Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: BIMP still up in the air *** Governor AV’s BIMP *** Strange rationale *** Guv’s office responds *** Updated x9 ***
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* Take a look at these New Hampshire polling trend lines from Pollster.com…
You can click it for a larger image and more explanation, but you can easily see that while Clinton is ahead, her numbers are obviously trending downward and Obama’s are sharply rising. New Hampshire’s primary is next Tuesday, so it’s gonna be very, very tough for Clinton to stop Obama’s momentum before then. He’ll have several days of euphoric bounce which may last all five days. A negative attack from Clinton now would likely backfire, unless Obama does something bad to himself.
* One thing that is still hanging out there is the Tony Rezko situation…
A former fundraiser to Gov. Rod Blagojevich pleaded not guilty Thursday to new charges of loan fraud, as did a new defendant in the case.
Antoin “Tony” Rezko of Wilmette and Abdelhamid “Al” Chaib of LaGrange park appeared before U.S. District Judge James Zagel Thursday morning and pleaded not guilty to rigging the prices of pizza franchises to obtain higher bank loans.
But it’s more likely that Clinton will be able to use that in the run-up to Super-Duper Tuesday (February 5th) than next Tuesday. The trial won’t really get underway until after the February 5th voting is over, but if I was on the Clinton campaign I’d be plugging the Rezko trial into this developing media meme of “Obama is untested.” There’s already plenty out there to tease the national reporters.
* The on-site national press corps was all atwitter yesterday with rumors that various candidates were cutting deals with Obama’s campaign to throw their caucus-goers to him. If a candidate doesn’t attain 15 percent in a caucus, that person’s supporters are supposed to choose someone else. Turns out, the deal talk was false…
According to the entrance poll, which only measured first preferences of the participants going in, the numbers were: Obama 35%, Hillary 27%, Edwards 23%.
If we assume that the final state delegate numbers actually approximated the votes of the caucus participants, this means John Edwards was the big second-choice winner, as he boosted his final score by seven points, compared to only three points for Obama and two for Hillary. It was enough to just overtake Hillary for second place, but not enough for first — because it turned out that Obama entered as the clear winner from first choices alone.
* The goofiest lede from Iowa was in the New York Times…
Whether it was because Iowans were searching for an agent of change or they wanted to send a message that a white state would elect a candidate regardless of race, Senator Barack Obama seized victory here Thursday as a coalition of Democrats and independents flooded caucuses in all corners of the state to support his improbable candidacy.
Apparently, some editor belatedly noticed the ridiculous lede and forced a change on the NYT website.
* On to Huckabee for a moment.
National Republicans obviously don’t like the man. He’s neither a neocon nor a corporate conservative, so the establishment party is scared to death about what he’ll do if he’s elected. Plus, most of them picked their own candidate long before Huckabee began to surge, and nobody picked him. So, he’s not their guy on every level.
But that’s no excuse for the national media, which treats the guy like an ignorant hillbilly from the backwoods and has appeared to use almost every excuse imaginable to pile on, and that has clouded their judgement, which is never great to begin with.
Check out this recent post from TIME magazine’s Joe Klein, entitled “Huckabust“…
Just when you think the Republican presidential race can’t get weirder…Mike Huckabee holds a press conference here to announce that he’d just made a last minute decision not to air a negative TV ad slamming Romney.
And then he airs the ad (Video courtesy of Mark Halperin who was setting in the row behund me). For the press corps–a gazillion cameras, nearly a hundred reporters, certainly more than Huckabee has ever seen in one place in his life. […]
That sound you hear rumbling out of Des Moines appears to be a monumental implosion. [emphasis added]
Yeah, that happened.
Human beings tend to look down on anyone who isn’t from what they consider to be the “better” place to live. New Yorkers, particularly, are infamous for this, but all of us do it in one way or another.
That being said, we’re all Americans, and this is all one country, so it’s time to stop the petty sniping from elitist snobs who base their elitism not on their own abilities but simply on their geographic location. It’s unAmerican.
On his last day of campaigning, Huckabee appeared to go after Romney’s experience with a venture capital firm that specialized in re-organizing and sometimes downsizing struggling companies.
“I think sometimes the reason that our campaign is catching fire,” Huckabee said in Burlington, “is because people had rather elect a president who reminds him of the guy they work with — not the guy that laid them off.”
* Republican entrance polling
* Democratic entrance polling
* Entrance polling analysis
*** UPDATE 1 *** I agree with this bit of analysis in the Washington Post…
Since most of Obama’s legislation was enacted in Illinois, most of the evidence is found there — and it has been largely ignored by the media in a kind of Washington snobbery that assumes state legislatures are not to be taken seriously.
*** UPDATE 2 *** Two Illinoize bloggers have good posts up today.
Dan Johnson-Weinberger was in Iowa yesterday and filed a good report. Yellow Dog Democrat says Iowa is deja vu all over again.
*** UPDATE 3 *** As you might have guessed, my father was in Des Moines yesterday and sent along this photo…
*** UPDATE 4 *** It begins, but not from Clinton. Edwards takes a shot…
In an appearance on MSNBC, David Bonior, Edwards’ campaign manager, ripped into Obama’s record on health care from the time when he served in the Illinois State Senate.
“Barack Obama’s kind of change is where you sit down and you cut a deal with the corporate world,” Bonior said. “If you look at his record in Illinois when he had a major — sponsored a major health bill that’s what he did. He watered down with the help of the corporate lobbyist and they got a weak product out of that.”
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough interjected: “Are you saying that Barack Obama is a sellout to corporate interests?”
Bonior responded, “He was four years ago in Illinois. All you have to do is look at the legislation I’m referring to.”
The Obama campaign was quick to respond, defending their candidate’s credentials both on health care policy and his ability to stand up to lobbyists.
“The reason Barack Obama won such a commanding victory in Iowa is because Americans of all parties are hungry for a leader who can bring people together to take on the special interests,” said spokesman Ben Labolt in an email to the Huffington Post. “That’s how Barack Obama actually took on lobbyists and won in Illinois, and that’s how he expanded health care to 150,000 Illinois children and parents.”
The bill that Edwards’ guy referred to barely passed the Senate. So, without the “sell out” it’s doubtful anything would’ve been approved.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 10:18 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: BIMP still up in the air *** Governor AV’s BIMP *** Strange rationale *** Guv’s office responds *** Updated x9 ***
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
If Huckabee doesn’t win the nomination, I still will be thankful for him exposing Romney as a fraud. Great quote.
