Why I dislike Mike

I can’t say I’m a huge fan of Mike Gravel. Ever since the first Democratic presidential debate last March, his rants against the establishment have aggravated many voters and distanced him from the mainstream.

It’s no wonder this guy has been excluded from the debates; he’s the longest of the long shot, an elder statesmen trying to make a comeback against impossible odds. And honestly, I wish he would have just retired and maintained his dignity.

But as much as I disagree with his presidential run, I appreciate his service as the senator from Alaska. He worked to release the Pentagon Papers, and has long been a staunch advocate for direct democracy.

He’s a liberal–a decent one at that.

But when I see this interview, posted on his website, criticizing other Democrats, I lost respect for a man I once considered to be a respectable, crazy old man.

Here’s the part that I take issue with:

Q: So then what do you make of Obama’s promise of change and all the rhetoric that’s been going on in this campaign?
A: Foolish. Foolish. Dangerous, dangerous. Because he doesn’t even recognize that he can’t deliver. That’s dangerous. I would rather Hillary, at least she recognizes what she’s talking about. He doesn’t
Q: Edwards?
A: Edwards, he probably knows better what he’s talking about than Obama. Obama of the three is most dangerous. Because he raises greater expectations of the youth, that he can’t deliver. The worst thing a leader can do is raise the expectations, and they don’t happen. You create a whole new generation of cynics. And that’s what he’s doing. And it’s youth that line up that have a reason to hear what he’s saying.

This is exactly what is wrong with politics today. Saying we can’t get things done. The can’t do, won’t do, won’t even try to do attitude. What breeds cynicism more: nurturing the attitude that we can’t do something, or failing to do something and trying again? A least in the later were making progress through discussion.

What I don’t think Mike Gravel understands is that Barack Obama is pushing for a new age of politics–one that bases itself upon bipartisan negotiation and progress. You have to raise expectations to demand things out of your leaders. And you can’t say, “oh well we can’t promise things because we might not deliver them.” Gravel should know himself as an advocate of direct democracy, the purpose of government is to serve the people. And when leaders make promises to the people and don’t deliver for illegitimate reasons, they should be kicked out of office.

Energizing and revitalizing the younger generation out of apathy does not breed cynicism. It breeds awareness of the problems that we face as a nation today. Obama has done so much to inspire youth to care about politics today. To say that he is de facto breeding cynicism based on the presumption that he can’t deliver seems unrealistic, if not anti-democratic.

I expect more of Sen. Gravel. For a man who advocates against the establishment, he sure knows how to play the Washington game.

* Feel free to apply the name “Mike” to Mike Huckabee as well. I’ll spare you my evangelical conservative rant, however the statement is accurate in that instance as well.

Liveblog: Hillary pissed at ABC News debate in New Hampshire

Wow, did Hillary get angry with Obama and Edwards. It was fairly clear early on that she was upset over the Iowa result, but I really never expected her to lash out on the definition of change like that. Yeesh.

Anyway, here are my comments throughout the debate:

9:15: Gibson continually interrupts Obama as he is discussing how our shift in attention from Pakistan to Iraq has lead to turmoil in the region.
9:24: Richardson blah blah blah on nuclear terrorism, my mind wanders when he talks.
9:32: The issue is health care, why is Hillary attacking Obama on his vote to fund troops in Iraq?
9:34: Edwards: “forces of the status quo” Ouch for Hillary, just ouch.
9:37: Clinton gets pissed at Edwards, unbelievable. She’s talking about how her 35 years in service have “worked toward change.” I don’t think she understands the concept.
9:39: Richardson says “what’s wrong with experience?” Oh Bill, experience is your life. Maybe that’s why you’re polling at 5%.
9:41: Question over change, Edwards now struggling to redeem himself from looking too over the top. Or perhaps a brilliant strategy? I don’t know.
9:50: Clinton “that hurts my feelings.” Oh my gosh, she shows her human side! What’s with Obama’s “you’re likable enough” moment?
9:52: Clinton: “In 2000 we elected a president we wanted to have a beer with.” Wow, she just compared the front runner with Bush, that can’t be good. That whole image of change was just compared to Bush, I think that can back fire.
10:00: Clinton: “I am the agent of change” What??? No you’re not, if establishment had a name, she’d be named Hillary.
10:07: Edwards on the Patients Bill of Rights… nice stump speech incorporation.
10:09: Same with Obama, more stump speech.
10:15: Hillary’s “reality check” moment.
10:16: Obama should address Hillary’s accusation about his NH co-chair being a lobbyist. That’s probably a distortion of facts.
10:17: STOP BEING NOSTALGIC ABOUT THE CLINTON YEARS, we want to look to the future, not the past!
10:21: “Words inspire.” I love it Obama. “Words are power”.
10:29: Gibson asks question to Edwards, Hillary interrupts to talk about tax cuts.
10:32: Obama: “We have to get back to a bottom up economic growth system for middle class families.”
10:33: Richardson goes off topic, talks about education and art??
10:35: Hillary attacks Republicans. Tries to be above the fray when she’s been negative all night. Doesn’t answer Gibson’s question about your “worst debate moment which you’d want to take back.” I think everyone knows hers is the illegal immigrant licenses question. I wonder why she so humorously decided not to respond. Has she clarified her position?
10:37: Obama talks about the Republicans and ending their policies of fear. Good job, stay about the fray. Nice end.

