In her book, The Guns of August, historian Barbara Tuchman, told the story of how, seemingly against its collective will, Europe moved inexorably toward World War 1. At one point, she recounted a conversation between an ex-chancellor of Germany and his successor. “How did it all happen?” the first man asked incredulously. “Ach,” said his successor, “if we only knew.”

One can’t help but wonder if, come January 20, 2009, Democrats won’t be engaging in similar dazed discussions about how they lost a clear shot at the White House.

Increasingly, it appears to me that the party that enjoyed the prospect of almost certain victory in this year’s presidential election is flirting with defeat. The once-presumptive nominee, Hillary Clinton, is, through a scorched-earth strategy, burying herself beneath a daunting disapproval rating that, should she miraculously be nominated, would almost certainly scuttle her chances in November. Meanwhile, the candidate in the lead, Barack Obama, seems unable to finish Clinton off, weighed down by his own uncertain handling of the Jeremiah Wright affair, constant sniping from the Clinton camp, and the growing perception of him as a conventional pandering pol.

A new Democratic coalition seemed to be aborning as 2008 dawned. But the campaign between Clinton and Obama has become so bitter that polling now indicates there are substantial numbers of supporters of each candidate who will be loathe to support the other should their preferred candidate not be nominated.

That wouldn’t have been the case just a few weeks ago. But the longer this fight goes on, the more hardened folks with strong allegiances become. At present, it’s hard to imagine core supporters of either Obama or Clinton voting for McCain. But it’s easy to picture them sitting on their hands, easier to picture in fact, with each passing day.

So, how did things get this way? How is it that polling shows that John McCain is running even or better against either of the two potential Democratic standard bearers? With the economy in recession, even by McCain’s reckoning, and an unpopular war going on, how is it that the Democrats stand on the brink of losing in November?

“Ach, if we only knew.”

Above all, I suspect that Democrats have gotten themselves to this place because of the triumph of celebrity over credentials. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both intelligent people. But it cannot be argued that they were, in any way, the most qualified candidates for the presidency running for the Democratic nomination this year. While I think that Obama, owing to his time as a community organizer and state senator before his election to the US Senate in 2004, can credibly argue that he has more relevant experience than Senator Clinton has, neither candidate had the credentials to commend them to the presidency.

History abhors vacuums. So do public perceptions. Clinton and Obama, each for different reasons, were two candidates ripe for being saddled with negatives because the perceptions of them were largely vacuums waiting to be filled.

What Clinton lacked in credentials, she had in both celebrity and negative opinions. Clinton may enjoy 70% support among traditional Democrats. But she is disliked by much of the rest of the electorate. Many distrust her, a tribe that has only grown through the course of the campaign. Many women I know disdain her as a woman who either weakly countenanced a serial adulterer for a husband or put up with him for purely political reasons; either way, as one woman told me last week, “The presidency shouldn’t be the country’s consolation prize for a person who demonstrates consistently bad judgment.”

Obama has become a tabula rasa, first for those wanting to imbue him with their fondest aspirations and more recently, for the constant assaults of the Clinton campaign and Republican functionaries.

Joe Biden, Christopher Dodd, and Bill Richardson–you remember them, don’t you?–are no celebrities. Nor are they without their faults. But they were already vetted before the 2008 campaign began. And they had credentials. They would have been far more daunting candidates to tangle with McCain than either Clinton or Obama are likely to prove to be. None of them would be as damaged by now had they become the three finalists in the nomination fight.

The fact that the three least qualified candidates for president were the finalists for the Democrats–I’m counting John Edwards–tells me that Democrats, donors even more than rank-and-file voters, were taking 2008 too much for granted. They dismissed the need to put forward a seriously-credentialed candidate for the presidency. They bet that the celebrity of a former First Lady or a first-term Senator with an undeniable gift for oratory were all they needed, making a choice much like the nineteenth century Whigs who nominated war heroes like William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor, people with big names but little public record. Democrats apparently thought that they could put forward a nominee who made them tingle, qualifications be hanged.

None of this is to say that either Obama or Clinton can’t win in November. The political lay of the land still favors the Democratic nominee. But with each passing day of this depressing campaign, their prospects are hurt.

That might not have been the case had those voters in Iowa and New Hampshire said to themselves, “I like Obama and Clinton, but I want to win with a known quantity on whom new baggage is unlikely to be placed.”

I can’t help wondering if committed Democrats won’t be asking each other as they watch President McCain’s Inaugural Address next January, “Ach, why didn’t I vote for Biden?”

[Mark Daniels’s personal blog can be found here.]