Comment by Ravenswood Right Winger Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 10:22 am
Rezko will be to Obama what the scream was to Dean.
Comment by Leave a light on George Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 10:28 am
Watch out for the polls, they miss a lot of Obama voters. If you go to pollster.com and look at the Iowa data, Clinton had 29.4% and Obama had 27.7%. The pollsters typically discount young people and those who haven’t voted in primaries/caucuses. As long as Obama draws those people in, it should be fair to assume that Obama can outperform the polls.
If Clinton trots out Rezko, it could easily backfire as it could reinforce the image that she is part of politics as usual (negative campaigning). Obama would need to come out immediately, fess up, and explain that he made a neophyte mistake, reinforcing his image as someone new and different. Brining it out now will also help inoculate Obama for the fall.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 10:47 am
I like the fact Huckabee doesn’t fit the Republican “mold”….we’ve seen what that mold produces, and ‘08 may be the Huckabee disinfectant. YET, Mike’s “here’s the negative ad I’m not going to show anyone” then shows the press, was almost Nixonian (”I don’t beleive my opponent is a Communist, but many say he/she is…..”). By the way, we hear “attack ads” ad nasuem from the pundits. If what a candidate is saying is verifiably true, then it should be called a “counter-ad” or a “position ad”. Only if any part of an ad can be verified as false should it be characterized as an “attack ad”. By calling all of the ad’s “attack”, it allows the bias of the reporters to come through.
Comment by Wait N See Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 10:54 am
Congrats to the Obama campaign. Are getting thumped by Obama in the March, 2004 primary Maria Pappas called Obama, “the Tiger Woods of politics”.
He’s won three elections in a row decisively.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 10:57 am
That was a great quote from Huckabee (about the guy who laid them off). Many people throughout our nation have been laid off, sometimes by sympathetic managers who are just doing what they were told to do and sometimes by soulless paper pushers. That’s what Romney reminds me of, one of those soulless paper pushers, with all the sentimentality of a rattle snake. I don’t care for Huckabee’s politics, but I think he can strike a chord with those reminders of how our economy has changed and who’s won and who’s lost from that change.
Comment by cermak_rd Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 11:03 am
Watching Huckabee’s speech I thik he drew support the same way Obama did, by appearing to offer rela change by not looking like the current batch of politicians.
All the other repub canidates come across to me as part of the current repub establishment
Whats interesting about obama is some of his numbers. Hilary had been touting her strenght with women voters. it turns out she is really only strong with women voters over the age of 50. Young women voters flocked to Obama and he had more support from women at the end of the day then Hillary. Also Obama drew in independents and a few repubs. This shows the storng point of his canidacy, he represents actual crossing of lines by appealing to more then just the democratic base. Hillary is weak when it comes to pulling voters who are not part of the core dem base. Obama also managed to turn out all the young and new voters he had been appealing to. For a long time the press has been dismissing his popularity with young people by saying they will not actually show up and vote. Most polls, zogby aside, seem to focus on older voters and therefore show Hilary with a lead based upon the exclusion of many younger and infrequent voters. Obama now has numbers to support his Kennedyesque support.
Comment by Ghost Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 11:03 am
I really can’t believe no one hear can spell Omarosa correctly. Omarosa, not Obama. You people are funny. Also I’m pretty sure that Huckabee dude you are talking about was on The Biggest Loser, not The Celebrity Apprentice. What a premiere last night though! This Celebrity Apprentice is going to be a great show. I think Omarosa might just show that a black person can win after all. You guys are right, she is a steamroller. My money is on Vinny Pastore though… fughaboutit! Man I do love me some reality TV. Let those commie union writer’s keep on a strikin’ I say!
Comment by From Arkansas Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 11:06 am
Anyone who doubts Huckabee’s ability to compete as a tier one candidate ought to go to You Tube and watch his Leno performance. This is a guy who knows how to connect with voters.
I’m not a Christian Conservative and I’m a little concerned about his economic policies, but let’s face it, Republicans could use a candidate who can connect with working men and women.
Ultimately Republicans may be thanking their lucky stars in November that the race was up for grabs in January and February. I believe Mike Madigan said it best several years ago: “Primaries are our friends.”
Comment by Old Elephant Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 11:11 am
In Iowa GOP primary voters are evangelical Christians, and Huckabee was none too subtle on the religion theme, so Iowa does not strike me as determinative of much on the GOP side (but Obama’s win was huge on the Democratic side.)
Huckabee is always talking about helping the middle class, and it is resonating with GOP voters. To me, that is the most interesting point of his campaign.
Comment by Anon Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 11:13 am
I wish that we had nomination by convention or caucus here in Illinois, rather than primary elections. At least we do at the township level.
Comment by Squideshi Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 11:14 am
60% of Iowa GOP voters are evangelicals, not all.
Comment by Anon Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 11:14 am
Although he’s too conservative for me to ultimately support, I was very pleased to see Mike Huckabee defeat the phony, jingoistic Mitt Romney. Huckabee seems like a genuine, down-to-earth guy, and while I disagree with his stance on many social issues, I respect that his stance comes from true conviction and faith, rather than political expediency.
Comment by KIZ Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 11:16 am
Great points about the elitism Rich.
Everyone on the panel at MSNBC admitted they had never seen an entire Chuck Norris film - some seemed to scoff at the idea.
It wasn’t until yesterday that the national press corps discovered ChuckNorrisFacts.com.
Considering the roll that young voters played in yesterday’s election, and the continuing roll they are likely to play, some of the networks and cable news stations might want to hire pundits under the age of 40.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 11:20 am
I understand why some folks would love to see the Rezko story blow up in Obama’s face, but let’s be realistic folks:
1. The story is too complicated for a soundbite or headline.
2. Everyone admits that Obama did nothing illegal, so there’s really nothing for the press to cover.
3. Clinton can’t run ads about the Rezko story without reminding people about whitewater land dealings, where she actually made tons of money.
4. Swiftboating will backfire.
5. Hillary might be able to get away with running negative ads in the general, but if she attacks Obama she’s going to come across as a $%@#%! at a time when all of her polling is telling her she needs to soften her image.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 11:30 am
Abstracting from the blocs which put Obama and Huckabee over the top, what is to be learned from this first test? The trouble with having crystal balls is that they are so fragile, but I think there are certain lessons.
