A double-standard?

Can you imagine if Sarah Palin said "When the stock market crashed in 1929, President Roosevelt got on television and told everyone to calm down"? Can you? Can you? It would be pandemonium!

Now Biden has said this: "We"re about to elect a brilliant 47-year old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's gonna happen. I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate. And he's gonna need help."

This is the downside of Biden, straying off-message. Especially by being too into himself and not the good promoter of the top of the ticket.

In the end it doesn't matter. The economy is the main issue, and unless we bomb Iran soon, foreign policy is not going to reach the top of voters' concerns.

I've always liked Biden. He gets a pass on the silly comments because he's been around and knows his stuff. So doesn't he deserve a pass? Palin, one could argue, does not. But it still is a double-standard.

Biden was a great pick because it showed Obama being serious about being president. It was a pick with a view to governing, not to winning. I think in the end a running-mate who is a gimmick (Palin) doesn't help you. The political advantage of a running-mate comes when the political advantage is secondary to governing. Reagan picked Bush, Clinton picked Gore, W picked Cheney, and now Obama picks Biden.

The Last Debate

(This is PotusBlog's 400th post!)

Obama came out strong, just like the first debate. McCain got the question first and started with a typical politician's response, not giving specifics and somewhat avoiding the question. The contrast with Obama, who seems sharp and direct by contrast. McCain followed up with a good personal appeal to a man Obama met on the campaign trail, and the Obama just took all the wind out of his sails with a quip that was actually funny (!), "Joe the Plummer's been watching Sen. McCain's ads." Got a small audience response--that's important, because all the studies show that audience reaction has a huge impact on TV viewership evaluation. McCain's joke, "We're talking about Joe the Plummer" when Obama mentioned Buffet, was just as funny but got no audience reaction. Obama's joke a little while later about Fox News also got a laugh, as did his joke a little past that saying "congrats" to McCain for the Cardinals beating the Cowboys. A pro-Obama audience it seems.

McCain came out with passion on taxes after his opening two salvos, and made up for lost ground, putting Obama on his heels. McCain had a great moment, looking Obama in the eyes and saying "I'm not President Bush. If you wanted to vote for President Bush you should have run four years ago." Oh yeah! Where was this passion in the last two debates? McCain should have done this from the beginning. The anger and passion makes him seem a lot more vigorous. The late night comedy shows have had a field day making fun of the McCain ticket, and McCain himself as old and doddering. As has been widely remarked, they don't know how to make fun of Obama. Call it the comedy gap. McCain showing controlled anger I think would mitigate this a little bit. But only a little.

"I give you tremendous credit for that" Obama on McCain's opposition to torture. Why do politicians phrase it this way? I think it would be better to say "You deserve tremendous credit for that."

McCain was passionate about negative ads, defending the people at his rallies, the relationship of Obama with Ayers and ACORN, putting Obama again on his heels. "I've roundly condemned" his despicable acts, Obama said. I think it would be more effective to look into the camera and say "I condemn them." But Obama ran through the whole story on Ayers and ACORN with a lawyer's closing argument that brought overwhelming evidence to bear that these are distractions that a desperate McCain is focusing on because he's got nothing else. I give the exchange to Obama.

Obama's a pro. Speaking well of Biden and not even mentioning SP when asked to compare the two. That's exactly right. McCain had a much more difficult time (of course). It's hard to listen to him refer to SP without SNL ringing in your ears. McCain flubbed his "breath of fresh air" line about her, and I had a jolly laugh about McCain accidentally saying "breasts." If he said that word on live TV in a debate in reference to Sarah Palin, his campaign would be over! Bush could nuke Iran and Russia and Pakistan on Nov. 3 and Obama'd still win!

Obama would smile when McCain spoke about him. That made it seem like McCain was distorting Obama's positions. It was a subtle "there you go again" message implicit there. I thought it was a very funny moment when an hour into the debate Obama looked into the camera and told Joe the Plumber that his fine for not providing health care would be "zero." McCain had said that "he'd sure like to know what that fine's gonna be." "Zero!" said McCain, and then went on a flurry of blinking that just looked so funny on the split screen.

McCain went over the line with Joe the Plumber. He should have dropped it. His obsession with J the P became a parody of itself. SNL must be so happy for this; their script writes itself on this one.