Bill Richardson: Didn’t really stand out. Whenever I listen to him my mind wanders. He lacks enthusiasm, he lacks some energy and he’s too centric on his resume. He personifies the typical “experience” candidate which unfortunately, is not what were looking for right now.

John Edwards: Good decision sticking with Obama and attacking Clinton, though I thought in attacking Hillary he risked a backlash against himself. Overall, good night for John.

Barack Obama: I think he won tonight’s debate. He didn’t make any policy errors, he remained calm and had a few good lines. He didn’t gravitate to the extreme of being docile (like Richardson) or being over the top (like Edwards). He acted, well, presidential.

Hillary Clinton: She looked pissed. She had a moment which is going to be aired again and again and again. Voters will wonder whether she can handle stress under fire. She did have a few good moments where she showed her “human” side, but overall I don’t think those will be the clips that make the morning news.

Side note here: Just moments after the debate, Hillary Clinton’s people posted two videos that seemingly contradict one another on Obama’s single payer health system. I find it funny that Clinton vowed not to go negative in New Hampshire but they’re willing to try to dig up muck.

Hillary’s “Moment”:

According to Political Wire, here are what the pundits have said about tonight’s debate:

Chuck Todd: “The focus on this debate for so many in New Hampshire and the media was twofold — how would Obama handle being the frontrunner and how would Clinton handle be the challenger. Well, thanks to a subdued format, Obama seemed to pass his test with flying colors… I’m not sure David Axelrod could have scripted this debate better if he did it himself.”

Rick Klein: “Edwards may have turned in the strongest pure performance. But that will be overshadowed by a couple of stand-out Clinton moments. She let it all out tonight — the entire book on Obama. But she opened the book on herself with those flashes of anger. New Hampshire voters don’t like candidates who feel entitled to nominations — they get to decide, things are not foreordained and candidates are not inevitable. Sen. Clinton had some moments tonight she’ll want to take back.”

Chris Cilliza: “The challenge Clinton faced in tonight’s debate — and the challenge she faces in the New Hampshire primary more broadly — is that Edwards clearly believes his path to the nomination requires bouncing out Clinton to create a one on one race with Obama over who is the true change agent in the field.”

Marc Ambinder: “Iowa victor Obama had a target on his back, but he’s acquired a Kevlar vest as a front runner. Like Clinton tonight, he was unflappable.”

And if the politicos can’t convince you that Obama won last night than maybe Frank Lutz and his focus group can give us some insight:

Obama Crushes Clinton in Iowa

Historic. A junior Senator of African descent has won the Iowa caucus. Really, not only did he win it, he crushed his opponents big time. Iowa, a state which has never elected an African American to office, has elevated Senator Obama to front runner status.

Final Iowa Caucus Results:
Sen. Barack Obama 38%
Fmr. Sen. John Edwards 30%
Sen. Hillary Clinton 29%

It’s a political earthquake to the likes of which this country has never seen. Lets look at the breaking news as Obama emerges victorious Thursday night:
MSNBC (1 min).

CNN: (40 sec)

CNN’s breakdown of what demographics went for who is available here.

