each of the candidates. Mike Gravel. I'm torn about Gravel. He has some legitimate points, and he isn't afraid to speak his mind, but he's really wasting our time. He seems to spend all of his time complaining about how little time he gets. Granted, this is a legitimate point. As Chris Dodd's "Talk Clock" shows, Gravel got the least amount of time in this debate:

And in an earlier June debate:

So, Gravel has a point, but shouldn't he be spending his time making other points besides how little time he gets? This sort of attitude antagonizes the moderator, as could be told when Anderson Cooper was much more willing to let other candidates speak past his call of "time."

To defend Gravel for a second: saying that soldiers in Vietnam died and that soldiers in Iraq are dying in vain is not un-American. Saying that they died in vain is not a criticism of the soldiers; it is a criticism of the policy. It isn't saying "You soldiers failed." It is saying "Your leaders failed." If someone thinks that a war is not worth fighting, then any soldier dying in that war is dying in vain. But, it doesn't sound nice.

Chris Dodd. I wouldn't say Dodd hurt himself (after all, he's been hurting pretty badly as it is), but he didn't help himself either. From waffling on gay marriage (not providing a sincere reason for refusing to go beyond civil unions) to simply sounding like a lecturing old man (approaching Gravel-esque, even), Dodd simply did not seem strong.

John Edwards. I thought it was funny that Edwards said that he did not like Hillary Clinton's jacket. Overall, I think he performed okay. Just okay. He seemed awfully caught off-guard on the gay marriage issue, but his response did sound sincere, unlike Dodd's. He said, rather convincingly, that he has personally wrestled with the issue, but that his religion should not dictate American law. Fair enough. He needs to drop the "son of a mill worker" thing. We heard it in 2004, and it obviously didn't work. It seems unbelievably phony these days. However, he did have a very good "Youtube-style" campaign video (every campaign had to provide such a video):

Hillary Clinton. As front-runner, Hillary generally played it safe, and tried to downplay differences between the candidates, calling the Democrats "united" (sparking a "We are not united!" from Mike Gravel), and saying that any of the candidates would make a great President. However, she still managed to impress me. I think she is getting a lot better at not seeming stone-cold. She spoke with force tonight, but seemed human and passionate. Policy-wise, there was some waffling, like her refusal to say that she would meet with Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. When Obama said that he would meet with them as President, Clinton basically said that she would not meet with them without appropriate planning. Well, yeah. Appropriate planning was assumed! But, I am beginning to change my feelings about Hillary. I think she would make a great President.

Barack Obama. I think it's going to be extremely difficult for Obama to gain ground on Clinton without attacking her - besides stressing that he was against the war from the beginning, that is. I don't think saying that he has always been against the war is going to do much these days. It may help him slightly, but people want to move forward, and he will have to show why his Iraq strategy is better than Clinton's. He had some good attacks on special interests (as did Edwards and others, for that matter), but that is not truly setting him apart. I think he's going to have to try to sell himself as a "Washington outsider," to turn his inexperience into a good thing.

Bill Richardson. Richardson is the so-called "resume candidate." He has had an amazing career in American and international politics, but he simply does not have the ability to really connect with TV viewers. He seems uncomfortable in front of a camera, which is a real shame, because he has some great ideas (e.g. sacking No Child Left Behind) and would make a great President.

Joe Biden. I think ol' Joe actually helped himself this time around. I think his humor actually struck a chord this time instead of just making him sound like a sleazeball. And he came across as an authority on foreign affairs (particularly Iraq). Still, he has no chance of breaking out of the bottom tier.

Dennis Kucinich. He sounded like he as hosting an infomercial. It was obnoxious. He kept repeating, "Text peace, 73223" throughout the debate. Apparently these text messages will be sent to President Bush and this will bring the boys back home.

Right.

Obama and McCain: two campaigns moving in opposite directions

Barack Obama has surged ahead of Hillary Clinton in fundraising:

Sen. Barack Obama outraised Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton by $10 million in second-quarter contributions that can be spent on the Democratic presidential primary contest, aided by the contributions of 154,000 individual donors.

Obama's campaign on Sunday reported raising at least $31 million for the primary contest and an extra $1.5 million for the general election from April through June, a record for a Democratic candidate.