I thought the rest of the debate was super boring. I was bored. I thought McCain through everything and the kitchen sink at Obama, and the former did well, but Obama weathered the storm with aplomb. He is our next president; that's what I kept thinking watching his performance--not based on the polls as much as his performance.

Palin survives

Joe Biden outclassed SP at every turn in the Veep debate, and it didn't matter. He had to be deferential to her, and that worked in her favor.

The format worked massively in her favor. She would wilt in a format like the first presidential debate, which allowed for detailed follow-ups. Basically, Biden would say something, Palin would respond, Biden might respond to SP but then Ifill would move on to another question. Palin got lucky, I thought.

Palin would have won the debate if she had dropped completely the word "also." By the end it was so painful. The end of the debate was grating--I agree completely with Chuck Todd that Biden had a great end of the debate.

Palin successfully stole Obama's message of change. That was impressive. She also played up seeming real and in touch--also impressive. McCain has to be very happy. She gives his ticket a softer edge, allows him to steal Obama's change message, and fires up his base, all while complementing his maverick image. Everything he needed.

Fighting Biden to a draw is exactly what Palin needed to do. She garbled and mangled answers. She got facts wrong. But she will be forgiven it. I think this gives McCain a short little bounce, but that's it. Biden was too impressive. His tear-up when he was talking about his injured kids was powerful. He made a very substantive case that McCain is not a maverick. But he was hampered by the debate format and his opponent's gender.

The Veep Debate

Palin needs not to be humiliated

The Veep Debate tonight might well decide the election.  If SP is humiliated, the combination of McCain's bungling and the economic crisis will combine to sink his campaign, perhaps for good.  If SP really tanks, it's even probably sunk for good, I would say, though nothing's for certain (especially with Bush possibly orchestrating an October surprise).

The expectations are super low for SP.  This favors her, big-time.  If she makes a barely passable showing, the story'll be her come-from-behind triumph.  Or at least her supporters will think so; the media is another story.  Will they gang up on her?  I think so, but I also think they have to be sensitive to their clientele, and they don't want to be seen picking on her.  So they'll gladly make fun of whatever is awkward and unbecoming.  I really don't see how SP can avoid the mockery she is about to get dumped on her.  However, if she's poised, they vipers can't unleash their venom, because they'd be picking on her.

And of course Biden does not want to be seen this way either!  But he won't.  He's too good of a politician to flub it up.  Democrats don't have to worry--this one's all on SP.  Biden will be fine, he's done this numerous times.  He won't mess it up.  But he can be fought to a draw by the ordinary gal Pal(in) if she's passably articulate.

But I just don't think she will be.  Best odds, 40% she pulls through.  

Post-debate reflections

True to this blog's motto, "We're only two or three news cycles behind," I want to give some post-debate reflections.

This was probably the most important debate, as long as there's no major fumbles in the next two (as there was not in this one).  The first thing of note is that the debate was indeed a draw, as the commentators have stated.  And the reason is that the middle of the debate was even, and was bookended by two bad moments for each candidate--Obama looked so sharp at the beginning while McCain was embarrassingly bad, and Obama was hammered by McCain at the end of the debate.

So if voters are making up their mind based on actually watching the thing, it really matters whether you tuned in ten minutes late and watched until the end, or whether you caught the beginning of the debate and broke off without seeing the end.  Like the very first TV debate between Nixon and Kennedy (which resulted in different winners depending on whether people listened to the debate or watched it on TV), these two scenarios would result in vastly different impressions of who won.

If you watched the whole thing, you thought it was a draw.  I agree with conventional wisdom that a draw favors Obama.  I think Obama won.  He proved he can be president.  The VP debate this week will validate Obama's choice of Biden, humilitate McCain's choice of Palin, and last Friday's debate will be but a memory.

SNL lampooned McCain the night after the debate for his gimmicks.  McCain can get away with gimmicks because he is such a substantive candidate, has a long record.  He has capital to spend on this score, and I think he should spend it.  I thought he should have opposed the bailout--that would have been a really substantive way to shake up the race, instead of a gimmicky way, but he decided to play it safe.  That won't win him the election.  The bailout will probably pass today, in which case McCain could have his cake and eat it too--posturing in a popular way (no one likes the bailout) while not taking the blame for it not passing.  Of course, would it have passed if he opposed it?  Perhaps not.  And what the bailout is doing is delaying the (inevitable) economic pain that has to come sooner or later.  You don't run for president nowadays talking about how short-term pain is good.  You run by promising everyone the world.