First, voters appear to be ready for change and a leader who epitomizes the possibility of change from the status quo. Under normal circumstances most voters accept the status quo. Today, however, there is a smell of fear, regarding the economy, regarding both the present and the future. View the issues in that light — the war, health care, jobs (and the subset of that, illegal aliens.)
Fear of the status quo and the necessity for change is what propelled Reagan forward and after him, Bill Clinton. “Washington experience” is not a particular advantage. If the image as projected is one that the voters can build their own hopes on and which allays their fears, they will accept it. The Congress and the Administration represent an unsatisfactory status quo.
The voters know there is a mess in Washington. Both the Congress and the Administration are held in low repute. They voted for change in 2006 and are puzzled that change has not come. Washington has failed once again
They are worried about many things which appear to be beyond not only their control but also beyond the control of their elected leaders. They will vote for a person who they believe will bring things back under control.
Regarding the War. The President told Americans after 9/11 to go ahead and act normally, that their government would find, punish and thus win this controllable disruption to their normal life. He declared an early victory in Iraq and failed to bring it. Each position provided a short term Rovian political benefit but was a long term political blunder. There was no rallying point, no call for sacrifice to pay for this expensive endeavor. After seven years of huge expenditures paid for by continuing deficits, the ongoing belief that we need to stay there until we “win” has worn thin.
On the domestic side the politician’s promise of continuing prosperity has proven a mirage. It never should have been made, of course. The domestic economy is turbulent.
Consumers gambled on prosperity and took on more and more installment debt. Existing homeowners gambled on prosperity and got involved in home equity loans used to purchase depreciating assets rather to reinvest in home improvements. New homeowners bought beyond their means; many were complicit with their mortgage brokers in acquiring properties with wink wink documentation using artificially low variable rate financing. Roost wise, the chickens are coming home. Through no fault of their own, these neophytes were the nexus of securitized mortgage portfolios which were marketed as secure high rated paper to financial institutions around the world. Defaults in mortgage payments have caused the portfolios to be downgraded to junk and the institutions to struggle to obtain multi-billion dollar capital infusions.
Regarding health care. Rightly or wrongly the people see their elders under Medicare and Medicaid being taken care of by the government. uninsured poor having access to state Medicaid programs. Until recently, many if not most jobs offered medical coverage as part of the compensation package. That is going away. Without some form of insurance, health care, including birthing is hellishly expensive. Drug therapy is similarly expensive. With the private sector not providing health insurance to their workers, there is an undercurrent of worry.
Regarding jobs. All employment is local. Given the debt position in too many households, the temporary — or worse, permanent — loss of employment is a greater hurt than ever before. Every age group suffers, every family has neighbors whose jobs left. At the lowest income level, job competition from illegal aliens may add to the bottom line of the employer, able to keep employees at entry level wages but does not help those legal residents whose hope is to move up the employment ladder in the American tradition.
What type of candidate for the Presidency benefits from this situation? Those with a well articulated dream and those straight talkers who demonstrably say what they mean and mean what they say. In each case the voter may not agree with all positions in the candidate’s platform. In fact, if a voter is a one issue voter he will be left in the lurch. Leadership, energetic leadership, is the key.
Obama offers it in ‘dream’ form, McCain exudes it. Fred Thompson, if he were as energetic as Reagan in speaking out, has it within him. Romney may come back with it. Huckabee has yet to expand on it; his record in Arkansas was mixed. Clinton has ridden on name recognition, needs to put aside her time in the White House and concentrate on her record in the Senate. Frankly, there appears not to be much there.
Comment by Truthful James Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 11:33 am
I said a year ago the Dems would come down to Hilary and an anti-Hilary. Obama is now clearly the anti-Hilary. Edwards and the rest are done.
The New Hampshire trends have to be scaring the hell out of the Clintons. If Obama wins New Hampshire by any margin, I doubt he can be stopped. He’ll roll through South Carolina like Sherman with Hilary making a last stand in Florida. If she can’t win there, where’s she enjoyed enormous leads, she’s done. Obama’s momentum would swamp Super-Duper Tuesday.
Based on that, I think the Clintons whack Obama with whatever they have right now.
If McCain beats Romney in New Hampshire by any margin, he’s done. After that, who knows? Probably a wild Republican race to the end.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 11:45 am
Rich,
Who is this “Obama” fellow and why haven’t I heard of him before?
– SCAM
Comment by so-called "Austin Mayor" Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 11:46 am
“which treats the guy like an ignorant hillbilly from the backwoods”
Huckabee makes it difficult not to treat him like an ignorant hillbilly.
He just continues to blunder, but the Christian conservatives don’t seem to mind.
The man claimed that the “Greatest constitutional crisis” ever to face Arkansas was when Jim Guy Tucker wavered on resigning. Did he forget the whole “left the union to fight with the Confederacy” crisis or the “Federal troops are brought in to de-seg the schools” crisis?
Neither he nor his staff saw the stories about the NIE on Iran/nukes, he then blundered as to his verion of when that story came out, and then he blundered by comparing a NIE on Iran/nukes to stories about Britney Spears.
Most recently, the man crossed a picket line, but alleged that he had no idea that the might have to do so.
Don’t want to be treated like an ignorant hillbilly? Stop acting like an ignorant hillbilly.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 11:46 am
SCAM, you sound like some of the goofy pundits on my teevee last night. lol
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 11:47 am
===Don’t want to be treated like an ignorant hillbilly? Stop acting like an ignorant hillbilly.===
Please. Ronald Reagan said in the 1980 campaign that trees were one of the world’s greatest sources of pollution.
Gaffes and blunders don’t define a candidate if that candidate is clicking with voters, no matter how much the media wants to make it so.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 11:49 am
If McCain wins NH, I agree Romney is probably out. But the opposite is probably true too. If Romney wins McCain is out.
I suppose there’s a scenario where they effectively tie for first and have to duke it out in Michigan, a state where Romney’s dad was gov and where McCain has also done well.
I think the most likely scenario is February 5 being a contest between Huck and McCain with Ron Paul doing well enough to capture delegates.
This is a worst-case for the GOP establishment who hates all three of those guys. The GOP establishment doesn’t trust those three to take orders on economic issues.