Senator Hillary Clinton has flatly denied she ever told Gov. Bill Richardson that her chief rival from the Democratic nomination Senator Barack Obama could not win the presidency:

ABC News Eloise Harper Reports: Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., denies she told Governor Bill Richardson, D-N.M., that her Democratic nomination rival, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., “cannot win” a general election against presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

“That’s a no,” Clinton, D-N.Y., told reporters at the end of a press conference in Burbank, California, when asked if made the comment to Richardson.

“We have been going back and forth in this campaign of who said what to whom and let me say this, that I don’t talk about private conversations but I have consistently made the case that I can win,” she said.

ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos reported on Wednesday’s World News that sources with direct knowledge of the conversation between Sen. Clinton and Richardson, prior to the Governor’s endorsement of Obama say she told him flatly, “He cannot win, Bill. He cannot win.”

There are several ways to look at this:

(1) CLINTON IS TELLING THE TRUTH: This would mean Stephanopoulos either had a political ax to grind or was hoodwinked by a source.

(2) SHE’S DOING DAMAGE CONTROL SINCE THIS DOES NOT SEEM TO BE PLAYING WELL WITH SUPER DELEGATES: Put this in the political context of the string of Superdelegate endorsements Obama is getting, reports of irked Superdelegates, the report of a red-faced Bill Clinton going on a tirade when Richardson’s name came up. Too much ink and air time is being devoted now to Clinton strategy and tactics — versus her POLICIES.

Choose the one according to your own analysis or political biases.

Here’s my take:
Read the rest of this entry »

Is former President Bill Clinton helping or hurting his wife Senator Hillary Clinton in her battle to become the 2008 Democratic Presidential nominee? The debate has often focused on some of the former President’s public pronouncements — but now there’s a report about an angry, red-faced Bill Clinton losing it while talking to California delegates:

The Bill Clinton who met privately with California’s superdelegates at last weekend’s state convention was a far cry from the congenial former president who afterward publicly urged fellow Democrats to “chill out” over the race between his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Barack Obama.

In fact, before his speech Clinton had one of his famous meltdowns Sunday, blasting away at former presidential contender Bill Richardson for having endorsed Obama, the media and the entire nomination process.

“It was one of the worst political meetings I have ever attended,” one superdelegate said.

This report is worth looking at it in detail, because it raises some issues — including one that Republicans could pick up on if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination: Senator Barack Obama’s controversial pastor could be a problem for him, but increasingly there will be some Americans who will not want Bill Clinton hanging around the Oval office again. Especially with reports like the San Francisco Chronicle’s.

Read on. It gets much worse:

Read the rest of this entry »

Don’t take politics TOO seriously, enjoy it with the Capitol Steps!

TUNE IN your radio to these fine public radio stations for the April Fool’s Day edition of “Politics Takes a Holiday”

You know, an Obama campaign co-chair recently compared Bill Clinton to Joe McCarthy—-a truly dire insult from the point of view of anyone old enough to remember what McCarthy was and did.  And the insult was generated not because of anything Clinton said or did but because of something McPeak assumed he meant or might have meant or could be construed to have meant, despite the fact that he didn’t in fact say what McPeak said he said.  The reaction of the Hillary-demonizing media and punditocracy to McPeak’s response to a meaning he had to wring out of Bill Clinton’s words?      "…………………."

Sure it was almost too silly to dignify with a response, but it was an interesting illustration of how there is really nothing too bad or too absurd for people in Obama’s camp to say about the Clintons—or for those with a large media platform to say.  Cf. Andrew Sullivan’s allegations that Hillary’s proposal that Obama run on a joint ticket as Vice President of the United States and therefore as the logical successor to the presidency amounted to an instance ‘white entitlement.’  Again with the accusations or implications of racism!–another dire insult as and routinely lightly and absurdly flung at the Clintons as though racism weren’t a grave offense against God, humanity, and common decency. 

Read the rest of this entry »

Bill Richardson’s endorsement of Barack Obama last week raises the question of why the leader of the also-rans is being coy about making a choice

“John Edwards,” Politico reports, “is unlikely to endorse either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton before the nomination is decided, according to interviews with several members of the former candidate’s inner circle.”

Why not? At this stage, the Democrats need all the clarity they can get. Despite his long-standing ties to the Clintons, Richardson made his announcement last week–a hard choice, but he made it.

Edwards has been courted with visits from Obama and Clinton, and he knows how helpful his endorsement might be, particularly in the upcoming North Carolina primary.

Why would he hold back? None of the possible reasons do him credit or even make much sense. Surely he knows enough about the two candidates to make a choice, and holding out will not encourage them at this point to take up his war on poverty any more than they already have.