McCain really came into his own last night.  He doesn't think much of Obama, but managed to conceal his contempt.  He started out so flat, it was just terrible.  But he gained his footing when he started talking with passion about earmarks.  That passion never left him.  It made him seem really genuine, in contrast to his gimmicky campaign.  If Palin has any chance against Biden it's to seem genuine as opposed to Biden's slick Washington mountebank demeanor.  

But Obama won the debate.  His flubs at the end were even excusable, I thought.  McCain was snearing in his face, and Obama can seem like he has a legit beef that his positions are misrepresented.  His line the next day was a powerful one: "John McCain had a lot to say about me in the debate, and not much at all to say about you.  He never even mentioned 'the middle class' once."

Likewise, McCain's flubs at the beginning were excusable, in the sense that he was really sharp the whole rest of the debate, which is tough for a 72-year-old in the bright light standing for 90 minutes.  

Obama won because he did exactly what he had to do.  Unlike McCain, Obama can't resort to gimmicks.  He can't go after McCain passionately.  He can't get down and dirty.  The reason is the bubba vote--a young black upstart attacking an American hero would only produce backlash.  He had to show that he's up for the job, presidential.  He had to get people comfortable with him as a leader.  He did that.  

I think he should have mentioned his Christianity and how it guides him in life.  Why doesn't he do this?  America doesn't elect secular candidates, or at least hasn't yet.  Change might be around the horizon, but why risk it?  Obama could have boxed in McCain, who would sound too much like Bush with his belligerent attitude to every major foreign policy problem, mixing in any God-speak.  Obama's married with two kids, McCain ruthlessly cheated on and then divorced his  wife, who was faithful to him while he was a POW and remains faithful to him to this day, in order to wed a young heiress.  But there's one reason why Obama can't do this: it conjures up Wright, and there's no way Obama wants that.  He's better off with the whole thing being a forgotten piece of ancient history.  

Neither candidate has much of a sense of humor, and McCain's jokes fell flat, but he did have two moments when he really flummoxed Obama with humor--the line about not being able to hear Obama, and the imaginery sit-down with Ahmadinejad.  

McCain playing it safe

RCP linked to a great piece by Rocky Mountain News this morning on McCain's speech.  Here's the best parts:

I've known for a while that I missed the real John McCain - the one who didn't care what anyone else thought - but I didn't know we'd get the John McCain who would, on the night he accepted the long-sought nomination of his party, not seem to care if anyone thought at all.

[T]there he was - standing where he must have thought he'd never be standing - and basically telling everyone to calm down.

[T]here were no new ideas. There wasn't even a theme, unless it was that McCain favored victory in Iraq. (You can start the USA chant anytime.)

This is one thing you never thought you'd say about McCain, but in this speech, it was as if he simply wanted to make the case that he was the safe vote. And in this campaign season in which nothing seems safe, where nothing is typical, where nothing is foretold and little is even foreseen, it's hard to see how playing it safe (see, for example: Obama's pick of Joe Biden) is the best strategy.

I disagree with disparaging the Biden pick, but agree with everything else.  I've been trying to put my finger exactly on what was so wrong about the speech last night.  McCain was playing it safe--this is the best description.  But he can't!  That's why Palin was a good pick, or at least seems so at this point.  McCain can't play it safe and win.  He has to go out on a limb.  Instead, he played it safe, and looked really old doing so.  

There should have been more red meat.  He should have told people why Obama would be dangerous.  He should have drawn sharp contrasts.  Most importantly, he should have led with his bio but then connected it with what that means for the future.  I just thought he looked way too much like Bob Dole.  

Palin is a gimmicky prop

A comment to the last post reads: "I'd love you hear your ideas on how Obama-Biden can neutralize this republican shot in the arm, while still courting women voters. Also, how comfortable are you of Palin's ability to lead the country? Did McCain show a lack of judgment in this regard?"

A "Republican shot in the arm" indeed. John McCain needed precisely a shot in the arm. When I heard the news about Palin I was outside a panel at APSA in Boston. So I got to tell a few people as they came out and get their assessments. The first person I told had a reaction which was mine precisely: "Oh, so McCain does want to win!" The next was also interesting: he thought Palin could turn into a liability, a Geraldine Ferraro all over agin.

