Obama, Huckabee and other news

I have only liked three candidates in this Presidential campaign: Joe Biden, Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama. The last two have shown in the past two days that they (along with Biden) are the only candidates who had core convictions. Mike Huckabee did so here: (Go about 3:15 in)

I am so proud of Huck.

Obama, on the other hand, gave one of the most sweeping, substantive speeches of the last 50 years in American politics. It was an honest speech that showed why he is the man to lead this country. He could have pandered to whites who wanted him to disown his pastor and leave his church, but he didn’t. He could have called white suspicion naive and ludicrous, but he didn’t. It was a remarkable speech.

I am currently planning for the big April 9 event and doing some schoolwork, so I have not been able to blog as much as I would have liked. I can tell you what, if I had time, I would be blogging on:

1. If Hillary can donate 5 million dollars to her campaign, could she donate some money to her wardrobe!? If I have to see that bee looking pantsuit one more time, I swear…!

2. By the way, about Hillary, the only campaign she still has a chance of winning is the campaign to destroy the Democratic Party.
I don’t know how many Democrats think a continuation of the failed policy in Iraq, or a third-term for Bush, is better than Senator Barack Obama in the White House.

3. I love the black church. I think it is one of the best parts of our country. However, conspiracy theories aren’t helping no one.

4. Tony Perkins and the FRC should pay more attention to the Bible and less attention to the political fortunes of the Republicans in Congress. In my latest FRC Action Alert E-mail…I was sent a paragraph of Ken Blackwell criticizing Obama’s Pastor and Obama for being in favor of a liberation philosophy and socialism. None of which, to my knowledge, were discussed in his speech. This paragraph by Ken was FRC’s response to Obama’s speech. One would think that FRC Action would rather protect the black church, which is with them on the social issues, then castigate the church because it doesn’t vote Republican. In the lead-up to April 9, I will be blogging a bit more about why the Religious Right has been led astray and if they can ever get back on a path when their eyes are on the Lord, instead of power in D.C.

5. Buffalo Sabres are going to the playoffs baby! (knock on wood)

 

Iowa

The race is really heating up here in Iowa and much has changed, especially on the Republican side. Here are my thoughts:

Democrats:

Obama and Edwards have all the momentum at this point. While certainly any one of the big three can come in first, I really feel as though Obama has the biggest groundswell of support, while Edwards has the hearts of many Iowans who he’s won over. Hillary is starting to lag behind. I would not be surprised if, as Iowans often do, she comes in first as the experience candidate, but at this point, I believe she will come in third.

Here are some pros and cons of the candidates here on the ground:

Obama: pros-People like him because he is a unifier. As it is easy for Independents and Republicans to caucus he will get plenty of that support. They also see him as a straight shooter. He is just plain inspiring.  cons- The health care distortion put on him by Clinton hurt. Also the idea that some believe he doesn’t have enough “seasoning” in Washington.

Clinton: pros- Long record of public service. She’s a woman. People like her husband. cons- Unelectable, divisive, blast from the past.

Edwards: pros- He’s been in Iowa forever. His anger taps into the feelings of many Democrats. cons-Unelectable, oily, a completely different candidate from what he was in 2004.

Here are my numbers:

Obama 32 Edwards 27 Clinton 25 Biden 8 Richardson 6 Dodd 2

Republicans:

Huckabee has faltered. I don’t think his organization will get enough of his supporters to the caucus. Though his supporters are committed, the money of Romney will be too much. McCain will surprise many. The foreign policy blunders will move some of his support to McCain. If Huckabee has to drop out, he will endorse McCain, and we will either see McCain/Huckabee, or McCain/Pawlenty.

Here are my numbers:

Romney 28 McCain 26 Huckabee 22 Giuliani 10 Thompson 8 Paul 6

McCain and Obama will win NH.

More on that following the caucus.

 

Laying It Out

I have been silent on this blog on many major issues. Well that ends now as I will try to cover everything that has happened. This will be a fairly long entry and I hope it will cover all major issues. Feel free to leave a comment asking me to cover another issue.

THE RISE OF MIKE HUCKABEE

As some of you may remember, I predicted Huckabee’s rise before August, when he was polling less than 1% nationally and a little over 2% in Iowa. Huckabee has run his campaign using free media, church mobilization and his charisma. He has a message of common sense and traditional values. His Christian Values do not extend only to gay marriage and abortion, but to fighting poverty and believing in the common humanity and value of all Americans. He can not, as a Christian, out of political expediency, “grind his heel in the face of an immigrant child.”