Here are some things that I noticed:

1. Youth came out in tremendous numbers to support Obama. In the counties of Iowa State University and the University of Iowa, Obama won in a landslide. CNN reports that 57% of voters between the ages of 17 and 35 voted Obama. Unprecedented for that generation to turn out in such large numbers… a generation which in 2004 only 14% voted in the general election. I think this speaks to the quality of Senator Obama’s message, his call to change, his appeal of newness, his exciting and engaging personality, that excites so many youth.
2. Men and women both went for Obama. Women–a demographic heavily courted by the Clinton campaign broke for Obama 35%, compared with Clinton’s 30%.
3. The wealthy and the poor broke for Obama. He won over caucus-goers who earn less than $50k a year by 34%, and those over $50k a year by 36%. Particularly interesting: 41% of those earning $100k a year + caucused for Obama. John Edwards, who’s entire message has been to fight poverty, was dealt a major blow. His central campaign theme fell upon def ears in many of these precincts: only 19% of those earning under $50k a year voted Edwards, and among the even poorer–less than $15k a year, Edwards lost with only 17%.
4. 51% of Obama’s supporters caucused for him because they find him most likely to bring about change. John Edwards, who’s been echoing the same theme, only had it resonate with 20% of his caucus-goers. Hillary Clinton, who in recent days also harped on the change message, got 19% of Iowa Democrats caucusing for change.
5. In the experience question, the lines couldn’t be more definite: 5% of Obama’s supporters caucused for experience, compared with 49% of Clinton’s supporters who caucused for her experience qualities.
6. Obama and Clinton equally won over union households, 30% apiece. A big upset to Edwards, who counted on union endorsements to put him over the top, received 24% of their support.

What does this mean? Well unprecedented turn out– approx. 230,000 people, nearly double 2004. 20% more independents voted in the Democratic caucus, most of whom went to Barack Obama.

Image from Huffington Post.

Repercussions: Edwards, Clinton dealt a devastating blow, Obama catapults into New Hampshire

I think this is it for John Edwards. This is the best he’s going to do. A second place showing is not enough to catapult him into New Hampshire where he does not have the ground organization or the fund raising reservoirs to compete with Obama and Clinton.

Now Obama has a huge fund raising and psychological advantage. On the fund raising side he’s going to raise millions within the next few days, and Clinton’s Silicon Valley supporters are going to be edgy, soon flooding her offices with calls expressing concern and anxiety over Obama’s feat. Psychologically, Obama has this huge lead in Iowa, which may very well resonate with New Hampshire voters when they read the headlines this morning.

But I’d like to focus specifically on John Edwards. He appeared on Larry King last night and had an interesting, yet hypocritical, spin to his second (nearly third) place showing. He said the Obama campaign won because they outspent him by millions and millions of dollars in advertising (nearly $9 million) and yet he beat the Clinton campaign who, as he said, also spent millions and millions of dollars ($7 million). He pointed to how little advertising he’s been doing in recent weeks, and his second place showing as a sign of momentum.

I say baloney. Edwards has been camped out in Iowa for the past 4 years, it’s devastating to his campaign that he did not capture the first place victory that they were dependent upon to bounce him into New Hampshire. It’s a equally devastating that the Clinton camp spent $7 million dollars in advertising–in the end, equal to Edwards’ time spent in Iowa. How hypocritical to suggest that one person spends millions, but hey, I beat the other person who spent millions as well, and point to the millions that person spent as a burden you’ve overcome. You can’t take two people who’ve spent millions, lose to one, win to the other, and say that spending millions is a burden you’ve overcome.

But enough about John Edwards, I think his economic populism will certainly not be able to turn out the massive amounts of independents to win in NH, nor will it appeal to the libertarianism of New Hampshire voters. I predict that after New Hampshire he’ll become increasingly irrelevant. (Thinking back to his 4th place finish in 2004).

Let’s begin to look at New Hampshire, at least initially. Polling there shows a tight race, like Iowa. Edwards attempted to spin it tonight on Larry King as still a three way race, but polls show a different story. This will be a Clinton-Obama show down.

The big question, can an Obama Iowa victory be the “umph” he needs to win New Hampshire? Well, he certainly has a catapult.