I think both are right. I think McCain had to go outside the box, outside of the Romney/Pawlenty yawn-fest. McCain can not back into the White House, these summer polls notwithstanding. When asked for my pick the evening before, I said that Romney/Pawlenty would not surprise me, but that Palin or Huckabee would show that McCain wants to win. The reason Huckabee would have been better is because he is a tested campaigner. He has experience in the bright lights. He can bring in a lot of votes and excitement in corners of the GOP.

On Meet the Press this morning, the comatose Andrea Mitchell opined about Palin:

She is not appealing to the same women who were really voting or supporting Hillary Clinton on ideological issues, but they think that they can peel off some of these working class women, not college-educated, who--the blue collar women who were voting for Hillary Clinton and may be more conservative on social causes.

That's right. So much of national politics comes down to culture. True-blue Hillary ideologues are not going to support McCain over Palin. But Palin does have cultural bona-fides to appeal to the lower-class Dems who supported Hillary but not because of her feminist roots.

This evening I got the feeling that it's all downhill for McCain-Palin. I just think everything has gone so well this weekend for them. I mean, Palin got such a great reception, that I think it will become apparent, even relatively quickly, that she can't meet the high expectations. She's going to make gaffes. She's just going to. McCain's team better start planning now what to do when that happens. Her showing up and giving McCain a fresh face and incredible backstory will only last so long. And what happens when wears off? The press will gleefully tear her apart. Precisely what Hillary was hoping they would do to Obama. But Obama is a white-wine liberal, a Harvard Law man. He is one of the elites' own. Palin's angle is appealing to the working stiffs. The conclusion to this syllogism should be crystal-clear: the press will have no compunction in tearing her to shreds when given the opportunity.

So Obama/Biden should bide their time and focus on looking presidential. Obama had an edge on Hillary--he looked presidential. I forget who it was who had a sister teaching politics, I believe, and who insisted at the beginning of the primary season that "America will elect a black man first before they'll elect a woman--you watch and see." We watched and saw it happen on the Democratic side. The press is ga-ga right now for the Alaskan beauty queen. But the novelty will wear off. Again: then what? McCain's choice was more important than Obama's because McCain's a geezer. No one in their right mind would ever dream of insisting that Palin is qualified to be president. And the argument, "So Obama isn't either," would hold good for me two years ago--it doesn't hold now. Obama earned the right to be president with his grueling slug-fest that deposed the reigning heavyweight champion of the Democratic Party. Campaigning is a lot like what you have to do as president. So don't tell me Obama isn't ready, he is. Palin will have two months of very hard campaigning before the election. She can't grow into it. There's no room for error. If she really did try to get her sister's ex fired, that could be the October-surprise of all October-surprises.

The one thing McCain was smart about was getting a solid conservative, to generate excitement with the base that he just doesn't generate on his own. Today on MTP, Mitchell also said:

And in terms of the abortion issue, it has so fired up the base. The evangelical base, the, you know, the foundation of what John McCain needs, the people who came out in Ohio and elected George, you know, George Walker Bush, this is the, the key group that now is so energized. They were sitting on their hands, they were not excited about the other alternatives. They would have completely rebelled with Joe Lieberman.

Mitchell, of all people, was actually more in tune that Republican "strategist" Mike Murphy, who said:

[I]f we get into a social issues debate with those particular swing voters, we're in big trouble. I believe that McCain cannot win in this environment without ticket splitters, people who vote for him for president but vote Democrat down the ticket. He may need as many as one out of five of his ultimate voters to be a ticket splitter. So the question is in a bad base year for Republicans, if we get caught on pure base issues--I agree, the evangelical vote loves her, but I, to the point I said earlier, I'd rather have lukewarm evangelicals and a whole lot of voters.

This is the failed median-voter model of elections which has been so thoroughly disproven in the last two presidential elections. Of course, each election is a new situation, and if any election would follow a median-voter model, it would be this one. But it is insanity for Republicans to be more concerned with the lakefront set--these largely mythical independent voters, who will probably go with the tide and vote Obama anyway--than the lower-class cultural voters and married people, who vote in much larger numbers anyway. Focus on the base, get them excited--this sound principle has not gone out the window no matter who is running.

David Gregory (who I'd see in my Starbucks when I used to live in DC) said:

A lot of the working-class voters in states like West Virginia or Ohio, where she was debuted, or Pennsylvania were Democrats primarily for economic issues if not social issues. Obama still has an advantage there, even if he hasn't grabbed the issue completely. I think Sarah Palin helps John McCain get it.