I suppose GOP establishment can tell Romney, Giuliani or Fred Thompson to stay in the race, but what’s the point if they aren’t getting votes?
If it looks like Huckabee is gonna close the deal, look for the GOP establishment to encourage Bloomberg to get in the race.
This could pave the way for Obama to win the presidency by the largest margin in the modern era as an energized and unified Dem base supports Obama and a dispirited GOP base is split between Huckabee and Bloomberg.
Like with Keyes, Obama will win big with his critics grousing the big victory came b/c of GOP screw-ups.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 11:58 am
Right now, Huckabee is very much in the hunt in S. Carolina, Michigan and Florida. Check http://www.pollster.com/ for those trendlines.
You can’t count him out.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 12:02 pm
Yellow dog - the Dean scream wasn’t illegal either. It just sounded goofy and kept being shown over and over. When the Rezko trial starts something will be said at the trial or by Obama while not illegal will be equally goofy and the opposition will pounce on it. Might not happend until he is the dem’s nominee but it will happen.
Comment by Leave a light on George Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 12:06 pm
Rich,
There is a difference between Reagan’s type of statements — clearly ridiculous but with appeal to the extreme right — and Huckabee’s continued blunders.
With the country at war, will the country accept a president who knows next to nothing about Pakistan (the only Muslim country with nukes)?
Will it accept a man too stupid to keep his mouth shut when he doesn’t have his facts? Why in the world would he discuss the “eastern” border of Pakistan when in reality, he should have known that he had no idea where Pakistan was in relation to Afghanistan.
A smart man would have hidden his ignorance by keeping things vague. A smart man knows when he lacks facts, and keeps things vague. But Huckabee is not a smart man. He’s a blundering hillbilly.
Will it accept a man who “apologizes” for the loss of Bhutto? Can you imagine the impact if he made the same blunder as president? The entire world would point to the statement as proof that the U.S. was behind her death.
When the country is at war, it is best not to blunder on vital matters issues of national security.
In any case, whether or not the voters view him as an ignorant blundering hillbilly, there is little doubt that he is, in fact, a blundering hillbilly and you really can’t fault the media for pointing it out.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 12:07 pm
I think the Clintons would have used Rezko before Iowa, if they were going to. The last thing they wanted was to lose to Obama in Iowa.
I also think that Obama’s victory should quiet the people who say “he’s never been tested in a real campaign.” I would suggest that contending with Hillary in Iowa, when she had a year to dig up anything she wanted, and months to use anything she found against him, is as big of a test as any that anyone can face, outside of being the actual presidential nominee. He was tested, and passed with flying colors.
Comment by winco Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 12:08 pm
I think, Skeeter, that you should stop calling the man a hillbilly. That’s a bit over the line for this blog (”gratuitous insults”). And it displays more about you than perhaps you realize.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 12:15 pm
The Dean scream was also a great visual, raw and unscripted. The Rezko trial will be in an untelevised Federal courtroom. Zero chance of the television media getting any visual that funny/disturbing/weird that they can play over and over again.
Comment by gulag Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 12:16 pm
Huckabee’s “great quote” is horribly unfair considering that Romney helped save and create thousands of jobs by reviving failed businesses.
Comment by grand old partisan Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 12:23 pm
Rich,
With all due respect, It wasn’t my choice of term. It is not a term that I ordinarily use (or frankly, ever, use).
It was your choice of term. I simply responded to your allegation.
If you are going to claim that somebody doesn’t meet a description, it is fair to expect that somebody will point out how the description does seem to fit.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 12:26 pm
You didn’t prove anything. All you did was say he made some mistakes and then used that to claim he was a hillbilly. One doesn’t follow the other.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 12:27 pm
I don’t like either “winner” yesterday because neither have the experience we need to be the next president. There are a lot of sweet politicians out there and Huckabee and Obama aren’t really that special. What separates presidents from posers is a track record and experience that demonstrates success. These guys are not presidential timber because their appeal is entirely superficial. They can win with that, but these guys better find help fast because they are in over their heads.
That said, Iowan did what New Hampshirites did when NH was the first contest. I see a pattern in which the first voters are not really deciding a president, but thinning our a herd of candidates for other states to choose from.
Questions that Iowans answered were:
“Should Hillary simple be crowned now without a contest?” - They decided NO. Iowans wanted a contest, so they voted for Obama and Edwards.
“Should there be a new personality in the Republican race?” - They decided YES. Iowans wanted the soft-soap Baptist minister Huckabee.
So what Iowa did yesterday is what New Hampshire used to do. They focused the rest of the country on the nominating contests by injecting new personalities and by thumping national candidates.
Early states often don’t take their decisions as final. Voters there recognize their role in the nominating process and are willing to make unrealistic choices such as Pat Robertson, Gary Hart, Douglas MacArthur, Estes Kefauver, Pat Buchanan and inject new angles into the nominating process by doing so.
The list of presidents tweaked by Iowa and New Hampshire is a long one. By stiff-arming national leaders seeking nomination or re-nomination, Iowa and New Hampshire clearly demonstrate that they are willing to re-evaluate assumptions about who the next president should be and then toss their winners into the mix for other states to chew on.
We’ll see what New Hampshire decides to do with Iowa’s winners. If they are as contrary as they have been in the past, they might decide to “fix” the Iowa results and kick the process over to Michigan and South Carolina to watch the new match ups.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 12:29 pm
grand old partisan,
You’re probably right, but that’s not how those who are laid off think of it. Consider it from their perspective. Huckabee effectively cast Romney with that quote as Gordon Gecko.
Comment by cermak_rd Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 12:31 pm
I’d like someone to answer this question: What real experience does Hillary Clinton have? She had no security clearance, didn’t sit in on big meetings, and was barely even talking to her husband the last two years in office.
She has Bill Clinton as an advisor, but she’s obviously no Bill Clinton or she’d have mopped the floor with Obama yesterday.
“Experience” is often merely just a word used by those in power to keep others out of power. It should be greeted with suspicion.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 12:34 pm
but she’s obviously no Bill Clinton or she’d have mopped the floor with Obama yesterday
Well, she might start taking his advice from now on
And we tried a guy who talked nice about coming together and sweetness and all. And that guy at least had some executive experience.
Obama = Carter with less teeth?