Many stories and attacks are coming out against Mike Huckabee. Most do not have merit and the rest are a question of values.

Mitt Romney has thrown out the immigration attack, claiming Huckabee supported giving a tuition break and scholarship to illegal immigrants. The situation in reality, which doesn’t matter much to someone who is down 20-points in the first-primary state I guess, is that Huckabee wanted to allow all students to obtain a state scholarship if they met the criteria. It is not the fault of the child of an illegal immigrant that their parents took them over the border. America does not punish children for the sins of their parents. It is a choice between having teenagers who feel hopeless on the streets, committing crimes and wasting lives, and allowing them to reach the American dream that is available to all of us. Huckabee is getting criticized for choices and positions (by the way the same can be said for Obama) he held that were positions he held that reflected the needs and concerns of his district. In other words, say I am a Governor of a State that has no gun laws and my state has over 1,000 homicides a year as a result of gun violence. I may support a statewide ban on automatic weapons, such as the AK-47 that a teenager was able to attain to shoot people recklessly at that mall in Omaha. Now if I were to run for President, it would not be inconsistent for me to not support such a ban at the federal level because my concerns and responsibilities are different as President than they were as Governor of a State with over a thousand gun-related homicides.

Huckabee was from a state that needed highway projects desperately and had a budget deficit, and with the support of 80% of Arkansans he raised taxes (I believe it was a poll tax) in order to fund highway projects. I would much rather have a President who took action in the interest of his constituents rather than in the interest of preserving some futile ideology. We should choose a President who protects his constituents, not the ideological purity of his policies. I want a President who takes whatever position is necessary to solve the problem at hand.

I will cover Mike in my overall thoughts on the Republican nomination and in the following topic:

THE MEDIA

I have never been the kind of person who blames the media first. I love journalists. However, this cycle has brought out the worst in the media. The media is certainly going after Huckabee, and he is now in some serious trouble. MSNBC, particularly Chris Matthews, hates Christianity. They don’t hate Christians, just when Christians figure in their beliefs in their decisions. So MSNBC, CNN, AP and many others, not to mention the blogosphere, have spent the last ten days spending each day on quotes from two decades ago, or comments taken WAY out of context. They’re turning what would be non-issues to them, into discrete and not-so-discrete assertions that Mike Huckabee’s faith led to the rape and murder of a woman, illegal immigrants getting scholarships, and AIDS patients being quarantined. The last of those is the media’s favorite as of late. For instance, all the stories yesterday were about how Huckabee “stands by his 1992 comments about AIDS victims.” Which is a mischaracterization. Huckabee obviously does not support the policy NOW, but he does believe his comments in 1992 were defensible. These stories will continue.

FOX News on the other hand hates people who want to help others. I have said it before and I will say it again here: FOX News does not care about social conservatives. Sean Hannity does not care. Bill O’Reilly does not care. FOX News has one priority: Taxes. They realize social conservatives are a part of the Republican base, so they play up these tabloid issues about a “War on Christmas,” making Christians easy targets for MSNBC and seculars. I do not trust FOX News. I never trusted Pat Robertson. I do not trust most National Christian leaders. I trust Rick Warren, and I think Franklin Graham is a pretty good guy, with less sense than his father. I will not comment on Robertson’s endorsement of Giuliani again, but it is an example of the priority of those who have used their prominence as religious leaders, and traded their souls in for power. I know that is harsh, but when you have Christian leaders not endorsing candidates who agree with them because they want to beat Hillary, that is a real problem.

But I digress…The moral of the story is, Huckabee is facing attacks from every side and has no refuge in the media. He has to rely on getting his message out any way he can and on the faithfulness of the supporters he has attained.

The media is doing this all over. To create a story, or to push a criticism, they omit and distort. They pretend as though Obama thought Oprah speaking out for him would seal the deal, they pretend as though John Edwards has never criticized his opponents…on and on. The media loves you when you’re the underdog, then kills you when you’re on top. There is no overriding liberal bias really…The real bias of the media is that they despise power.

The Democratic Nomination

My second prediction, that Obama would win the nomination is becoming more realistic as well. He is rising in the early states and the momentum is certainly on his side. But let’s take this state-by-state…

Iowa (January 3):

Iowa is literally a dead-heat between Clinton, Obama and Edwards. Obama has run a strong campaign there and has the organization to back it up. Clinton has convinced Iowans she is the “experience” candidate and that is very important to Iowans. Edwards has been campaigning in Iowa since 2002 and has very committed supporters and high favorability ratings. While health care is now a prominent issue, and Iraq is still in the background of all of this, the race in Iowa among Democrats is coming down to the intangibles: electability, leadership, change, honesty, likability, competence, etc. The issues only come into play as evidence of a candidates possession or lack of one or more of these qualities.