Well, there's no freaking way Obama's going to win West Virginia. Obama has given up on it completely--he hasn't even opened up a campaign office there yet. This is why Hillary would have been a better nominee--WVA and Arkansas would be states she could move into the Democratic column, but Obama doesn't have a chance.

Here's the ultimate truth about Palin: she's an affirmative action pick. She undercuts McCain's "experience" and "judgment" motifs. This is not clear now, but it will be when Palin's novelty fades. Voters can sense gimmicks. They can sense desparation. McCain is desparate to win, but Palin is a gimmick. She's a prop. Unless she has a flawless two months, in which case it was a brilliant move. I doubt it. But then again, I doubted that the inexperienced Obama could muscle his way to the top of the greasy pole.

Palin a knockout?

Here's what a POTUS reader writes via email:

Brilliant!

(unintentionally so, since according to the Prince of Darkness Ol' Blunderbuss was ready to pick Joe Lieberman up until last week, apparently)

Several advantages this gives McCain:

1.) Neuters Biden. Also, can't wait for him to make a gaffe at the VP debate and infuriate women everywhere.
2.) Woman = unprecedented, plus she's a regular person, something Biden and Obama most assuredly are not
3.) She will be ridiculed by the press and the elites, but no matter, it will play well in gun hugging, beer chugging, NASCAR watching Appalachia -- exactly the demographic Obama's gotta win.
4.) Can't be attacked on the experience issue since it will just boomerang back to Obama's thin resume. She has more executive experience than Obama (can't believe I'm writing that)
5.) She'll inspire the base
6.) Allows McCain to hammer Obama on Infant Born Alive Protection Act (see number 5)
7.) Proven reformer and about as far (3000+ miles) outside the beltway as you can go

Your thoughts?

I agree. It looks brilliant at this point. Palin's had a great weekend. But we'll see. She is not a battle-tested candidate on the presidential campaign trail. Obama and Biden are. As far as experience goes, Palin not only has very little but has a lot less than Obama when it comes to the national spotlight. A lot less. The blinding spotlight is now turned on full blast. It doesn't get any brighter. Palin is not going to be judged by voters in the voting booth in November on her fabulous introduction back in August. Rather, she'll be judged on what she's done since then. And if it's gaffe after gaffe, then she'll actually be a drag on the ticket. I would be shocked, completely shocked, if she didn't make any gaffes. I think it's impossible. She's going to make some, perhaps a lot. I don't anything about her, and need to read more.

So right now it looks like a great choice, but we'll see.

It's Biden

I think it's a great pick. Biden is the Cheney pick of 2000. It reassures people that Obama's not a gimmick. If Obama had picked anybody else, except the unexciting Chris Dodd, it would have been spun mainly as a gimmick (i.e., Obama wants to win Virginia with Kaine, wants unity with Hillary, wants Hispanics with Richardson, wants Ohio with Strickland). But with Biden there's no gimmick. The main thing against Biden is that he's too good to be president; he's too outspoken, and needs to be more of a careful politician (like Obama, the epitome of cautiousness married to ambition) to get elected. The running-mate slot is perfect for him. He can train his tongue on the Republicans, and when they attack him it will only contrast with Obama.

Republicans are attacking already with this YouTube ad. It's very good, because it ties Biden back to who Obama is. And having it up and running for today!

But Biden will bring both security (his experience) and funness to the ticket. Obama lacks funness. He's a movement, an event, an epoch, a messiah. But messiahs aren't fun. Biden is. So I think the Republican attacks, using Biden's statements against him, can only go so far.

Biden will campaign in Appalachia, and I think he will be able to connect with people here, even more than Hillary would. Hillary as the candidate of Reagan democrats was surprising to begin with, and mainly had to do with Obama's lack of connection than anything about Hillary.

Hillary would be too much change. A younger veep than Biden would too. Obama is balancing the change message, which is just what he needs to do. With all of Biden's experience running for president, and experience in foreign policy, this is a better pick even than Jim Webb.

Here's the email Obama sent out last night. (I got it at 4:53am.):

I have some important news that I want to make official.

I've chosen Joe Biden to be my running mate.

Joe and I will appear for the first time as running mates this afternoon in Springfield, Illinois -- the same place this campaign began more than 19 months ago.

I'm excited about hitting the campaign trail with Joe, but the two of us can't do this alone. We need your help to keep building this movement for change.