Comment by Pat collins Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 12:38 pm
I haven’t heard much commentary about what combo of final Dem and Repub candidates, or probable candidates, would cause Mayor Bloomberg to enter the race as an independent. I really think he wants to run. And he’s really smart, has loads of executive experience, private and public, and more money than God. His fortune makes even Mitt Romney’s look puny. Regardless of who the final nominees are, I think that’s the big question in the Presidential race right now. Under what circumstances will he run?
As to Rezko, I don’t think any of the candidates are without their sleazy contributors and advisors. Let’s hope they don’t all start trotting
out each other’s crony mistakes. That could be really boring.
Comment by Cassandra Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 12:42 pm
Actually I was more focused on your “ignorant” allegation than on “hillbilly.” I’ve got nothing against people from the hills.
Ignorant people who want to be president? That’s a different matter.
Not to digress, but I like the word “ignorant.” It is about lacking facts and not about lacking the capacity to understand. It seems to fit pretty Huckabee pretty well.
Back to the point.
“Made some mistakes”? It has gone far beyond that.
He APOLOGIZED for the killing of Bhutto. That is a world class blunder. If he had done that as president, the world would have pointed to the U.S. as her killer. That’s a pretty big blunder.
The other comments are interesting for the reasons that I stated. This guy rarely has his facts, but talks anyway. He never learned to be vague. He never learned to conceal his ignorance. He makes wild guesses and runs with them. He is not even creative about it as Rudy G. is. Rudy makes up obscure facts (F/E exact percentages of decline in crime). In contrast, Huckabee wants us to believe that Afghanistan is on the eastern border of Pakistan.
Further, he seems unable to predict how people will react to his plans and develop strategies for handling those objections. For example, look at his tax plan. When faced with the criticism that it will do nothing more than expand black-markets, he was at a loss as to how to respond. It was likely he never considered the possibility. The plan is one of the centerpieces of his campaign, and an obvious criticism shook him?
Seems pretty ignorant to me.
I am happy to stop calling him that “H” word (and I never would have done so but for your post), but I have to stand on the “ignorant” allegation.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 12:48 pm
Did anyone see how creepy Chuck Norris was on stage with Huckabee? He and a blonde woman (maybe Norris’ wife) were bouncing back and forth, like the blonde wasn’t getting enough screen time or something. It was weird.
Comment by Joe in the Know Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 12:51 pm
To extend YDD’s comment, the Rezko is hard to put into a soundbite and it’s hard for an incredibly lazy and inane national press corps to put their head around.
Worse for Clinton, is the national press corps hates her and I can see Chris Mathews and the gang already turning it around on her and Whitewater. It doesn’t matter if there is any substance to those, it’s a buzzword that has resonance which only makes Obama’s message of moving on from the 1990s.
Clinton may try–and has been floating this stuff for weeks through surrogates, but an overt attack probably backfires.
Comment by ArchPundit Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 12:59 pm
Joe in the Know - I noticed that, too! I thought the phony-looking blonde was extremely distracting, laughing and talking during a large portion of Huckabee’s speech.
Comment by KIZ Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 12:59 pm
I thought the blonde was Huckabee’s wife until after the speech, when his actual wife walked into the frame. lol
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 1:00 pm
Something to notice about the Pollster data on New Hampshire is that the latest polling is heavily influenced by Suffolk which is anomalous with other polls and appears to be dragging down Obama’s average.
It is certainly possible they have a better methodology, but given it diverges a fair amount from other polling I’d guess it has a conservative voter screen for likely voters and is undercounting what the likely turnout is.
Comment by ArchPundit Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 1:02 pm
The turnout was a lot higher on both sides, though huger by both percentage and numbers on the Dem side. Has anyone figured out why? Was it the earlier date? Is there a thirst for change in IA? Was it because there was no clear front runner on either side? A fear that IA won’t always be first? Better organization on the part of the candidates?
Comment by cermak_rd Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 1:18 pm
Rich, Would it be safe to say when the word experience comes up, they’re talking about what, time in public office? Age? Define experience for me? Because from my timeline and understanding, Hillary’s been around the political scene a lot longer than Barack has. That’s what I call experience.
Now if we’re talking change, that’s a whole different subject.
Comment by The 'Broken Heart' of Rogers Park Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 1:26 pm
It’s used in those ways and more. And it’s mostly bogus. Nothing adequately prepares anyone to be president of the USA.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 1:27 pm
Cassandra,
I would guess that Bloomberg almost certainly stays out if the gop nominees are McCain or Giuliani. Just guessing…
Comment by Greg Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 1:36 pm
I was a little surprised by Obama’s total. I thought it would be a lot closer, but I’m not shocked. I’m not a Democrat and had nothing personally vested in the Democrat caucus, but I have many Democrat friends who can not stand Hillary. Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t former President Clinton also lose the caucus in 1992? Sadly, we have a long way to go.
I’ve been on the fence regarding the GOP primary for a long time. Iowa has done nothing to change that. In the interest of full disclosure, I voted for Senator McCain in 2000 (it was already too late of course) and am flirting with doing the same this year.
I don’t buy that story about “second choices”. Of course there were deals made. I also find it difficult to get overly excited about an election where people are allowed to vote more than once.
Comment by jwscott72 Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 1:38 pm
YDD and Arch, I agree that the Rezko issue isn’t soundbite-friendly nor is it “out there” like The Scream. Having said that, I still don’t rule out that HRC & Co. runs with it anyway. Let’s face it, they’re a mean-spirited bunch who play to win and don’t mind cutting a few corners here and there to do so, especially after getting their clock cleaned in Iowa by the “inexperienced” Obama.
Rich, I like your read on the “E” word, BTW. In my “experience,” that’s also a code word used to justify not hiring or promoting minorities. How ironic.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 1:52 pm
Rich, there are certainly ways you can be adequately prepared to be president. Eisenhower was certainly prepared. The first Bush. Nixon and Johnson were prepared, despite what anyone might think about their performances.
Experience does count. The only one in the race, in my mind, who has it is McCain. Military and domestic, tested to the limit under fire. Everyone else is a leap of faith.
The most qualified person in the country to be president right now is Colin Powell, based on his experience.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 1:53 pm
If Obama carries New Hampshire, and it looks like he will, I think that the Clintons have to go after him. I’m guessing (guessing, mind you) that will ultimately benefit Edwards.