Is he angling to be a king-maker at the convention? Not likely, all but a handful of his pledged delegates are gone, and none would take direction from him in any case. Does he want to be sure to back the winner and end up in the cabinet, perhaps as Attorney General? Bad strategy. They don’t give medals for showing up after the battle. Or is he just planning to become the 21st century Harold Stassen, a perennial Presidential candidate?

Jonathan Prince, Edwards’ former deputy campaign manager, thinks his man has clout, asserting “that before Ohio and Texas, the campaigns told me that the most popular Democrat in Ohio was John Edwards. And he was tied for the most popular Democrat in Texas. I would imagine that what was true in Ohio is true in Pennsylvania, too.

“One candidate is trying to show he’s got it wrapped up. I think John Edwards would help to do that. The other candidate is trying to show that things are breaking her way. I think John Edwards would help to do that also.”

Most of all, by choosing now he would set an example for his party to encourage settling their squabbles sooner rather than later to unite against the possibility of another Republican in the White House. John Edwards has dedicated himself to bringing together the two Americas. Is it too much to ask him to do something for the two Democratic parties?

Cross-posted from my blog.

Can this be beneficial to the Clinton campaign? New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has answered comments from some aides to Senator Hillary Clinton who have belittled his endorsement of Senator Barack Obama or taken swipes at him by defending the Clintons and lambasting their aides.

Usually if someone prominent endorses a candidate, someone on the side that doesn’t get the endorsement then tries to belittle the impact, which is a normal part of campaign spin. But in this case some associated with the Clinton campaign have seemed to make it a bit more personal in their statements — and Richardson is showing that he won’t let it stand without his own response:

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said today that the people around Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton practice “gutter” politics and that they feel entitled to the presidency, a day after an informal adviser to her campaign compared Richardson to Judas for endorsing Sen. Barack Obama.

James Carville told the New York Times that Richardson, a former member of Bill Clinton’s Cabinet, had committed “an act of betrayal,” adding that it “came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out [Jesus] for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic.”

“I’m not going to get in the gutter like that,” Richardson responded on “Fox News Sunday.” “And you know, that’s typical of many of the people around Senator Clinton. They think they have a sense of entitlement to the presidency.”

The “entitlement” enters into dangerous territory for the Clintons, given the number of commentators who have said over the past few months that Americans could balk at having Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton presidencies.

“I am very loyal to the Clintons,” said Richardson, but he said he wanted something beyond “Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton.” “You know, what about the rest of us?” he asked.

He called for “a new generation of leadership,” and added, “I think Obama represents this new change of not just bipartisanship, but bringing people together, bringing races together, bringing America’s role in the world to be respected again.

Richardson’s comments will be less easy to dismiss since in the same breath he refused to agree with against charges by an Obama aide that the former President was indulging in McCarthyism in a recent comment some took as questioning Obama’s patriotism. He was quite blunt:

“I don’t believe President Clinton was implying that,” said New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a former presidential candidate who endorsed Obama last week. “But the point here … is that the campaign has gotten too negative — too many personal attacks, too much negativity that is not resounding with the public.”

Richardson also articulated a concern that other reports said is “out there” among Superdelgates: Obama and Clinton are pounding each other while GOP likely Presidential nominee Senator John McCain is visiting Iraq, Europe and the Middle East looking Presidential

“I think it reaches a point where the leaders of the party, the voters in the Democratic Party, have to see that this bloodletting that would go between the last primary and the convention is not serving is well…”

It should be interesting to watch Richardson’s evolving role. He proved to be Mr. Potential in the primaries — the one who for months analysts suggested had potential, but it was never realized in the voting. He didn’t come across too well on television, either. But he remains one of the nation’s most respected governors and a Superdelegate. And, as this exchange shows, he isn’t afraid to respond if under attack. Will Obama use him as a campaigner or, as time goes on, as a kind of surrogate?

In a campaign season where much ado has been made of endorsements but their value has been questionable, Barack Obama bagged a potentially big one today – Bill Richardson.

Hispanic voters have been a key voting bloc for Hillary Clinton and, as the nation’s only Hispanic governor, Richardson could attract Hispanics to Obama. But Richardson, who largely based his own presidential campaign on opposition to the Iraq war, does not have wide name recognition, did poorly in the early primaries and dropped out.

His ability to siphon-off Hispanic votes for Obama in the remaining primaries — almost all in states without significant Hispanic populations — seems problematic, so the short-term effect of the endorsement is questionable.

The endorsement was nevertheless a setback for Clinton because Richardson, a former congressman and Bill Clinton administration energy secretary, had been viewed as a possible vice presidential running mate for her.

Richardson hailed Obama’s judgment and ability to be commander-in-chief, the qualities that Clinton has called into question.