Please let Joe know that you're glad he's part of our team. Share your personal welcome note and we'll make sure he gets it:

http://my.barackobama.com/welcomejoe

Thanks for your support,

Barack


P.S. -- Make sure to turn on your TV at 2:00 p.m. Central Time to join us or watch online at http://www.BarackObama.com.

More caucus notes

Biden has dropped out. Dodd has dropped out. These experienced candidates did abysmally. Clinton's claim that the voters want experience falls flat. Mike Gravel has also dropped out.

Obama's win and speech will be the story tomorrow. With 236,000+ Democrats showing up (dwarfing the 115,000+ Republicans, and 2004's Dem turnout of 124,000), he got a huge number of votes.

This might seem bad for Huckabee, as far as most the attention will be on Obama. But Obama leads overwhelmingly with independents, and this could suck them away from voting on the Republican side and end up helping Huckabee in NH. Huckabee said to Chris Matthews that he "doesn't have to" win NH. Howard Fineman said Huckabee's in a way the anti-Obama, being the "intimacy candidate" rather than the big, impressive candidate. Disarming people as he can do will take him a long way, according to Fineman.

Obama's support was strong with young voters. I thought this was a potential weakness of the Obama campaign, and I was dead wrong. Obama even beat Hillary among women.

Here's John Ellis on Romney:

He’s all but doomed now. Senator John McCain will beat him in New Hampshire, probably by a lot, and Romney’s media coverage will evaporate and his candidacy will consequently die. On January 9, his managers will walk in and say that the campaign needs $10 million or $15 million to continue and that he, Romney, will have to write the check. Everyone who would contribute has maxed out. Everyone who might won’t. Two-time losers don’t get new money. It’s a basic rule of politics.

Pat Buchanan said on MSNBC he thinks Romney has to win NH or he's doomed.

Let the caucuses begin

Caucus time!

The weather is not inclement, so heavy turnout is likely tonight. That favors Obama and Huckabee, who win a higher % of first-time caucus-goers.

Thompson has denied that he will drop out and support John McCain if he gets less than 15%, but the report has a ring of truth to it.

There's a fascinating report of deals going on on the Democratic side from Fox News. Kucinich has pledged his caucus-goers to Obama, should his supporters fail to reach viability. The report says that Biden and Richardson have also pledged their supporters to Obama as well. They deny it. But Obama could gain through the realignment process.

The old saw is that there are three tickets out of Iowa, win, place or show. But all along I've been wondering about a factor that I haven't seen reported on until today in the Politico. And that is the following: in this first primary contest without a clear front-runner for both parties in the modern era (meaning, no incumbent or Vice President successor). What's the media play going to be? There can't be multiple stories. There's really only one story.

Here's Roger Simon:

Even second place sometimes is not good enough in Iowa. Ask John Edwards. He came in second here in 2004 and expected that “bounce” to help him win in New Hampshire. But it didn’t.

Why? The media had a better story. They had Howard Dean’s scream.

As Edwards’ then-campaign manager Nick Baldick put it: “Instead of headlines that said, ‘Kerry Wins, Edwards a Surprising Second’ it was all about [John] Kerry winning and the Dean speech. We were the seventh paragraph. That did not give us a New Hampshire bounce.”

The same thing happened in 1988 when the big story was Pat Robertson's strong second-place finish, and Dick Gephardt's win on the Democratic side was ignored.

Simon continues:

Edwards might face the same problem this time. If he comes in second and Barack Obama comes in first, the headline could be: “Obama Wins, Hillary Third.”

That's right. Edwards needs a win. So does Huckabee. I heard a reporter on CNN a few hours ago say that "Romney has the most to lose" and that's just totally false. Romney can weather a loss; Huckabee cannot. Heres' a report from Time:

[T]he simple fact remains: The outcome in Iowa may very well determine Huckabee's fate as a presidential candidate. With a first place showing, he will fly out of Des Moines tonight as a political golden boy, who beat the odds by taking down the massive political machine of Mitt Romney, without any real money or organization. If he comes in second, however, he risks being sidelined in the Republican contest by the coming fight between Romney and John McCain in New Hampshire on January 8, which will likely carry over to the Michigan primary on January 15.