On the Huckmeister, everyone seems to have forgotten Jimmy Carter. Carter put emphasis on his “born-again” background and religion. Didn’t hurt him. Ran as sort of a party outsider, or at least not the party anointed candidate that year. What sold him was that southerners will vote for a southerner all things considered (and a Republican candidate must hold on to the south), and people seem to be in the mood to elect someone who they see as more of a “regular guy”.
Somertimes “fly-over land” must have its revenge.
Comment by Cogito Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 1:53 pm
Broken Heart,
Hillary’s been around the Washington scene a lot longer. Obama’s been involved in politics (and more basic community organization) for about as long as Bill was when he was first elected in 92.
It’s a weak argument. Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush all had similar experience as governors when they were elected, and look how differently each of their presidencies turned out.
–
jwscott72,
Bill Clinton lost the 92 Iowa caucuses because he didn’t really concentrate on Iowa and focused instead on later primaries.
–
Rich,
The “second choice” deals may have been in place, and the caucusgoers may have simply ignored them (as Arch pointed out to me earlier at his blog before the caucus). People aren’t forced to follow a given campaign’s requests/orders.
Also, Edwards had been leading in polls of “second choice” for some time. The results bear that out.
Also, that “goofiest lede” came courtesy of former Tribbie (and former Des Moines Register reporter, IIRC) Jeff Zeleny who used to cover Obama for the Trib.
Comment by Rob_N Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 1:58 pm
I’ll grant you they had a good “schooling,” but Eisenhower’s serious blunder with Hungary showed he wasn’t adequately prepared, in my opinion - and that mistake should haunt his legacy forever.
Johnson could get bills passed, but he wasn’t much on foreign policy. Nixon could get bills passed, but… well…
Preparation does not equal success.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 2:06 pm
The health care allegations by Edwards are interesting, especially since Michael Moore today sent out an e-mail making the same allegation.
Edwards is clearly trying to go after the Michael Moore/Dennis Kucinch wing of the party, but the real impact is to make Sen. Obama look like a moderate.
People want “change” but they don’t want “left wing extremism.”
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 2:08 pm
Let’s not forget that Ike also blundered in Viet Nam. He started the process that lead to JFK’s blunder and to Johnson’s blunder and to Nixon’s blunder.
If Ike had seen it for what it is and if he had understood the historical animosity between Viet Nam and China, it might have been different.
So much for “experience.”
“Experience” is more necessary for a Secretary of Defense or a Secretary of State. Those offices need a firm grasp of the issues going in and some diplomatic experience. For President, you need somebody with a grasp of the issues, but you also need somebody with intellectual curiosity who can work to solve problems.
Finally, does anyone else see Sen. Clinton’s “experience” tag and think of the Holiday Inn commercials? “No I’ve never run a business or had final say on negotiating with a foreign power, but I spent 8 years in my own bedroom of the White House.”
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 2:13 pm
Okay, let’s look at it this way. America’s favorite past-time, Baseball.
You got a experience over a quick learner. It’s the seventh game of the world series.
At this point, both have pitchers have played the entire season - they both have a identical records and the era is just slightly in favor of the guy who’s been around for a while.
You hadn’t won a world series in say, 100 years.
Do you go with the very talented rookie, or do you go with the cagey vet?
Comment by The 'Broken Heart' of Rogers Park Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 2:19 pm
It the president was a baseball player, you’d go with the vet. This isn’t baseball. Far from it. There is no other job in the country (world) like it. Nothing is even close to it. No analogy holds up.
You can say that about an incumbent president, but that’s it.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 2:22 pm
I was in Iowa in 1992 and I couldn’t get Tom Harkin to even visit Cornell College because everyone was in New Hampshire. Harkin came in first, and uncommitted second–it simply was not a contest and is an irrelevant example to anything in this election.
Comment by ArchPundit Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 2:33 pm
Rich –
I am not sure what the United States could have done in Hungary. The Soviets occupied Czechoslavia and the eastern half of Austria. Tito was in charge in Yugoslavia. Yes, it was distinctly regrettable when the Ferenc Nagy government was overthrown by Soviet military forces. Yes we could have bombed them, to what end I do not know.
The proximate cause was the encouragement of the revolt by RFE. Radio Free Europe was unfortunately out of control with the Magyar emigres encouraging the Hungarians to revolt, but there was no way that we could have invaded Hungary to assist. The most we could do was to shelter Cardinal Mindszenty (probably spelled wrong from fifty two years ago), which we did.
Who unleashed RFE to encourage the Hungarians? Good question. There was government funding, no doubt, but RFE, headquartered in Munich (US Sector, occupied Wsst Germany) was a loose cannon with carte blanche to destabilize the Soviet occupations through propaganda broadcasts.
We had a similar problem later with the Dubcek reform regime and the Prague spring with the elected Dubcek being turfed out by Soviet tanks, but that was another American President as I recall. Dubcek, an otherwise good communist functioary did keep his life and went to the Skoda works for employment.
The Russians had learned their lesson, having been much more brutal in Budapest and alienating not only the Hungarian people but also quite a few West European communists in France and Italy who left the party and became good socialists. Some of them spilled the beans on Soviet espionage activity in their home country.
The third act did not occur until the rise of Solidarity in Poland. By this time the Soviets did not have the communist momentum to put that one down. The Poles effectively endangered the troop and supply links between Russia and East Germany assuring the eventual fall of the latter and the end of the Wall, and finally the untenability of Soviet power in Eastern Europe. Only little Bulgaria remained faithful to the end.
Comment by Truthful James Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 2:37 pm
I’ll take McCain in the Situation Room in a time of crisis or war out of all of them, because of his experience.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 2:42 pm
He campaigned heavily on liberation in 52 and 56 then turned a deaf ear when they needed him most. I was ashamed when I visited Hungary.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 2:43 pm
All this talk about the “Health Care Justice Act” is nonsense on both sides.
Rich, you know what the facts are: Obama proposed a ridiculousy expensive universal health care mandate (fiscal note put the “conservative” cost at $6 billion) that was going nowhere. To save face he changed it into a “study” that would also go nowhere, but allow him to claim a victory.
It’s the same tactic that dozens of other legislators have used for years for their own goofy ideas — introduce a press release bill that’s unworkable and impractical and then when it crashes and burns, accept a meaningless study commission that will issue a report that no-one will ever read.
It’s ridiculous for Edwards to call it a sell out to the insurance industry, but equally ridiculous for Obama to claim he really accomplished anything.
