Almost a year ago, the Crystal Ball took a first crack at listing the vice presidential possibilities in both parties (LINK). The list has held up surprisingly well. But the justifications for various candidacies have changed, and now that we know John McCain will make the choice, it’s time for reconsideration. (We’ll await the unofficial crowning of the Democratic nominee to play this game on the Democratic side, unless Democrats keep the game tied through the spring. Our discipline can only last so long.)

Let’s start by revising and extending our earlier remarks, and asking the most important question. Ideally, what does a presidential candidate need in a VP ticket-mate? Here are the most important elements, and a second-banana nominee ought to meet most of these criteria:

Two heavyweights, John Edwards and Rudy Giuliani, got out of the ring today and left behind different modes of fighting for the presidency and being beaten.

Edwards, who began his campaign in New Orleans a year ago, ended it there and symbolically went to work building a house with Habitat for Humanity. He worked hard on the campaign trail, basing his claim to the nomination on an honorable Democratic tradition of fighting for the poor and dispossessed.

Giuliani, on the other hand, all smiles and guile, tried to ride the 9/11 wave that made him rich all the way to the White House, disdaining the early primaries and expecting to be anointed the Republican candidate with even less exertion than lackadaisical Fred Thompson, who at least showed up for the early contests.

Typically, Giuliani is trading in the fruits of his minimal effort by endorsing John McCain in return for who-knows-what if McCain gets to the White House. Edwards may eventually attempt to convert his delegates and supporters into leverage, but for now is pushing Clinton or Obama toward greater emphasis on the issues he raised.

Their personal stories are a contrast as well. Edwards made a run despite his wife’s cancer and with her spirited support. Giuliani was brought down, in part, by revelations of his misuse of New York Police to run errands for his third wife-to-be while he was still married to his second.

Running for President is a brutal trial. Edwards is being carried out on his shield. Giuliani leaves without a scratch, except to his ego.

Cross-posted from my blog.

If various reports and polls from Florida are to be believed, all former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani needs to do is to climb up on a palm tree and shout: “I’m King of the world!!!”

By most accounts, Giuliani’s big gambit to make a huge political impression in Florida has succeeded: unless there is an upset, he’s likely to flop at the polls tomorrow and his early, and in-retrospect flawed, primary strategy will indeed be talked about for years.

Could the two front-runners Arizona Senator John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney siphon-off enough votes from each other to put Rudy in? Perhaps. But these days, analysts note, he’s teetering towards third-fourth place. Giuliani is in political trouble and should call 911 (OOPS! He’s done that MANY TIMES already):

Florida now appears to be a two-way race between Mitt Romney and Sen. John McCain, as two new polls show Rudolph W. Giuliani losing support after skipping six straight presidential-nomination contests.

Just 48 hours before the Florida primary, the former Massachusetts governor and the senator from Arizona are deadlocked at 30 percent, according a Reuters-CSPAN-Zogby poll released yesterday. Another poll, by Rasmussen Reports, showed Mr. Romney up by six percentage points over Mr. McCain.

But both polls show the former New York City mayor unable to reignite his campaign. The Zogby poll showed Mr. Giuliani slumping to fourth place — one point behind former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee — at 13 percent, down two points from its last poll. The Rasmussen poll put Mr. Giuliani at 14 percent.

[UPDATE: The latest Zogby poll shows some slight change in the numbers:

In what’s become a two-man game for the Republicans, Arizona Sen. John McCain now holds a slim lead over rival Mitt Romney while all others lag well behind in the Florida primary race, the latest Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby telephone tracking poll shows.

Boosted by a strong endorsement from Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, McCain has 33% support, compared to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who wins 30% backing. The two leaders have been locked in a tight contest ahead of Tuesday’s election. This three-day tracking poll, which surveyed 818 likely Republican voters, carries a margin for error of +/- 3.4% and was conducted Jan. 25-27.

Eight percent of voters remained undecided in the tight race.

In the battle for third place, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani is once again ahead of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, 14% to 11%. Huckabee had leapt ahead of Giuliani in yesterday’s three-day tracking poll, but he gave back three points in the last 24 hours and again trails Giuliani.]

Pollster John Zogby flatly says:”Giuliani is becoming less of a factor in Florida…This is a two-man race: It’s all coming down to McCain versus Romney.”
Read the rest of this entry »

Nate Beeler, The Washington Examiner

At long last, Fred Thompson’s sad and pathetic presidential bid has come to an end, an inglorious poof of an end. It was only a matter of time, and the time, it seems, was before Florida, which would have been yet another sad and pathetic loss for the once-celebrated answer to desperate Republican prayers. The initial hype, before he even declared, was overblown, and he was never what he seemed to be, or what so many wanted him to be. He may be a good and decent man, a man of strong character, as they say, but as a politician, and as a prospective president, he was all image, an amalgam of the quasi-Republican characters he has played on TV and in the movies, perhaps most notably on Law & Order.