This framing works best for Huckabee if he is able to pull off an upset. A second place finish, which only a few months ago would have been considered a major victory, would now likely result in legitimizing the big-spending campaign of Mitt Romney, who led the polls in Iowa for months, largely because of his ability to lavish the state with money. By all rights, Huckabee would proudly continue his campaign to South Carolina, which will vote on January 19 and should be receptive to his down-home, conservative appeal. But the chattering classes will dog him for weeks; Iowa, after all, is a state teaming with evangelical values voters. Over and over again, Huckabee, the former Baptist pastor, will be asked the inverse of Frank Sinatra's famous lyric: "If you can't make it here, how can you make it anywhere?"

Obama in Iowa

According to the latest WashPost-ABC poll, Obama and Hillary are neck and neck. Here's the second choice of Iowan Dems who support the minor candidates (Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich):

Barack Obama 37
Hillary Clinton 31
John Edwards 26
Other (vol.) 0
None of these (vol.) 1
No opinion 4

This is important because it is the minor candidates who will fail the viability test.

Joe Biden for veep?

Joe Biden was on The Week today. This from Red State:

Steph showed a poll showing Biden in the law single digits in Iowa. Joe Biden smiled, cocksure: "I'm everybody's second choice." With a broad smile on his face, he promised Steph that he would drop out of the race if he did as badly as the polls indicate.

Biden won't be the presidential nominee, but could he be a possible veep pick? This last month from the Baltimore Sun:

Voters sometimes assume that a longshot contender - a Joe Biden, perhaps - must really be running for vice president. After all, he'd have to be delusional to think he could win the presidential nomination. So what's he really after?

Biden recently ruled out the vice presidency, at least with Clinton, who, he said, will win the nomination if he doesn't. Clinton already has a de facto running mate: her husband. "I love Bill Clinton but can you imagine being [her] vice president?" Biden told CNN. His remarks helped reinforce another line of thinking: Biden is really running for Secretary of State. (For the record, he's denied that, too.)

I've always said that Hillary will pick a white male running-mate--the change of a woman president would be too much for voters if combined with an Obama on the ticket. Strickland is the top choice by far. I don't think Hillary would choose Biden. She's already got experienced help in her husband, so electoral calculations wax larger and Strickland is in.

This from Robert Novak's column of May, 2004:

Influential Democrats are urging Sen. John Kerry to consider Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the party's principal voice on foreign policy, as his choice for vice president.

Picking the 61-year-old Biden would be reminiscent of George W. Bush's selection in 2000 of Dick Cheney, then 59. Like Cheney, Biden would be chosen for his qualifications to succeed to the presidency rather than for influencing electoral votes of a large swing state. As the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's top Democrat, he supported military action against Iraq and is less critical of President Bush than Kerry has been.

Biden, who has served in the Senate for 31 years, considered running for president this year but decided against it.

One would have to think that Biden would be at the top of the list of potential veep picks for Obama.

Iowa Black and Brown Debate

The technology-challenged Black and Brown Debate last night had a great Hillary one-liner to Richardson. Here's myDD's play-by-play:

Richardson to Clinton: He's equating Bill Clinton to himself and asks her "Don't you think Governors make good presidents?" "Well Bill. I also think they make good Vice Presidents." Hilarious. That's her entire answer. Moderator: "Aren't you sorry you asked?" Richardson doesn't know what to do.

Here's what HuffPo said:

The forum also allows candidates to ask other candidates questions.

Dodd and Edwards played along but when Norris asked Kucinich what he would like to ask the other candidates, Kucinich thought for a moment and then said, "Gee, I'm going to ask Congressman Kucinich a question" and then proceeded to ask and answer a question on single payer, nonprofit health care plan, of which he is the only Democratic candidate advocating such a
plan.

The crowd erupted in laughter.

This is the type of thing that accounts for Hillary's position. She's clawed her way to the top of the Democratic heap day by day. She's aided by the flaws of the other candidates, whether it be imbecility (Kucinish, Gravel, Richardson), long congressional track records (Biden, Dodd), or inexperience (Edwards, Obama). Of course, she's in a dead heat with Obama right now in Iowa. That could be the knockout blow if she wins. I don't think that it is necessarily a dead sentence if she looses. If Obama wins, it'll be similar Buchanan winning in 1996 in New Hampshire. Here's what the Democrats will say to themselves: we've got a really good shot at winning the White House in '08, so do we want to blow it by fielding an inexperienced candidate named "Barack Obama"? The frontloaded primary calendar might make this harder, ironically making Iowa and NH more important, as we've said here.