Comment by Old Elephant Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 2:45 pm
I don’t think any of the explanations given by the pundits explains the outcome of the Iowa caucuses. What the voters are saying is we’re not going to let the two major parties pick our candidates again. All we have heard for the last couple of years is the nomintion for the Democrat Presidential candidate will go to Hillary Clinton. Then the Republicans come along and try to force Romney down the throats of the Republican voters. Voters are saying we’re taking back the process of selecting the candidate we want.
Comment by Thinking without the box Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 2:57 pm
Prediction: Obama will have to answer tough questions about how he benefitted from the Rezco land deal and his support of a candidate who loaned bank $$$ to a mobster and the little 82 year old lady who was the victimized by the candidate and his bank.
Comment by Kid Gloves Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 3:06 pm
In fairness, Hillary does have some strengths with experience. She was the point person for designing and then trying to sell Bill Clinton’s universal health care plan in 93-94. If that’s not sitting in on “a big meeting,” then what is? The snark response is that she’s had experience with failure. But I think that’s some of the most valuable political experience you can get. For all extents and purposes, she was at least co-President in 93-94 when it came to health care.
Still, I don’t see how attacking Obama, “You don’t have a universal mandate!!!” is going to turn her ship around in time for New Hampshire.
Comment by ZC Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 3:14 pm
Did anyone else notice that Edwards LOST votes from 2004? He got 31% last time around. Anyone who knows their musicals knows how Iowans treat snake oil salesman so it’s not surprise to me that the Music Man lost some notes, but shouldn’t it be more of a story that the guy who has been running for President for six years now couldn’t even tread water and even sank a little?! Last time around he got 12% in New Hampshire. So will it be 11%? 10.5% on Tuesday? Obama and Clinton must be shaking in their boots.
Comment by The Music Man Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 3:27 pm
Rich, you might like this one. It was sent to me to pass around.
CAST YOUR BALLOT FOR THE MOST PRESIDENTIAL PORTRAIT.
Comment by The 'Broken Heart' of Rogers Park Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 3:39 pm
Interesting comment about McCain, wordslinger.
I seem to remember murmers from the Bush people back in 2000 that McCain went nuts.
Think those stories are gone forever?
It will be very interesting to see how McCain does in South Carolina. A big win there and he can choose his running mate.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 4:09 pm
Skeeter
Provided he can get past Huckabee and Romney in NH.
If so, Rudy G is dead, and Mitt looks like JFK in the last Adlai campaign. After he was beaten for Veep nomination by Kefauver, he made a lot of friends nationwide by campaigning hard for the ticket — not incidentally setting himself up for 1960 and at the same time showing everybody that Roman Catholics do not have elogated tails and horns. If Mitt does that, perhaps the Mormons will be better accepted later, and he is still younger.
If McCain then comes back, he might well choose Fred Thompson to run with him — not a bad choice, although any tandem will be fighting uphill against the Obama ticket.
Comment by Truthful James Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 4:17 pm
Rich,
You started off fine. You asked what experience Hillary Clinton has. Then you accurately point out that she doesn’t really have all that much. Then you evolve into questioning experience as an important factor in choosing presidential candidates and went downhill from there.
Stop.
There are real ways of measuring presidential candidates and evaluating their abilities to serve as president. Experience in office and the kind of office this experience occurred in is an important qualifier. And you know it.
Experience is not just a slam against an outsider by those who do not wish to share power. Some political offices in some states better prepare candidates for the presidency than other political offices.
Senators are not leaders. They are followers. The kind of jobs they do can allow for leadership opportunities, but mostly they reflect their constituency and follow - not lead. Those who thrive in the US Senate over many terms build networks to support leadership decisions, but a newby like Obama has not yet served in office long enough to accomplish this. A one term senator like Edwards or Clinton have barely begun to serve national interests, while multi-term senators who serve as senate leaders have real experience and knowledge that will serve them if they find themselves as president. McCain, Dodd, and Biden are heads and shoulders above Senate newbies. Implying that their experiences in office is bunk - is crazy.
Obama hasn’t even served ONE term. Give us a break!
Same with governors and mayors. There is a difference between being a two term governor of a little state like Arkansas and being a two term governor from California. There is a difference between having served more than one term as a mayor of NYC, Los Angeles, or Phoenix and having served as governor of Kansas.
Huckabee’s experience as Arkansas’ governor doesn’t begin to stack up against Bill Clinton’s experience in the same office. Clinton served twice as long.
You have been covering politics too long to try and cover Obama’s lack of experience by implying that experience isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Thats bogus and you know it.
Digging Eisenhower up and second guessing his actions 55 years later doesn’t prove your case either.
Obama is over-reaching for a job he has had his eyes on most of his life. He decided to run in 2008 because politically it looked good, and he seems to be right. But he isn’t running because he knows what the job entails. He is the most inexperienced major candidate running for president in over 100 years.
Just as Aaron Schock is out of his league, so is Barak Obama. Looking pretty and sounding pretty isn’t a qualifier for The Office.
Huckabee is barely better and he falls far short of the experience he needs to know what the heck he is talking about so prettily.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 4:23 pm
If McCain wins, my guess is he would take a Southern governor, most likely Sanford of South Carolina, possibly Crist (or is it Christ? perfect name for this election cycle) of Florida
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 4:30 pm
VM, I stand by everything I said. I just think you’re wrong. Experience when running for the presidency is vastly overrated.
Bill Clinton was a governor, but he had fewer employees than the Cook County sheriff. It’s all subjective. Words. Little more.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 4:41 pm
At this point “experience” has to be considered a negative. It is time in America for a new direction, new ideas, a new hope that the United States can finally regain its standing in the world, can become a fairer, gentler, friendlier, country that works with its allies to foster freedom and prosperity throughout the world. By having Madeline Albright and Big Bubba standing next to her during her concession speech, Hilliary herself demonstrated why her “experience” is a negative.
On the domestic front, “experience” with lobbyists and campaign fundraisers and contributors sleeping in the Lincoln bedroom, her failure to solve this country’s health care problem, and scandals involving her Arkansas days is just the type of experience that the American people will continue to repudiate at the polls during the rest of the primaries. We the people want change! We need to put the bad old days behind us. We need new ideas to extricate ourselves from the Bush-Clinton morass of the last 20 years.We need to return America to its place as the land of opportunity for all of its citizens and this will not take “experience”. It will take bold new ideas, new people involved in government, a new direction for our country. We, the people demand change. It is time for a real man of the people, Illinois favorite son, Barack Obama! Out with the old, in with the new!