Turnout will be a major factor in the race. If there is low-turnout, Edwards will benefit. If there is high turnout it will be a showdown between Clinton and Obama with Obama receiving a slight advantage. The race is still extremely fluid at this point so these last three weeks are crucial, beginning with tomorrow’s debate. Last year, almost 50% of Iowa caucus-goers did not decide until the last three days before the caucus.

I will make a prediction which I will evaluate each week.

My prediction for Iowa is this: Obama 32 Clinton 29 Edwards 20 Biden 9 Richardson 7 Dodd 4

I expect Biden to surge a bit as he just put up his first ad in Iowa and he is a charismatic fellow. He is one of the most genuine people running. I met him last year and he is a remarkable guy. The best foreign policy man we have running. Richardson has the resume as does Dodd, but neither of them have the “it.” In 2004, either of them would have been great candidates, but in 2008, with Obama and Clinton, there is no oxygen left for underdogs.

New Hampshire (January 8):

Obviously, New Hampshire will be dependent on Iowa, as will all other primary states. The nature of the campaign will change dramatically depending on the outcome of the race. I like Clinton in Iowa because of how well her husband did there. I also think her organization is stronger, and I think the female vote will be better for her in NH. However, Obama is gaining. A new Rasmussen poll that came out today has him up three points in NH. NH also has a tendency to like the fresh face, the comeback story, and the change candidate. Obama also has the support of both of NH’s Democratic congressmembers and of the Governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick. His organization is not lacking.

Here are my numbers:

Clinton: 35 Obama: 32 Edwards: 10 Richardson: 8 Dodd: 5 Biden: 4

I expect Dodd and Biden to drop out after NH. I think Clinton will win in NH because her organization is strong and her attacks will become more fierce after Iowa. However, NH is the state about which I am most uncertain, so do not be surprised if next week my views change.

Nevada (January 19):

Nevada is interesting because it is a new early-state. It’s voters are notoriously less engaged and turnout will be low. The culture and demographics are also strikingly different. Union support and hispanics are two key factors. I believe Nevada, more than any other of the 4 states will depend on the outcome of the states that precede it.

Clinton: 39 Obama: 33 Edwards: 17 Richardson: 11

Richardson will hurt Obama and Edwards by stealing votes from them, but Richardson will drop out after Nevada after the Hispanic support won’t work miracles for him.

South Carolina (January 26):

South Carolina is the big one. It will test so many things. The major test being who, if anyone, African-Americans coalesce around. It is the first test in the South for Hillary or Obama. This is the perfect state to lead into Feb. 5.

Remember that John Edwards won SC in 2004. This is the only state that he won.

I believe that when it comes down to it, Obama will mobilize Cornel West, Michael Eric Dyson, Jesse Jackson, Jesse Jackson Jr., Artur Davis and Deval Patrick…not to mention Michelle Obama, and that Obama will win the black vote resoundingly. This is important as the black vote is about 50% of the primary electorate.

My numbers:

Obama: 44 Clinton: 34 Edwards: 22

Edwards will drop out after SC. I believe Edwards’ support will go to Obama, but that has lately been up to debate. We may see the media delegitimize Obama’s win as a mere effect of him getting the Black vote. Jesse Jackson won South Carolina. The media will need to do this to make Feb. 5 seem epic.

So there you have it. As of right now, I believe Obama and Clinton will split the first states 2-2 and we will go into Feb. 5 with a two-person showdown.

Some X-Factors:

Gore: If he endorses anyone, it will be Obama. The question is: will he?

Drop-out endorsements: Who will Edwards endorse? Who will Richardson, Biden and Dodd endorse?

Kerry: If he endorses, it will be the kiss of death to the candidate that he endorses that Gore’s endorsement of Howard Dean was last year. If anyone, I think Clinton will trot out a Kerry endorsement as a last-ditch effort to salvage her campaign.

Revelations: Rumors are swirling that the Clinton campaign has material it will release close to the Iowa caucus that is damaging to Obama. I can only see a late-breaking story hurting Obama. Everyone knows of the skeletons in Hillary’s closet.

Bill Clinton: What impact will he play as we get closer to the election?

Turnout: It’s huge.

Des-Moines Register Debate: It is tomorrow, Dec. 13. It will be huge. It’s on CNN at 2 pm.