Hillary fighting a close race

Mark Mellman from The Hill has a nice summary of why the Democratic race is still up in the air. Here's his conclusion:

Questionable polls, the possibility of a close race today, late-deciding voters and events yet to unfold combine to create real uncertainty about the Iowa outcome — and that means the race for the nomination is far from over.

I've talked about voters deciding late before. High School students don't write thesis papers over the summer; they do it when they have to, when they're forced to, when there's a deadline. Voters do the same thing. If I don't have to decided who to vote for for three months, why decide now? It's perfectly rational behavior.

As far as the polls go, Mellman is referring to the very low turnout in the Iowa. I've mentioned before that turnout last time for the Democratic caucuses was 6% of all registered voters! People do not want to admit that they probably aren't going to vote in the caucuses, so it's impossible to weed out the population who is really committed to going.

It's a close race because it's not like Hillary has no competition. Both Obama and Edwards want it. And Biden, Dodd, and Richardson are likewise Presidential material. Hillary has an edge, but she's not leaving anyone in the dust.

Iowa is more important than ever because of the uncertainty of the primary calendar. Why spend money where there are question marks on whether it will make a difference? Spend it on Iowa, since you know winning there will have a huge impact. And if Hillary doesn't win Iowa, this is wide open. If she wins it she locks it up, according to Mellman, and I think he's right.

Health care debate reflections

Some reflections on the Democratic debate on health care in Iowa this past Thursday...

Joe Biden has an effective answer on the first question, and it's praised by Edwards in his response which followed. Dodd also chimes in after Clinton's answer with the same message: it's about leadership, who can bring people together, etc. All jabs at Hillary's closed-door meetings in 1993, but without mentioning her by name. Biden follows up on the leadership theme throughout the debate, doing very well referring to his own experience.

Biden and Richardson talk about home care of elderly relatives and Hillary joins in; with the baby-boomers retiring this will become an economic necessity. Edwards has an impassioned plea for taxing work and capital gains the same, at least, and it gets a nice audience response, as does his plea for reality-contact that universal care will be very expensive and his joke that Hillary's plan is the same as his--the split-screen on this last one showed Hillary's stone-faced expression. Edwards is scoring some points here. Later on he had a proposal to treat bonuses and golden-parachutes for CEOs the same as workers' pensions.

Hillary's response points to her first attempt as the vanguard that moves the sticks as far as Democratic positions go. She's right that there's a huge difference on health-care with the Republicans. Biden gets a laugh with his desire to raise obscene amounts of money like the other candidates, and his jabs at Richardson's experience. Biden wants reality-contact with the need for a chunk of Republicans to go along with the plan of any Democratic president. Richardson gets laughed at for being unable to answer with a yes or no. Later on he is laughed at for, as Biden put it, "When in doubt, blame President Bush." Biden's constant joking about Richardson running to be Secretary of State is funny because it's so true, and Biden can do it without seeming nasty because he's doing the same thing. Biden could actually be president, while Richardson doesn't have a chance.

The debate was good for Biden and Edwards, neutral for Dodd and Clinton, and bad for Richardson.

Iran and the General Election

Iran is an issue that might well come to the forefront in the general election...

In discussions with a friend recently we mused about the possibility of a US strike on Iran at the end of George W. Bush's term as president. It seems likely that this is being pushed by the Vice President's office right now, and the question is whether President Bush will decide to take action before his term expires. An invasion seems out of the question, with the strain Iraq is already putting on the armed forces. But air strikes are another matter. The temptation to escalate the conflict we are engaged in in the Middle East could be very great. The rally-around-the-flag effect would still be in operation, even with war fatigue. Americans still prefer their own country and its leadership to another country halfway around the world. Escalating would almost force those against the war to back the president and the military against their will. For a president with nothing to loose, and who really seems to believe in the necessity of "winning" in Iraq, the attraction to a very rash course of action is understandable.

The candidates should be planning for this now. As far as the Republicans go, their nominee would certainly support this action. Giuliani has pledged not to let Iran go nuclear, as has McCain. Fred Thompson, Brownback and Romney have taken a muscular posture. Joe Biden has criticized the latter for it, and as for the rest of the Democrats, they would face a tougher tightrope. Many liberals in their base would be appalled. Hillary and Richardson have said that they want more talks. But I'm not convinced that they wouldn't support the troops when the bombs start falling.