His supporters, many on the Republican side, wanted not him but that character, whether they knew it or not, and likely not, so utterly delusional were those who imagined him to be the second coming of Ronald Reagan. In the end, he turned out to be nothing of the kind, not even close. He just wasn’t up to the task of running for president, an arduous task that can reduce the strong to tears, and it was apparent from early on that he wasn’t going to live up to the hype. He benefitted from a weak and flawed GOP field, securing some conservative support along the way, support from those uncomfortable with Romney and Huckabee and McCain and Giuliani, but that support was, at best, fragile, and so, having entered the race late and showing little energy or enthusiasm on the campaign trail, he quickly collapsed into also-ran status, a distant challenger to the leading contenders, an afterthought, an irrelevance.

And so it ends, at long last.

What now?
Read the rest of this entry »

Ronald Reagan has been the luckiest president of my lifetime, which is one reason that I find myself chuckling when his name is invoked — as it frequently is these days — by the Republican presidential wannabes and by that Obama fella on one or two occasions, as well.

What do I mean by luckiest?

Because Reagan was pretty much an empty vessel into which every Republican mover and shaker of consequence of his time poured their own political views and agendas. He was a universal wrench of a man whose primary qualifications were a mediocre movie career and so-so turn as governor of California. He had no interest in details and was befuddled by complex concepts, but was extraordinarily adept at exciting the Republican political base and making Americans feel really good about themselves even as he rewarded the rich and undercut the middle class.

Aside from that nasty assassination attempt, some recession messiness during his first term and being caught out in the Iran-Contra affair, things usually broke Reagan’s way whether he was napping or not, most notably when the Berlin Wall came down and Soviet Union swooned on his watch. Today he is an oft-cited conservative icon despite the reality that he had little substance beyond his political skills.

I am fond of saying that you make your own luck, and George Bush certainly has done so.

Like Reagan, Bush has been pretty much an empty vessel into which today’s Republican movers and shakers (read neocons and right-wing Christianists) have poured their own political views and agendas. Like Reagan, he was more resume than man when he became president. And like Reagan, seems to use a notably small part of his brain but once upon a time could excite that political base.

After the 9/11 attacks, Bush did a passable job at making Americans feel really good about themselves at a really lousy juncture in their history and then, because he believed the sycophants around him when they called him The Latest and The Greatest, recklessly squandered the greatest presidential mandate since Pearl Harbor on the Iraq war and other misadventures. So enormous has the collapse of the Bush presidency been that it has to be ranked right behind the 9/11 attacks as the biggest story of the young millennium.

The Republican Party is trebly hobbled this election season:

With Vice President Cheney a hiccup away from what Redd Foxx called The Big One on “Sanford and Son,” the party has no heir apparent. Bush has almost single-handedly ended the Republicans’ grip on power. And because he is so toxic, the presidential candidates have to look hard over their shoulders to when that city on the hill last shined so brightly for the Grand Old Party.

That would be Ronald Reagan.

Read the rest of this entry »

An irony of former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson’s now-defunct bid for the Republican presidential nomination is that it fell victim to packaging, both that practiced by rival campaigns and that not practiced by his own campaign.

The phlegmatic Thompson was, prior to his entry into the Republican field late last year, cast by some Republicans as Ronald Reagan redux, a man with conservative views, the communication skills of a seasoned actor, and improbably, a sunny disposition. It turned out that, at least on the latter two counts, both rank and file and professional Republicans succumbed to wishful thinking. Looking for an affable conservative to rally the old Reagan coalition for victory in 2008, they instead found in Thompson a sort of a wizened Southerner on sedatives.

Thompson’s stint as an actor, sandwiched between his incarnations as lawyer, Senate Watergate Committee counsel, and Senator, found him playing curmudgeonly characters rather than Read the rest of this entry »

There are some things that lucre cannot buy. Fire in the Belly: You can’t have it because you want it. You can’t have it because it seems like a good idea. You can’t have it because people think you’re swell. You can’t have it because you are talented, have good ideas, are well-positioned. You can’t build it by caucus-winning, water it with money, nor cut-and-paste it from one past presidential person to the next.

Fire in the Belly is not about having a Career. Fire in the Belly is about having and heeding a Calling. Career and Calling are not the same thing. The former is a pragmatic function, the latter at its best, is the terrain of the precious charism one brought to Earth to spend richly on others.