Said Richardson:

“I believe he is the kind of once-in-a-lifetime leader that can bring our nation together and restore America’s moral leadership in the world. As a presidential candidate, I know full well Sen. Obama’s unique moral ability to inspire the American people to confront our urgent challenges at home and abroad in a spirit of bipartisanship and reconciliation.”

As a governor, Richardson is a superdelegate who would vote for Obama, who now has a lead of about 150 delegates.

Clinton has received the endorsements of 93 members of Congress to Obama’s 81, and both have received a number of celebrity endorsements.

More here.

From one of my favorite Ohio bloggers, Clark Street Blog:

Terse summarizations of the candidates/campaigns so far:

DEMOCRATS

OBAMA: Hope with me, dream with me, believe in me, vote for me.

CLINTON: Is the applause meter on?

EDWARDS: I am in this until the end. The END! Okay, never mind.

DODD: I would like to share some thoughtful remarks on some important matters of policy. Hey, is this thing on?

RICHARDSON: You want experience? How about Congress, Cabinet, Diplomat, and Governor? (* crickets *)

KUCINICH: We shall overcome, and we shall do it with drum circles.

BIDEN: Why do I keep tasting bits of shoe leather in my mouth?

GRAVEL: I don’t care who, and I don’t care why, but SOMEONE IS GETTIN’ A FIST SANDWICH.

REPUBLICANS

ROMNEY: Thanks to the internet, my positions are now available in real time.

McCAIN: America, thy name is victory.

HUCKABEE: America, thy name is victory for Jesus.

GIULIANI: I love Bush. I love Cheney. The last 7 years have been great. I say MORE COWBELL!

PAUL: Half of what I say makes total sense. Do you really care about the rest?

THOMPSON: Look, I really need this nap. I was at a costume party at my wife’s sorority until pretty late. I dressed up as Ronald Reagan.

Please, if you like it, give the proper attribution. Thanks.

Chris Cillizza’s ‘The Fix’ Blog at the Washington Post has moved on to considering the most-likely vice-presidential candidates with: The Line on Running Mates

As Super Tuesday draws ever closer, the fields for the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations have narrowed significantly. [snip] With such a narrow field, it seems pointless to continue the presidential Line. [snip] Although neither party has settled on a nominee just yet, the speculation about who will be No. 2 on the ticket has already begun in earnest.

If John McCain is the Republican presidential nominee, ‘The Fix’ proposes former Gov. Mike Huckabee, Gov. Tim Pawlenty (MN), Gov. Mark Sanford (SC) or Sen. John Thune (SD) as his running mate.

If Mitt Romney is the Republican presidential nominee, ‘The Fix’ proposes Gov. Don Carcieri (RI), Gov. Mark Sanford (SC) or former Sen. Jim Talent (MO) as his running mate.

If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic presidential nominee, ‘The Fix’ proposes former Gov. and current Sen. Evan Bayh (IN), former Sen. John Edwards, Gov. Bill Richardson (NM), Gov. Ted Strickland (OH) or former Gov. Tom Vilsack (IA) as her running mate.

If Barack Obama is the Democratic presidential nominee, ‘The Fix’ proposes former Sen. Tom Daschle (SD), former Sen. John Edwards, Gov. Tim Kaine (VA), Sen. Claire McCaskill (MO) or Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (KS) as his running mate.

MORE

This Guest Voice column is by Patrick , an attorney who is a registered Republican but concerned over the influence of the hard right on his party and the influence of the hard left on the Democratic party. He is assistant editor of the centrist blog Central Sanity. This is the SECDON of two parts. Guest Voice columns do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Moderate Voice or its writers. Part One is HERE.

WHAT IS A MODERATE TO DO: PART TWO

By Patrick Edaburn

In my last post I discussed my views of the Republican candidates for President, in this one I will take a look at the Democrats.

As a moderate I have given this considerable thought and have come to some rather depressing conclusions regarding the options available to those of us in the political center.

(I’d like to begin this post by apologizing for the delay in the posting of the second part of this essay. I had hoped to have it up last week but my car decided to die and accordingly I have been spending my time dealing with those issues.)

Just to review what I wrote in the Part One, whenever I am trying to decide who to vote for in a primary, particularly in a Presidential contest, I consider several factors. The most important of course is ideology, which candidate or candidates best match a centrist viewpoint.

Also important is the character of the candidates. Do they seem reasonably honest and trustworthy? I realize that some people don’t put this as a key factor but if you are basing your vote on what the candidates views are you need to know if they can be trusted to stick with what they say.

A final factor to take into account is viability. While it is most important to look at the views of each candidate, it does little good to back a contender who has no chance of winning. It might feel good for a while but often it can lead to a reasonably good candidate who might be your second choice losing to a really bad one.