Franklin-Pierce, Jan. 1, 2008
Clinton 32%
Obama 28%

CNN/WMUR, Dec. 30, 2007
Clinton 33%
Obama 31%

American Research Group, Dec. 30, 2007
Clinton 31%
Obama 27%

Obama clearly within shooting range of Clinton in all these polls. I think within the next few days we’ll see some interesting new numbers come out of New Hampshire that show some kind of bounce. Of course he’ll still have to invest millions into the state and campaign hard, but hey, Hillary looks beatable, and independents may realize he’s their guy.

Equally bad for the Clinton camp: both her electability and inevitability arguments have been destroyed. Clinton is no longer seen as the most electable Democrat, and her aura of inevitability, that shield that we saw in earlier debates, has been punctured.

Of final notes in terms of political repercussions. Biden and Dodd drop out, Gravel, despite MSNBC’s report that he dropped out, is actually still in. Kucinich is to compete in New Hampshire. Earlier reports of deal making between Richardson and Obama and Biden and Obama have been publicly denounced, but were privately encouraged. Reports Political Wire: “Multiple reports — such as this one from The Hotline — confirming that Biden and Richardson backers are being urged to support Obama.” And this video from David Gregory.

Tracking More from Iowa

I feel as though I spent a considerable amount of space giving credit to the DMR poll, which as I outlined below, feel was significant. With that said, there are several other indicators that paint a different picture in Iowa.

Polling Data

Strategic Vision, Jan. 1, 2008
Obama 32%
Edwards 29%
Clinton 27%

Des Moines Register, Jan. 1, 2008
Obama 32%
Clinton 25%
Edwards 24%

CNN/ Opinion Research Corp., Jan. 1, 2008
Clinton 33%
Obama 31%
Edwards 22%

Insider Advantage, Dec. 30, 2007
Clinton 30%
Edwards 29%
Obama 22%

American Research Group, Dec. 29, 2007
Clinton 31%
Obama 24%
Edwards 24%

Mason-Dixon, Dec. 29, 2007
Edwards 24%
Clinton 23%
Obama 22%

Quad-City Times, Dec. 28, 2007
Obama 29%
Clinton 29%
Edwards 28%

Analysis: It’s all over the place. Whoever you’re for, congratulations because they’re doing well. Above is a chart from Wikipedia monitoring all the data averaging it into linear regression. Real Clear Politics did the same thing and came up with (for Iowa only) Clinton averaging only 1.1% overall. Obama has clearly been gaining, as has Edwards at the expense of Hillary Clinton. As you see on the graph above, the number of undecideds have also come down as we approach the caucus. It’s interesting how more undecideds turned to Edwards and Obama than Clinton.

Campaign Finances
2.3 million Iowans
$40 million spent in political advertising
= $150-$200/caucus-goer in Iowa

Without a doubt, the front runners are digging deep into campaign warchests. CNN reports that Barack Obama leads the field in spending for Iowa:

Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois far outpaces any other candidate when it comes to ad spending in Iowa, having spent more than $9 million on close to 11,000 spots. That’s about $2 million more than Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York has spent ($7.2 million), and about three times the amount that former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has shelled out ($3.2 million). Clinton has aired close to 8,000 spots while Edwards has aired 3,700.

Analysis: Both Clinton and Obama have spent millions on advertising: Obama just $2 million more than Clinton. Edwards on the other hand has only spent $3.2 million in advertising, suggesting that he is expecting traditional caucus-goers to bring him to victory. In spending $6 million less than other candidates, Edwards hasn’t been appealing to independents, or new demographics as Obama; Edwards’ support comes from those who propped him up in ‘04, and his lack of advertising suggests a reliance on ground infrastructure and retail politics over visibility.

Endorsements
Who has the most endorsements? Well, Edwards secured the endorsement of Mari Culver, the first lady of Iowa. Clinton, Edwards and Obama all secured the endorsements of Iowa’s three congressmen, respectively. And yesterday, Dennis Kucinich released this statement:
Kucinich Urges Supporters to Back Obama on Second Iowa Ballot

For Immediate Release — Tuesday, January 01, 2008

DES MOINES, Iowa — Democratic Presidential candidate and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich opened the New Year by publicly asking his Iowa supporters to vote for him in the caucuses this Thursday and suggesting that if he did not make the 15% threshold, their second ballot should be for Sen. Barack Obama. “This is obviously an ‘Iowa-only’ recommendation, as Sen. Obama and I are competing in the New Hampshire primary next Tuesday, where I want to be the first choice of New Hampshire voters.