Fire in the Belly comes from hearing a voice greater that calls one to act in as much goodness as one can muster or finagle, to brave on, no matter what, even no matter what the episodic outcomes, nil or garner.

I’ve been an analyst of human behavior for 38 years and come from a long ethnic line of keepers of the old stories. Even in our current wonder-world times, the ancient stories about human behavior still hold. I find insights there that can still predict human frailties and strengths. I study in the main, the shenanigans and shamings, the failures and triumphs of heroes… and heroines.

Heroic Stances In Candidates Are Not Enough
And surely any soul who takes up their bindle bag, their at least half-shiny sword and their leathern armor to compete to be a Leader of our Land, qualifies in some way, as heroic.

But Fire in the Belly, is another applesauce altogether.

Fire in the Belly is the mark of not just any warrior, but the aegis of the superior warrior… that instinctive, well-informed drive that when called to the surface, pushes Read the rest of this entry »

BREAKING NEWS: Fred Thompson has pulled out of the presidential race.

Sample reactions from Andrew Sullivan, Michael vdG, and John Cole.

There’s not much to add here: High expectations. Unfulfilled. Yawn.

Arizona Senator John McCain will be the last man standing in the Republican battle for the 2008 Presidential nomination. And if Senator Barack Obama felt Senator Hillary Clinton’s camp played hardball in Nevada, just wait until he sees what awaits him in South Carolina. That’s the view of of two top Internet pundits.

The first contention is New York Political Scientist Dr. Steven Taylor, whose periodic “Toast-O-Meter” takes a look at which candidates are cooking nicely and which are toast and why. The second is by Pajamas Media’s Stephen Green, aka Vodka Pundit, whose “live blogging” of political events is exciting and often quite perceptive.

Taylor writes:

While the mass of contests on February 5th could yet reshuffle the stack, I continue to think that McCain will be the nominee…(a position have had for some time, and wrote about on the 17th of December). There were three separate posts that I read this week that are of interest in this regard. Perhaps the most interesting was by Charles Franklin1 who wrote about what he saw in the polling as An Emerging Republican Consensus. Specifically he noted (and this was pre-SC), that the trends all pointed towards a coalescing around McCain that started before New Hampshire.

Among other things, data shows that McCain has the smallest number of Republicans who said they would vote AGAINST him than any other candidate — which flies in the face of angry denunciations and mockery of McCain by talk show host Rush Limbaugh and many conservative pundits and bloggers. Go the link and his links to find out more. He adds this:

The stunning numbers in that list are McCain’s and Romney’s, because they are the top tier candidates at the moment. McCain’s number is fascinating, because the argument has long been that he had burned too many bridges in the GOP to be elected, but that more and more appears not to be the case. The fact that Romney has turned off a fifth of Republicans is devastating and explains, in part, why he has struggled to emerge as a true front-runner in a crowded field.

So it’s likely the battle in coming months will be whether McCain can solidify and consolidate key GOP establishment figures behind him or whether Romney can gobble them up.

Taylor gives his assessments on where each of the candidates stand. Among other things, he believes former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has not shown widespread appeal and even couldn’t win in South Carolina, Romney has won in states where he didn’t have really tough competition, actor Fred Thompson now seems in “denial,” and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is “toast.” (There’s more so read the post).

On the Democrats:
Read the rest of this entry »

The Republican presidential nominee will be Mitt Romney. Here’s why.

Kevin Drum:

As Josh Marshall points out, John McCain got stomped in Michigan among self-described Republicans. He also got stomped among Republicans in Iowa, and even lost (though closely) among Republicans in New Hampshire. Independents might like him, but basically, John McCain just isn’t doing well among Republicans in the Republican primary.

Elsewhere, Ezra Klein highlights Rush Limbaugh’s spittle-flecked hatred of both McCain and Mike Huckabee: “I’m here to tell you, if either of these two guys get the nomination, it’s going to destroy the Republican Party.” Ouch.

Put those things together with the fact that future primaries are mostly closed, which means that only Republicans will be voting in the Republican contests, and McCain’s chances suddenly don’t look so good. Ditto for Huckabee, who’s shown very little ability to appeal much beyond his evangelical base. And ditto for Rudy Giuliani, who might very well be dead before Super Tuesday even rolls around.