So now on to the Democrats

DEMOCRATS

One of the nice things about the delay in my posting is that it has allowed some of the weaker candidates to withdraw. I was actually a bit disappointed to see Bill Richardson drop out as he seemed to offer some pretty compelling factors in terms of experience and moderate viewpoints.

But I can only deal with those contenders still in the race (though expect Bill to be near the top of the VP list for whoever wins the top nod).

I assume it goes without saying that both Kucinich and Gravel are not viable so I won’t waste your time discussing why. If you do think they are viable candidates please feel free to post your thoughts.

Senator Edwards is a former VP nominee with a lot of money and an appealing public image, which in theory should make him a major contender for the nomination. But he is caught between the ‘first woman’ and ‘first minority’ buzz saw and I don’t think he will be able to make it out.

It is possible that either Clinton or Obama will make a mistake and be forced out, and in that case Edwards could emerge as the alternative. But for now I think it is simply a matter of time before he gets out.

Even with Edwards in the race, he’s not really good for the moderate voter. His campaign is divisive, very much set on setting one side against the other. He is very liberal, and I am not sure there is very much between those ears.

So this leaves us with (in alphabetic order): Clinton and Obama

Hilary Clinton

Starting from the beginning HRC was seen as the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. That aura has faded somewhat over the past few months but with her ‘comeback’ in New Hampshire she remains a top candidate

While I have admittedly had problems with the Senator from New York, she has compiled some moderate points during her tenure in the Senate. She has avoided taking too hard a line on social issues and has proposed some strong positions on national security issues.

Her views on Iraq seem balanced, supporting a change but not doing so without taking into account the realities of the situation.

This is not to say she is a centrist. If you look at the ratings from the various interest groups her record has been in the liberal sphere, but not too far outside of the political mainstream.

According to the Almanac of American Politics, her votes from 2003 through 2006 were as follows: Economic = 75 liberal, 23 conservative; Social = 83 liberal, 6 conservative; Foreign = 66 liberal, 30 conservative. Average = 75 liberal, 20 conservative.

I don’t agree with her on everything but she is not the wild eyed radical some would want you to think

She also seems to be reasonably qualified for the job. While I wouldn’t say that simply being First Lady gave her the job, she has also spent 8 years as a Senator and had a long career in the public and private sector before that.

One issue I do have with Senator Clinton is the same I had with President Clinton, the issue of honesty and trust. While I do not expect my politicians to be as pure as the driven snow, I do like them to be quasi honest.

In Senator Clinton’s case, the fact that she has tried to act the moderate after a lifetime of fairly liberal politics makes me think twice. On the other hand, this duplicity could work to the moderate advantage. She is going to want to get re-elected so she is likely to tack to the center during her first term.

Her viability is an issue to consider as she has strong critics on both the right and the left, which could cause a division in party ranks. Then again, I suspect that whoever the Democrats nominate will win, so that may be a moot point.

On a scale of 1 to 10, she rates on fairly well on ideology but less so on integrity and viability issues. Overall, I would give her a 5-6, making her one of the better options among the Democrats.

Barack Obama

Certainly Obama is a political wonder. He has emerged from being an obscure state legislator to a major Presidential contender in the space of a few years. His campaign is probably the most positive and uplifting since Reagan or Clinton.

I suspect that he is also fairly sincere about his views. He hasn’t been that specific of course, but I don’t think he is the type to say one thing when he means another. His background is not a concern to me (I don’t think he is some deep cover terrorist sneaking in the back door).

But there are some serious flaws from a moderate point of view.

One of the biggest is ideology. As I’ve said, I don’t think he is one to lie about his positions, but at the same time he hasn’t been very specific about his views. His campaign has been largely sound bites about uniting and bringing people together. While this is nice, we need to look deeper.

On domestic policy he comes down as hard liberal, advocating things like nationalized health care, major social programs, expansion of federal role in education and so on.

Obviously most of these issues do require solutions, but I am not sure that I support the idea of everything being resolved by the government. As a moderate I look to a combination of government and the private sector in solving problems.

On national security I am also concerned by Senator Obama. His opposition to the war in Iraq and support of a withdrawal is a good idea, but he simply wants to pull out right away without any consideration of the long term impact.

His suggestion that he would talk to rogue nations like Iran and North Korea with no expectation that they will adopt more reasonable views on things is not encouraging.

Indeed I wonder if he is a bit naïve on things. He hasn’t quite come out and said that if we just talk nice to people they will leave us alone, but I do start to wonder.

Overall I would give Obama high marks for inspiration but fairly low ones after looking a little deeper. Perhaps a 3 or 4 overall, but perhaps with potential for the future.