Though I had hoped to complete the entry before the GOP debate, I guess I will have to cover the Republicans after their Des Moines Register debate this afternoon as I am now going up to the Hill for a luncheon with Congressman Chaka Fattah that I organized for our membership at the GW College Democrats. It should be a great event.

I also have some big news that I will post soon.

I hope to receive some thoughts, questions and/or comments on this post and find out what ya’ll think.

I will be back to post tonight or tomorrow about the GOP.

Thanks for Reading.

 

The First Democratic Debate

I have a different view of the debate then the majority of the press directly following it…I think this debate, if the performances of the candidates are attributed and identified in the coming weeks with those candidates, and if the debate had a considerably good sized audience…I think the debate was race-altering. I’ll do this in a series of bulletpoints:

-By far, the person hurt most in this debate, at least in SC, is John Edwards. His failure to answer the question of who his “moral leader is,” was despicable. For a candidate that brings up his baptist background at every opportunity on the campaign trail (for the last 6 years!), and who does an hour long interview with beliefnet.com where he talks about his faith at length, it is despicable that Edwards paused for what seemed like an eternity…and I know exactly what he was thinking…

I supported John big time in 2004. I supported him a year before Iowa and held that support with no change until he dropped out. However, you can see how he’s changed to fit the political times. John has said that this time around he’s more honest, and that his regret from 2004 was that he put his finger to the wind too many times. Well, it is clear that what he was thinking in that 7 (that’s what David Brody counted) seconds: “Well, by golly, I’m getting all of this support from dailykos, and the netroots, they sure would hate it if I said Jesus Christ.” So the man punted. After 10 seconds he weakly said “the Lord, my God” and then went on to include his father. He also preceded his answe, after the pause, with a statement something like “well, I can’t really answer the question, because I don’t want to be held accountable either way for my answer…but here it goes…”

John Edwards was a coward. If he wanted the nomination he had to win SC and unless he makes a dramatic reversal and bluntly states the answer he would have proclaimed if it was scripted, he will lose SC and drop out before Super Tuesday. I am disappointed in him.

If Obama had gotten that question, he would have nailed it out of the ballpark. And if he got that question in a debate with any of the GOP frontrunners, he would have sealed the deal on the nomination right there.

Sorry Johnny boy, but your time is up, you either were lying to the public and ingenuinely talking about your faith, or you were a coward. You could proclaim it when it was scripted, or when you were in a church, but when it was laid out right in front of you…you thought about politics (which, by the way, if he would have answered how he should have, it would have benefited him politically long-term).

-Chris Dodd came out with the sensible position on Gay unions that all Christians and Americans should unite behind: Pro-Civil Unions, Anti-Gay Marriage. I’ve talked about why that makes sense before, and I’ll discuss it again soon.

-There were two clear winners tonight: Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. I expect Joe Biden to be clearly in the lead of the top tier, especially in SC, in the polls. Possibly even in double digits. He had the best performance. He was amiable, he was in control of ALL topics, not just foreign policy, and he was able to make fun of himself, without discrediting his abilities. The man is anti-Partial birth abortions. He defended Obama, and attacked the dove-rhetoric of Gravel. Biden was excellent and wowed me big-time. I was supremely impressed.

Hillary was also very good. She showed, as David Brody wrote, why she is the frontrunner. She focused on the Republicans, which is what a Dem frontrunner should do. She was strong, but also warm. Some unreliable, web polls I’ve seen say that her answers were calculated and scripted…that is nonsense. She got some of the more unpredictable questions of the night. That’s a perception the media has given the public that, while not justified, Clinton will have to deal with. However, she was excellent tonight.

-Obama will not drop too much in the polls…but his performance is not going to give him a bump at all. He was nervous in the start and showed some inexperience in discussing foreign policy. He got nailed with the Israel question.

-Bill Richardson is out by the end of the summer. He bombed the Gonzales question, in which he admitted he gave Gonzales a benefit of the doubt because he was hispanic. He was looking down at his notes whenever he answered. And he was…well…boring. Biden outshined him in the foreign policy department.

-This nonsense about abortion rights being a matter of compassion and privacy is more foolish every time I hear it. However, I did like the last half of Obama’s answer, which I totally agree with: While we’re trying to decide this abortion debate…which will not go completely in one favor for decades at least, and maybe never, we should concentrate on the part of the debate that “we all agree on” that is reducing abortions. However, the argument is weak for pro-choicers who want to limit abortions…what is the incentive of limiting abortions if you aren’t destroying life. I mean, of course you’re reducing the number of “heart-wrenching” decisions, but is that really the foundation for the whole pro-choice argument for reducing abortions?