Like Kevin, I see Romney as the eventual winner of this race — and, if I may pat myself on the back, I have been saying so for a long time. I never bought into Huckabee — he did well, as he should have, in Iowa, but his appeal is narrow and he peaked early after a sudden rise to the top. McCain did well in New Hampshire, as he should have, and he may yet win South Carolina, but I can’t see the GOP establishment and the conservative movement (other than the neocons, who are on the fringe anyway) fully accepting him as their preferred nominee. He will have renewed momentum if he wins South Carolina — and he is well ahead in the polls — and greater legitimacy in the party if Thompson drops out and endorses him, but it will be tough to beat Romney in the closed, all-Republican primaries to come. (And, yes, Giuliani may be a non-factor now.)

A major concern for Romney, as Kevin mentions, is that he is doing poorly in national polls, but that could change, and likely would change, if the race turned into a two-man contest between him and McCain. Presented with those two options, Romney would look pretty good, and much better than he is looking now, to many Republicans.

McCain’s post-Iowa “comeback” has been impressive, to be sure, and he has a solid base of support not just among independents but within the Republican Party (a base that would possibly be expanded and reinforced with Thompson’s support), but I just don’t see how he can attract majority support in a party that considers him something of a disloyal maverick. It will be difficult for him to win the all-Republican primaries and it would be nearly impossible for him to win a brokered convention. His only hope may be for Huckabee and Giuliani to remain in the race and to squeak out narrow victories in a crowded and divided field — and to maintain a formidable enough lead in national polls to look like a clear frontrunner.

Still, nothing is clear. See Marc Ambinder: “Four primaries and three winners have exposed, according to the dominant media, a Republican party that is listless, demoralized and casting about for unity. There aren’t many Republicans who would disagree.”

**********

A prediction: Romney-Huckabee. What do you think? Any other suggestions?

**********

On our side, another prediction: Clinton-Feingold. Again, what do you think? Any other suggestions?

(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)

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.

I have whined incessantly this campaign season that the way we choose presidential candidates is badly broken. The major culprits are the obscene amounts of money that candidates must raise if they are to be competitive, the front-loading of small states on the primary-caucus calendar and the incestuous relationship between the candidates and news media.

All of those factors remain true in 2008, but funny things are happening on the way to the big dance — the 21-state Super Tuesday primaries on February 5 — as a series of political earthquakes shake things up:

* Although I have problems with aspects of all of the Democratic contenders, especially Hillary Clinton’s well-practiced talent as a chameleon, they bristle with worthy ideas. The Republican contenders include an outsized number of lightweights whose ideas are not worth taking seriously, but voters are happily confronted with multiple choices on both sides.

This is an especially welcome change for Republican voters whose options have been considerably more limited than Democrats because their party has been considerably more interested in early coronations than serious competition.

* The unusually large number of candidates who can be considered frontrunners because those front-loaded Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries were open to voters regardless of whether they were Democrats, Republicans or independents.

There have been four different winners — Clinton and Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee and John McCain — in the four contests in those two states for only the second time since the modern primary system was established in 1976.

* Although people can vote for yet another white guy and many will do so as the primaries play out, there also is a woman with a real chance to win all the marbles and an African-American whose chances aren’t too bad either to choose from.

Both are historic firsts that make the election to choose the successor to one of the most unpopular presidents in history even more exciting — and significant.

So the system seems to be working in spite itself, but why?

The ignoble George Bush is the biggest reason. Although you wouldn’t know it listening to most of the Republican candidates, Bush has screwed up virtually everything he has touched over the last seven years, most recently the economy, and it is likely that he will be leaving office not only without a positive legacy but with the U.S. in recession.

Read the rest of this entry »

Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has some free medical advice for actor and former Senator Fred Thompson, one of his competitors for the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination.

Yesterday we ran THIS POST about how well Fred Thompson did in last night’s Republican debate. And we linked to a great video of Thompson going after Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee with an energy many Republicans wished he had shown at the start.

But now Huckabee has come back with a bit of advice for Fred Thompson.

And as…colorful…as it seems, it’s another indication of how well Huckabee knows how to use the TV tube. He comes across as an actual human being, rather than a primed politician delivering political talking points. He comes across as personable, likable and funny. This factor is crucial in 21st century America. Content matters…but so does the delivery system.

Here’s his advice for Thompson:

A new national poll now shows two clear front-runners in each political party: New York Senator Hillary Clinton is the front-runner for the Democrats and Arizona Senator John McCain — helped by a big “bump” from his New Hampshire primary victory — is the Republican front-runner:

The CNN/Opinion Research poll, conducted Wednesday and Thursday and released this afternoon, shows Clinton with a 49 percent to 36 percent lead over Barack Obama, with John Edwards at 12 percent. Clinton’s support rose from 40 percent in the same poll last month.

Among Democrats, the worsening economy has jumped ahead of healthcare and the Iraq war as an issue, according to the survey. Clinton leads among Obama in voters’ confidence in how they would deal with those concerns.