Looking at both parts 1 and two, we find we have 3 candidates (Clinton, Giuliani and Romney) who are pretty good on the issues but have trust and viability issues. A fourth candidate is pretty good on trust and some issues but has a serious flaw on Iraq (McCain).

Finally we have a fifth who is inspiring on the stump and says some good things but does not have the experience or moderate views we need (Obama).

The rest of the candidates are too far to the left or to the right to even be serious contenders.

As a moderate I find it hard to get excited about any of these candidates and a few of them really scare me.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Our earlier headline had wrongly said this was Part I and the intro was from the first part. We have made the corrections. The Moderate Voice regrets the error.

Actually, the headline should ask WHEN will Democratic Governor Bill Richardson drop out of the Presidential race? One news report says he will. Then another carries a denial by his campaign organization, noting that he’ll announce a decision Thursday.

But it’s all a matter of time. Richardson was the quintessential “dream resume” candidate — someone who had done so many impressive things, been so popular with his home turf voters, a top Hispanic politician…why, he was BOUND to be a contender.

Plus, he was (on most but not all issues) a centrist, which set him apart from a lot of the Democratic Party presidential pack. But, above all, in the end Richardson seemed to be a national political underachiever.

The latest report says he’ll make an announcement Thursday. It’s highly-unlikely (but anything is possible in politics this year) that he’ll call a press conference to announce that he’s not dropping out and that nothing has changed:

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson will announce Thursday that he is ending his campaign for the presidency, sources inside the Richardson campaign confirmed to NBC News on Wednesday.

Sources told The Associated Press and NBC News about the withdrawal plan on condition of anonymity in advance of the governor’s announcement.

The Richardson campaign would not comment on the governor’s decision, reached after a meeting with his top advisers Wednesday in New Mexico.

Keep in mind that most Presidential candidates stay in the race as long as they have to — until it turns out they run out of money and can’t raise any more. That could be the case with Richardson.

The question will continue to be asked: how could a candidate who seemed to have such a solid resume, great success as politician in his home state, and such high polling numbers from his New Mexico constituents fizzle so dramatically on the national campaign scene? There may be several reasons:

Read the rest of this entry »

Long story short, the 25 days until Super Tuesday are shaping up to be a make-or-break period for a presidential candidate who had arrogantly campaigned as Ms. Inevitable and had to scramble to reinvent herself, and another candidate whose astounding momentum suffered a glancing blow — if not hit a granite wall — in New Hampshire yesterday and cannot reinvent himself.

Barely one week into a year in which Hillary Rodham Clinton would breeze to the Democratic nomination flush with a $100 million-plus war chest and then possible coronation as the first woman president, her campaign appeared to be in disarray and there were whispers that some of her advisors were lobbying her for an exit strategy.

Clinton certainly was bruised if not bowed after Iowa voters caught Barack Obama fever, but defying the polls and punditocracy, she plucked victory from the jaws of defeat for an “upset win” over the freshman Illinois senator, a term that no one would have contemplated using a few short weeks ago in this strangest of campaign seasons.
Read the rest of this entry »

An excursion via Memeorandum led me to

RightWingNews - The Twenty Most Annoying Liberals In The United States: The 2007 Edition

Funny, I’m not much like the folks on the list and dislike or disagree with many of them. I don’t even watch the TV heads (but I do belong to the ACLU)!

Listing all of the top Democratic candidates was not really fair of RWN.

I was on a long drive and missed the Republican candidate’s debate on ABC but got to the hotel just in time to catch the Democratic candidates’ debate in New Hampshire and — WOW! I DO love tag-team wrestling matches…

It was former Senator John Edwards and Democratic Senator Barack Obama tag-teaming against Senator Hillary Clinton.

Edwards had Obama’s back — while Clinton spent much of the debate shoving verbal daggers into it.

And the passions, maneuvers and transparent manipulations were understandable since polls show the New Hampshire primary race is now a dead heat between Obama (who has Big Mo) and Clinton (who has Big Bill).

The Washington Post’ Chris Cillizza notes, the political context of this debate realistically left Clinton little choice but to go after Obama at almost every chance she got:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) cast off the magnanimous, above-the-fray approach she had used up until now in the campaign, aggressively challenging Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) over which of the three can truly bring about change.

“I think I am an agent of change,” Clinton insisted. “I think having the first woman president is a huge change.”

While that line drew spontaneous applause from the audience inside the debate hall, it may be too little too late for Clinton. A majority of voters in the Iowa Democratic caucuses said a candidate who could bring about change was their top priority in making their pick, and Obama won overwhelmingly among that bloc of voters.

Given the short period of time between Iowa’s caucuses and New Hampshire’s primary, it will be difficult for Clinton to change the underlying dynamics of the race in such short order. Obama is at ease when talking change and he showed it again tonight; “Regardless of what the Republican candidates are talking about I think there are a whole hosts of Republicans and Independents who have lost hope in their government,” he said. “We can draw those independents and some Republicans into a working majority for change.”