Comment by Bill Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 4:59 pm
Also, I didn’t “dig up” Ike. Somebody else did. And he was “second guessed” plenty at the time. Please try to accurately slam me. Thanks.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 5:22 pm
Rich, that blonde bouncing behind the Governor of Arkansas looked an awful lot like Gennifer Flowers.
Comment by Punley Dieter Finn Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 9:11 pm
I like Barack Obama. Sometimes I have a habit of getting more suspicious of people the better they do.
One issue I have as an Illinoisan (is that the word?) is that Barack was elected in 2004 and in less than 2 years in as Senator he is running for President. What has Barack Obama really done in the Senate? Has he missed votes?
I keep on hearing that he is not an insider and he is not politics as usual and reform etc.
But his money is bundled from rich power players with interests in various legislation and government action (like the Pritzkers with interests in China) and lots of lawyers and law firms. This money is not just spontaneous donors with no vested interest or interested in reform. Now, this is most politicians but that is the point that Barack Obama is indeed a politician. While in the State Senate in Illinois he never criticized than Senate minority leader and subsequently Majority leader Emil Jones and took (and still takes) money from big industry that at least arguably from Illinois from gas to electricity there have been issues.
I can’t really understand the perception as Barack Obama being an outsider. Ron Paul certainly is an outsider. Dennis Kucinich is an outsider kind of of. Maybe even Huckabee. Obama is really not taking any radical positions or anything against the status qou. His speeches tend to be good stump speeches, and like Reagan he seems to give off the aura of hope. Barack Obama does seem positive certainly. However, he has plenty of ties to big business, rich people that some might consider oligarchs, PACs, lobbyists, lawyers, industry, utilities etc–not that there is anything wrong with this per se but just not that he is an outsider or some big reformer. His positions are fairly mainstream liberal positions.
Barack Obama’s story is interesting and he is certainly an attractive candidate but it is not as compelling as others. Certainly Barack Obama is an attractive man with a beautiful wife and family. Being biracial from a white mother and a black father is popular and even powerful as a symbol today. While he is not the first African American candidate (Shirley Chisolm, Jesse Jackson, Alan Keyes, Al Sharpton) to run for President he is the more popular candidate in the media and the polls and the most or at least more probable candidate. John McCain has a more compelling story being a POW in the Hanoi Hilton and a serious military record. Bill Richardson has negotiated some real high level international deals. Barack Obama has no military record or experience. Rudy Guliani has real legal experience and not some legal briefs for some Tony Rezko real estate deals for low income housing or 1 federal appearance or 4 or 4 known cases including major mafia prosecutions.
Edwards is a major lawyer on the plaintiffs side and has legal experience that dwarfs Obama.
Mitt Romney has major business experience not just some insider real estate deals with Tony Rezko.
However, the story in the Sun Times by Abdon Pallasch on his legal experience demonstrated that he had none. It was not stong and silent but minimal compared to any major lawyer in Chicago or even to Sen Edwards certainly.
He is certainly intelligent with a law degree from Harvard but a Harvard or other Ivy League degree is common in the US Senate. His initial opponent in the 2004 general Jack Ryan had an MBA and a law degree from Harvard and had real experience in the financial industry becoming a partner at Goldman Sachs before he was 40 being involved in major deals that affected the economy. There have been some good exposes about Barack Obama’s community organizing also. He worked for the United Neighborhood Organization (UNO) run by Danny Solis (not exactly a paragon of true community organizing nor reform being aligned with major utilities and Mayor Daley) There are conflicting reports about what he did and took credit for on community campaigns. Like his legal resume, his community organizing resume is light. The true positive aspect of Barack Obama has always been hope and potential and not anything he has actually done. Besides being a State Senator, he really has no major life experience or significant accomplishment, certainly not in the law or community organizing.
His outsider and reform rhetoric is further diminished by his ability to raise funds and having key backers from the beginning of his political career and being picked and blessed very early on in by money players and people like Tony Rezko. Obama might not have done anything illegal with Rezko but Obama certainly knew that Rezko was a political operator and was not involved in politics for public policy. The real estate deals again may not be illegal but Obama was involved in them even after the allegations of criminal behavior had been revealed and certainly had been rumored for years. Rezko was also involved in Iraq, with Sultans and missing government officials and failed pipe lines (Rezko being an immigrant from Syria) The Rezko issue goes beyond the current criminal allegations and what else Barack Obama did for Rezko or what he knew about vis a vis his international business.
Barack Obama gives one of the best stump speeches since Reagan. However, he is not a great debator (even Rich Miller pointed this out by re-posting years later the Alan Keyes debates) and is not that good off the cuff.
Obama’s legislative record in the State Senate and the US Senate will be scrutinized and maybe people will not care as many people who did not ideologically agree with Reagan still voted for him. Some so called immigrants rights groups and Hispanics are upset about his support for a wall along the Mexican border. Some abortion groups think he voted against a ban on partial birth abortion. Some veterans are upset he never criticized Durbin over his comments about US soldiers comparing them to worse atrocities and Durbin is ever present with Obama. The entirety of Illinois corruption will be layed to blame at Obama’s feet sometimes fairly but most times not fairly. There has no real discussion on issues and votes of Barack Obama focusing more on the visceral and perceptual aspects of his candidacy.
The media has given Barack Obama a pass up to now and much of the Obamamania nationwide was driven by uncritical front page news stories on Time etc. Obama has yet to be tested by critical news analysis. Here in Chicago Jennifer Hunter fawns over Obama in almost ridiculous quasi journalistic promotion.
It is not unbelievable to say there is some style over substance and cult of personality going on here. I understand what we hope Barack Obama can do (it is like looking into the mirror), but I still don’t know what Barack Obama has done.
Comment by Dukmajian Saturday, Jan 5, 08 @ 5:54 am
This is all irrelevant. We don’t vote for President of the United States in Illinois. Let’s talk about the people from whom we actually DO vote–the Presidential Electors. What experience do THEY have? How do we know that they won’t be “faithless” electors and vote for a candidate other than the candidate of their own party?
Comment by Squideshi Saturday, Jan 5, 08 @ 10:38 am