On the Republican side, McCain, with 34 percent, vaulted into the lead over Mike Huckabee, who has 21 percent support, Rudy Giuliani with 18 percent, Mitt Romney with 14 percent, Fred Thompson with 6 percent, and Ron Paul with 5 percent. McCain jumped from 13 percent last month, and nearly half of Republicans say they now believe McCain will be the eventual nominee.

Nationwide polls will become more important closer to Feb. 5, when 22 states vote in what is close to a national primary.

Polls are now viewed with enormous suspicion after their nearly total failure to accurately predict the outcome of the Democratic primary in New Hampshire, and the national polls are not as relevant as polls where there are state primaries. But the poll does demonstrate Clinton’s political anchor — and McCain’s solid resurgence as a GOP favorite.

If McCain gets one or two more significant primary victories under his belt, look for him to be the clear front runner and for the GOP party establishment get behind him quickly to prepare for 2008.

The BIG story out of last night’s GOP debate in South Carolina is that actor and former Senator Fred Thompson finally morphed into the Fred Thompson many conservatives had hoped to see: energetic, witty and aggressive. Will it serve Thompson — or will he be the candidate that could have been?

The New York Times story sets the scene:

Fred D. Thompson tried to salvage his faltering presidential campaign at a debate Thursday night with a barrage of sharp attacks on the “liberal” policies of Mike Huckabee, the fellow Southerner whom he clearly sees as a rival in the South Carolina primary.

The performance by Mr. Thompson, which including several pointed one-liners, capped a debate that showed the altered terrain of the Republican field as it moved beyond contests in Iowa and New Hampshire…..

But it was Mr. Thompson’s performance, in which he shook off the laid-back style that has defined his candidacy, that provided some of the liveliest moments of the debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C..

“This is a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party and its future,” said Mr. Thompson, who has staked his run on a strong showing in South Carolina. The primary there is Jan. 19.

“On the one hand,” he said, “you have the Reagan revolution, you have the Reagan coalition of limited government and strong national security. And the other hand, you have the direction that Governor Huckabee would take us in. He would be a Christian leader, but he would also bring about liberal economic policies, liberal foreign policies.”

That effectively summarized the choice facing the GOP from the standpoint of conservatives.

But what happened next is what they were talking about on all the cable shows afterwards:
Read the rest of this entry »

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.

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.

Iowa caucus voters yesterday delivered a message that they wanted to try something new, weren’t about to follow their parties’ establishments’ desires or info machines — and wanted a kind of generational change in politics that meant not just new faces but a new way of talking about politics.

It was not a partial message. It was a resounding one:

(1) Winners Democratic Senator Barack Obama and Republican Mike Huckabee both won by margins that were NOT squeakers. They won by margins that qualified as a message.

(2) Obama and Huckabee both talk politics (at least most of the time) in a language that is not typical of Democratic or Republican politicians. They are NOT the kind of candidates that the smug Sunday morning talking heads discuss and give that inside-the-beltway smirk that suggests “We know what they’re saying is just campaign spin and horse excrement, but this is the way our game of politics is played!” Obama was up against the Clinton machine; Huckabee up against the White House, many conservatives and GOP icon talk show host Rush Limbaugh. And voters embraced them.

(3) Obama and Huckabee both represent, in the way they discuss politics, a DIS-continuation of the 1960s drug culture/Vietnam War polarization and demonization of government as an entity for easing social problems.

And what will happen next?

Most likely, the entrenched establishments of both parties will begin to scramble.

The powerful and highly potent Clinton political machine will try to squelch or contain Obama next week in New Hampshire, where polls shows Hillary Clinton is way ahead.

There will probably be a mass pile-on against Huckabee by establishment-GOPers, from talk show radio hosts, conservative columnists and most likely some unflattering materials linked or openly provided to friendly news outlets.

As our co-blogger The Talking Dog noted in THIS POST earlier, it’s more likely to work in the Republican Party than in the Democratic Party. Most Democrats who supported candidates other than Obama can live with him; many Republicans can’t stand Huckabee and the party is increasingly-splintered. TTD noted that it’s easier for someone to come of “out of nowhere” to get the Democratic nomination than the Republican nomination.

Look for a Stop Huckabee Movement centering on Romney OR (increasingly likely) John McCain. But are old calculations outdated? Is the GOP now suffering as much “Bush fatigue” as some Democrats felt “Clinton fatigue” at the end of President Bill Clinton’s term? And were both Bush and Clinton-era fatigue partially to blame for Ms. Clinton’s non-inevitable showing?

According to The Politico, Huckabee’s win has left the GOP in bad shape:

Read the rest of this entry »