And the spectacle was a sight to behold. Was this REALLY one of those boring, old political debates or had ABC resurrected CNN’s Crossfire? The New York Times:

It was as if they sensed vulnerability.

Senator Barack Obama and John Edwards went after Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as never before in a televised debate here on Saturday night. With Mr. Obama hoping that a victory in New Hampshire, following his first-place finish in Iowa, would make him difficult to beat in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination — and with Mr. Edwards looking to defeat Mrs. Clinton in a second straight contest — they entered an alliance of convenience.

In an exchange that summed up the basic story line of the contest, they cast her as a candidate of the status quo who would fail to deliver the changes in government that many Democratic voters demand.

With the New Hampshire primary two days away, Mrs. Clinton found her courage, likability and judgment questioned. But she fought back as she did when she was first lady of Arkansas and of the United States — with defiance and flashes of anger, pursing her lips, stiffening her back and staring intently at her rivals.

She could have used karate king Chuck Norris — but he’s running around with Governor Mike Huckabee these days. (Question to Oprah: Can you wrestle?)

And when Ms. Clinton replied, if it were prepared, it certainly sounded like it came from the depth of her soul and gut:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, showing frustration over criticism that she represents the status quo, lashed out last night at the two rivals who beat her in last week’s Iowa caucuses.

“Making change is not about what you believe,” an agitated Clinton told Barack Obama and John Edwards after they faulted her campaign tactics during a debate, the last before New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary on Jan. 8. “It’s not about the speech you make. It’s about working hard.”

A transcript of the debate IS HERE.

Here’s this independent voter’s take on how the candidates did:

Read the rest of this entry »

Watching the debates on ABC. Now the Democrats are discussing domestic issues and the need for change and there has been slashing between Obama, Clinton and Edwards. Richardson gets a chance to speak and says something like “I’ve been in hostage negotiation situations that were more civil than this.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: The headline of our post on the Zogby poll and the lead paragraph were wrong due to part of another post not being properly erased, although the rest of the post was correct. The poll shows Senator John McCain and NOT former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney holding on to their narrow leads.

The Moderate Voice apologizes for and regrets the error. Here’s the proper version:

A new Zogby poll shows Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton and Republican Arizona Senator John McCain in the lead in their parties’ respective primaries in New Hampshire — but the two front-runners are ahead by such narrow margins that Tuesday night could again be a night of surprises:

Republican John McCain lost a little ground to Mitt Romney, as Mike Huckabee picked up some ground on the momentum of his victory in the Iowa caucuses. Democrat Hillary Clinton held even and retained a slight edge against the advancing Barack Obama in the wake of Obama’s win in Iowa, the latest Reuters/C–SPAN/Zogby telephone tracking poll of likely New Hampshire primary voters shows.

Democrat John Edwards also remained steady at 20%, well back of Clinton but within striking distance. But partial polling after Iowa suggests some slippage may be in the offing for both Clinton and Edwards.

On the Republican side, you have see:

McCain at 32 percent
Romney at 30 percent
Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee at 12 percent
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani at 9 percent
Rep. Ron Paul at 7 percent
Former Senator Fred Thompson at 3 percent
Rep. Duncan Hunter at 1 percent

On the Democratic side you see:

Clinton at 32%
Obama at 28 %
Former Senator John Edwards at 20 percent
Gov. Bill Richardson at 7 percent
Rep. Dennis Kucinich at 3%
Senator Joe Biden at 2 %
Senator Chris Dodd at 1 %

The details are eye-opening:

McCain’s lead continues to be based on the strength of support among independents, where he holds a 42% to 29% over Romney, with no other Republican winning more than 10% support among this group. Among moderates, McCain’s edge dropped from 53% support to 48% support after yesterday’s polling was added to the Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby three-day rolling average, while while Romney also lost some ground, dropping from 24% to 22%.

So McCain is the favorite of independents.

Meanwhile, Romney’s edge over McCain among mainline conservatives – the largest voting bloc in the GOP - increased from one to five points.

It sounds like conservatives are settling on Romney to stop McCain — and Huckabee. Or are they?

Huckabee’s bounce from the Iowa victory comes among those who consider themselves “very conservative,” where he jumped from 21% to 28% when just yesterday’s post-Iowa caucus polling is folded into the mix. However, Romney still leads in the category with 33% support. McCain wins 20% among the very conservative.

So in New Hampshire, at least, it doesn’t seem as if conservatives are totally listening to talk show host Rush Limbaugh and the GOP establishment, which wants to stop Huckabee.