-Once again, I need to state that no one identified the strength and common sense of Democratic National Security policy better than Joe Biden. If the man puts in more showings like this, he deserves to take out Edwards and be the #3.

-In conclusion, Hillary should be very pleased with her performance, Richardson and Edwards need to do some major damage control, Biden should make a media buy now to capitalize, and Obama needs to practice his debate presentation a lot more. Dodd is trailing Biden, but due to his likability, and lack of ethical and womanizing problems, is above Richardson. Richardson has no niche, and I expect his fundraising to go down and Biden’s to go up 150% at least next quarter. Gravel and Kucinich don’t deserve a wrap-up…they’re crazy and largely irrelevant. I’m sure Fox News will pretend they’re the voice of the Democratic Party.

I will be watching the GOP debate and look forward to that as well. I sure do hope Brownback and/or Huckabee are able to put the misled and inadequate GOP frontrunners in their place. It will be interesting to see if Ron Paul plays anywhere near the role that Gravel or Kucinich played.

Thanks for reading.

God Bless.

 

Iraq

Let’s talk about Iraq.

I recently watched a video that was posted on this blog and I guess if I agreed with the “stay the course” Republicans, the video would have revved me up and I would have loved it. However, I found the video to represent the hateful, ignorant, partisan, and anti-discourse rhetoric and frame of mind that characterizes the far right. The man in the video, in a segment completely devoted to Iraq, and on a show called “Black and Right,” claimed we were winning in Iraq. His evidence, apparently, was that more Iraqis have died than coalition forces. Obviously, that’s hogwash. Check the casualty counts of all of the wars of the 20th and 21st century…casualty count is not directly indicative of victory. Also, the man seemed to be a little confused. He seemed to believe that Iraqis killed translated to enemies killed. While he boasted of us liberating those people, like the heroes that we are (it’s a shame more of the Iraqis don’t see us that way), apparently the ones who died were just paying the price for the liberation that their countrymen are enjoying.

Now let’s be clear, unlike what that man in the video suggested, I don’t think our War in Iraq is faltering because I hate America, because I want the troops to die so that I could rub it into the faces of all those who presently support the war (because apparently, there’s no way someone could support something to begin with and then believe that it’s now a losing situation…you know, like if I support jumping into Lake Erie in January, it would be foolish of me to suggest that people get out of the water once they’re 80% numb)…No…I think that we’re in a rough shape in Iraq…BECAUSE WE’RE IN ROUGH SHAPE! If we weren’t, we wouldn’t have needed this “new” strategy of increasing our troops by a couple handfuls. I am willing to give this surge a chance, but I don’t think it will. This idea that people who don’t think current strategy is working, are hoping for failure, is complete farce. I don’t think 20,000 or so troops are going to help because it’s inadequete. The President knows it, too. He knows that he’s doing what he believes is politically feasible.

As Newt Gingrich pointed out, if we truly believe that Iraq is the central front of the War on Terror, then we damn well better be doing more than increasing troops by 15 or so percent. We should be adding 50-100 thousand more, so that when the insurgents move from Baghdad to Falluja, and from Falluja to Ramadi, we can stay where we chased them out of, and we can also take the fight to where they moved.

However, the American people, it is quite clear, are done with this war. It was poorly and weakly executed after we took out Saddam, and the President and this administration have no trust, no legitimacy, when they say that they now have a plan.

Considering this, I believe Senator Joe Biden has the best plan for Iraq. Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden has a plan that will get our troops out, which is a political necessity, but also partitions Iraq (Tommy Thompson just came out with a strikingly similar plan) in a way that makes sense. I can’t explain the plan any better then the Senator can himself: This website is a wonderful site put up by the Biden campaign. It includes the positions on policy issues of all major Democratic candidates. It does so fairly, by putting up videos that represent the best of all of the Democratic candidates’ arguments. However, if you’d rather just link to Joe Biden’s Iraq plan, here it is.

I would be proud of a Joe Biden Presidency. He would be my candidate if Iraq was the only issue I cared about. For everyone out there, Biden is worth a close look. He is a policy guy, not a social issues guy. He won’t go into office with any type of social issue agenda. He’d be a President of smart foreign relations, and sensible pragmatic domestic policy.

His plan for Iraq should be implemented regardless of who is elected.

I don’t say that because I want to see our troops fail. I don’t say that because I hate President Bush. (I don’t by the way) I say that because I want to see my country come out of this situation in the most positive fashion: laying the groundwork for a functioning, stable democracy in Iraq, and bringing our troops home so that we can be at full strength for any of the other number of threats we may face in the next decade.