Clinton's campaign announced late Sunday that she had raised $21 million for the primary. With general election contributions added, aides said her total sum would be "in the range" of $27 million. Candidates can only use general election money if they win their party's nomination.

Clinton has a strong lead in national polls, but Obama is competitive with her in several keys states and is leading her in South Carolina. Interestingly enough, while Obama is doing quite well on the internet, that's not what's putting him over the top:

It's not the internet, but instead it's Obama's strategy of having paid events has been the boon needed to skyrocket his donor numbers. I've not seen a story on the phenomenon that he's created, but the paid venues have got to have provided Obama with tens of thousands of donors to add to his overall numbers. It's the speaking-venue donors (similar to a rock concert), not internet donors, that's leveraged the donor numbers for Obama; and alongside the astounding high-donor numbers that have sky-rocketed his total raised, it's combined to create a compelling narrative that gives a strategic advantage to Obama.

I guess it's easy to raise lots of money when this is how people react to you:

The scene is a grass-covered hillside at the University of Iowa in Iowa City.

The sun beats down and anticipation builds like beads of sweat.

In the back of the crowd, folks are squinting. It's nearly a football field's distance to the stage. In between, it's a solid sea of people, some swaying to the rock music.

Any minute now, they expect to see the senator pop up on-stage. But Obama doesn't take the easy route. A buzz grows in the back of the huge gathering. Thousands of heads turn.

There he is. There, there ... He's way in the back in a bright, white shirt. He's slowly making his way down a narrow pathway through the humanity. People reach to touch him. He touches them back.

Finally, he hops up some stairs, gives hugs to the VIPs and steps onto a simple platform, where he'll spend much of the next hour talking about the state of the union, the fate of the planet and this moment in history that he -- and they -- are supposed to seize.

Obama might cut the slightest physical profile in the race to win the nomination at the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver. But his speaking voice projects the most gravity.

"As I approached this campaign, I had to ask myself, 'Why now? Why us?' " Obama tells the Iowa City crowd, which has grown as quiet as a church congregation. "The answer is because the country is calling us. History beckons us."

There's silence as he denounces the "cynicism" he thinks has taken over the society, cheers when he talks about hope.

The crowd is hushed when he talks about the environment, and applauds when he talks about enacting tougher, California-like pollution standards.

Folks roar their approval when he talks about health insurance for "every single American."

A tense silence takes over when he talks about the war in Iraq. Then the crowd raises its voice along with him when he alludes to rival candidates serving in Congress and says the war "should have never been authorized."

Without naming Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, he has tried to set himself up as the one major candidate who was on record against the war before it started.

By the time he leaves the stage, the people in the grass are riled up and swaying to the Motown song, "Your Love is Lifting Me Higher."

Meanwhile, on the Republican side, the picture is looking grimmer and grimmer for John McCain:

John McCain's campaign, trailing top Republican rivals in money and polls, is undergoing a significant reorganization with staff cuts in every department, officials with knowledge of the shake-up said Monday.

Some 50 staffers or more are being let go, and senior aides will be subject to pay cuts as the Arizona senator's campaign bows to the reality of six months of subpar fundraising, these officials said.

Once considered the front-runner for the GOP nomination, McCain came in third in the money chase behind Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, raising $13.6 million in the first three months of the year. He is struggling to reach that total in the second financial quarter, and wasn't expected to match it.

...

His popularity among Republicans has dropped since the start of the year. He has become intimately linked to the unpopular Iraq war, and, in recent weeks, he's drawn criticism from already wary conservatives for his support of Bush's immigration reform bill. He declined to participate in an early test of organizational muscle in the leadoff state of Iowa this summer, and, he's fighting the perception that he's yesterday's candidate.

McCain's support in national polls has slipped. He is in single digits in some surveys in Iowa and South Carolina, trailing Giuliani, the former New York mayor; Romney, the ex-governor of Massachusetts, and Fred Thompson, the actor and former Tennessee senator who's not yet in the race officially.

Put a fork in him.