There are some other details in this poll, including about the Demmies. But here’s the most interesting:

While 64% of likely voting New Hampshire independents said they were planning to vote in the Democratic primary, about 36% said they would vote in the GOP contest – an 8-point swing in favor of the Democrats compared to just one day earlier.

As in Iowa, younger Democrats favor Obama over Clinton, but his advantage is not now near where it was in Iowa. Likewise, Clinton retains an Iowa–like edge among older voters, but she also has a smaller edge here than in Iowa. Edwards is a solid third in all age groups.

So if you look at the trending, the rhythm and the ongoing narrative of media coverage, it suggests that it’s unlikely New Hampshire voters will vote to stop Obama. More likely, it’ll either be a nail biter or they’ll vote for Obama.

A Clinton loss in New Hampshire looks likely if you pencil in these factors.

On the Republican side, the story continues to be Romney more so than McCain. He has not just not gotten endorsements in the state, but the state’s newspapers have denounced him for essentially being dishonest and changing so many of his positions (well, this is the year of “change”).

Will that override the desire of some voters to stop Huckabee? You can see by info in the poll that conservatives are split. Huckabee is too far down in the polls to likely pull this one off.

Whoever wins the GOP primary in New Hampshire will be the anti-Huckabee candidate — and will likely get support from the Republican establishment to squelch the Arkansas Governor’s challenge to the GOP’s party and ideological elite.

I was watching PBS NewsHour while eating a hefty salad with lots of garlic when I heard that the McCain and Huckabee campaigns have teamed-up in New Hampshire to knock Mitt Romney out of the race.

Politics becomes Reality TV.

And so after months of stump speeches, mind-numbing debates and a tsunami of navel-gazing by an omnipotent punditocracy, we now have a small measure of how voters actually feel about the 2008 presidential field.

As in a really small measure.

Some 350,000 or so Democrats and Republicans — a record but still less than 15 percent of the state electorate — showed up at party caucuses in frigid and snow covered Iowa last night.

The caucuses are basically a media-driven event and this statistically insignificant, overwhelmingly white and disproportionately rural bunch of voters wield far too much clout. Note further that exactly one victorious Iowa candidate - George W. Bush in 2000 - has ever gone on to win the presidency in the same year since Jimmy Carter put the caucuses on the national map in 1976. Even then Carter finished second behind that perennial favorite, “Uncommitted.”

None of that particularly matters, however, because the results and orders of finish will resonate loudly in the run-up to the New Hampshire primary next Tuesday:

(1) Obama: An historic triumph for an African-American whose message resonated with men and women, young and old, rich and middle class — and perhaps most importantly, independents.

(2) Edwards: His populist appeal wasn’t nearly enough despite non-stop campaigning and he actually didn’t do as well as in 2004. Unfortunately, the man with the $400 haircut probably won’t last into the spring.

(3) Clinton: Events are spinning out of control — and may even be out of her control — after a disastrous finish that shattered her aura of inevitability.

(4) Richardson: Barely still in the race — for a vice-presidential nod.

(5) Biden: Over and out. Being an experienced candidate meant squat in the end.

(6) Dodd: Ditto. Being a virtuous candidate meant squat in the end.

(1) Huckabee: A triumph for the Onward Christian Soldiers crowd and a disaster in the making for the GOP because, if the New Man from Hope is the nominee, he almost certainly will be crushed no matter who the Democratic candidate is. That includes Obama.

(2) Romney: A humiliating finish considering that he had to win Iowa and spent more time and more money there than any candidate. Many voters saw Mitt for what he is — a phony.

(3.) Thompson: A not half bad showing if not exactly a momentum builder for a man who is barely in contention and will be out of it sooner than later.

(3) McCain: The un-Romney is still alive but not well after a poor showing.

(5) Paul: A respectable finish, but still very much an also-ran.

(6) Giuliani: So what that America’s Mayor skipped Iowa? Ha, ha, ha, ha.

While the numbers are insignificant and Iowa certainly isn’t representative of the U.S. as a whole, the call for change from both Democratic and Republican voters was resounding and the convincing victories for Obama and Huckabee are sure to shake — and in their own ways threaten — the party establishments.

Perhaps even more dramatic is that, while Iowa was a state tailor-made for Huckabee, it was anything but for Obama — which after his victory raises the prospect that if he can prevail in New Hampshire and then South Carolina the nomination may be his to lose if Clinton cannot mount a convincing comeback in the 20-state “Super Duper Tuesday” primaries on February 5.

Can Obama become only the second Iowa winner to take the White House? What seemed improbable is less so today. And while the caucuses are just the first stepping-stone in the nominating process, albeit a process that has become increasingly front-loaded, there is an aura of Democratic inevitability.