Dr. Pork Barrel or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Government Waste

Greetings, I'll be brief with my introduction: I am GJ, friend of DC, Sarge, and FZ. Hence, I've been given the chance to state my opinions on this tremendous political blog. However, because my knowledge of politics is about as extensive as, say, FZ's knowledge of 1980's baseball stars, I've been told to focus my articles on one specific topic I do have some passion for (which is pork barrel spending). There's nothing I enjoy more than reading over the specific parts of important bills through the Senate (for example, let's take that little bill the Dems tried to pass to get a time table on the war in Iraq) to find money allocated to be spent on the strangest projects (I'm looking at *you* Harry Reid and the four million dollars you wanted to be spent on fighting American's biggest insect threat: Mormon crickets).

Today, I'll be looking at one man's strategy to take a clear stance on pork barrel spending in an attempt to "do things the right way". I figured I'd try to write a positive article before tearing into the really insane Government waste in the weeks to come. Anyway, according to this little article, Barack Obama has decided to make public a list of specific projects he has pursued funding for in federal spending bills. Of course, there were personal motives for Obama to release the information:

In the past week, his relationship with indicted real estate developer Tony Rezco has come under increased media scrutiny, both nationally and in Chicago. Disclosing his earmark requests could allow Obama to argue that he's still above the fray of Washington and keep his reputation intact.

Fair enough. It's risky for him to put his fingers in the real estate pie. It's certainly a political pie I would not want a slice of at dinner. Now to give Obama credit, he tends to support spending on not-so-insane projects:

Road and water projects dominate the list, along with requested assistance for colleges and universities and non-profit groups that provide social services. All safe choices — which one would expect from someone seeking national office. Obama's most expensive request was $40 million for Metra, metropolitan Chicago’s commuter rail system.

See, this isn't too bad, Obama would never, ever request spending on something clearly wastef-

Perhaps the most unconventional request is also the first item on the list: $3 million for the Adler Planetarium to replace projector equipment.

Oh. Wow. Well, I really can't defend this. Maybe the planetarium has a lot of projectors for some reason. Or one that projects on a 5,000 inch screen.

Maybe there isn't a candidate out there that is completely against all irrational forms of earmark spending (Ron Paul might be an exception, but it won't matter when seven people vote for him in the primary). Sadly, pork barrel spending is one of the parts of government we all must live with. Also, it gives me an opportunity to write, so here's hoping fine people like Barack, who I agree with on many issues, will continue to want to spend millions of dollars of tax payer money on projector equipment for a Planetarium.

Obama, Thompson take lead in South Carolina

African-America support has pushed Barack Obama in front of Hillary Clinton, 34% to 25%, in the latest Mason-Dixon poll in South Carolina. John Edwards is in third with 12%, and 24% of respondents are undecided. (Maybe they're going to break for Mike Gravel! Don't laugh... haven't you seen his new avant-garde campaign ad?
'Nuff said.)

Meanwhile, Fred Thompson has taken the lead on the Republican side, leading Rudy Giuliani 25% to 21%, despite the fact that he has yet to officially declare his candidacy. Mitt Romney is third with 11%. McCain really does look like he's finished, polling a paltry 7%.

Liberals: unduly pessimistic about racism and Obama?

I was just reading Fz's excellent post on Obama when something jumped out at me. He says:

But, there is something else to think about. As the article points out, 90% of Americans say they would be "completely comfortable voting for a qualified presidential candidate who was black;" however, only 55% of Americans say that "Americans are ready to elect an African American or black as president." 35% say no. So, that means that at least 25% of people are comfortable with voting for a black candidate, but do not think that Americans are ready. Odd.

But, even with this mystery, I don't think Obama's race will effect him. The 35% of people who say America isn't ready are almost certainly Republicans anyway, so I don't think there's much to worry about.

I'm not so sure that the people who believe this are Republicans. One thing I have noticed is that many of my Democratic friends really like Obama, but are quick to point out that they don't believe a black man can be elected president. (They are all unable to back it up with polls or any form of evidence; they simply have a gut feeling that America is too racist for it to happen.) I've yet to hear a Republican say anything of the sort.

Obviously, a few anecdotes don't prove anything, but I think this attitude might help us understand the seeming inconsistency of the poll above. How can 90% of American be ready to vote for an African-American but only 55% think that he could win? Well, perhaps many of them, liberals in particular, are unduly pessimistic about the racism of the average American at the polling booth. I, for one, am convinced that if Obama loses, it will be his inexperience, not his ethnicity, that is his downfall.