“I hope Iowans will caucus for me as their first choice this Thursday, because of my singular positions on the war, on health care and trade. This is an opportunity for people to stand up for themselves. But in those caucus locations where my support doesn’t reach the necessary threshold, I strongly encourage all of my supporters to make Barack Obama their second choice. Sen. Obama and I have one thing in common: change.”

Kucinich’s endorsement may mean little, but in a race that is a virtual three way tie, a 1% gain may be crucial. Of course people are free to make up their own mind and chose independently without anyone demanding caucasers support any one person, but Kucinich’s following is unique in that they’re all very loyal and committed to Kucinich’s ideals.

Des Moines Register Poll shows Obama Surge

To the right are the broken down results of the Des Moines Register’s (DMR) poll of 800 likely Democratic caucus-goers. In it we find:

1. More females support Obama and Clinton than Edwards; Clinton’s support among males is low (16%)
2. Obama carries the 18-34 demographic significantly–58% but falls 8% short of Edwards and Clinton in the 55 + demographic.
3. Those with a college degree are more likely to support Obama.
4. Obama carries a higher percent of the middle class and upper class than Edwards or Clinton; among those with annual incomes of $50k or less, the front runners’ numbers are split- despite the economic populism of Edwards.
5. Those in a rural residence are more likely to support Edwards; those in urban residences are more likely to support Obama.
6. Obama carries the support of 39% of independents. Clinton carries 33% of Democrats.
7. The DMR’s polling trend shows Obama and Edwards polling upward since Dec. 27, and Clinton declining.
8. Interesting facts: 38% of those surveyed watched a debate to inform themselves of the candidates and the issues; 25% have met a candidate.

So you ask, why am I focusing on the DMR poll instead of all else? Because many many Iowans woke up today and read the headline, “Obama, Huckabee lead into final stretch” with pictures of both candidates smiling. On top of the HUGE media market, the DMR poll is significant because it has been a past predictor of Iowa success. Consider this news story from the DMR around the same time in 2004:

Kerry, Edwards surge;
Iowa Poll shows many voters still open to change; 8 points separate top four candidates
Jonathan Roos, Staff

A late surge by Democratic presidential candidates John Kerry and John Edwards has pushed them slightly ahead of long-standing front-runners Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt in the race to win Monday’s Iowa caucuses, a new Des Moines Register poll shows.

Kerry, a U.S. senator from Massachusetts, leads the Iowa Poll with 26 percent of likely caucus participants naming him their first choice for the presidency. The poll, conducted Tuesday through Friday, also showed him gaining strength as the week wore on.

Edwards, a North Carolina senator who was in single digits in an Iowa Poll taken two months ago, follows in second place at 23 percent -his highest finish in any media poll of Iowans.

Dean, the candidate who seemed to be in the driver’s seat as recently as two weeks ago with a key endorsement from Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, has slipped to third at 20 percent. But the former Vermont governor remains within striking distance of the lead in an unusually close race in which almost half of caucus-goers say they could still change their minds.

It’s almost prophetic. As reported, that is exactly what happened. Final DMR results: Kerry 26%, Edwards 23%, Dean 20%. Final caucus night results: Kerry 37%, Edwards 31%, Dean 18%.

Same poll, different players, different year.

Clinton’s campaign has criticized the poll. Reports the Washington Post:

[Clinton Chief Strategist] Mark Penn disputed the poll, calling the Register’s turnout model “unprecedented” and “out of sync with other polling done in the race,” including several recent surveys that showed a statistical dead heat. Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz called the Register model “at odds with history.”

Even Obama’s campaign was surprised by the large sample of independents, and aides cautioned that it could be overblown. “We’re not modeling it that high,” senior Obama strategist Steve Hildebrand said of the independent pool. “We love the numbers in the Register poll, but we know this is going to be very tight.”

I don’t care how the Clinton campaign spins this, it still is disastrous news. The reality is that Obama, Clinton and Edwards are split among likely caucus-goers. A new CNN poll out today demonstrated that:

CNN/Opinion Research Corp, Jan. 1, 2008
Clinton 33%
Obama 31%
Edwards 22%
MoE +/- 4.5

Both polls show Obama and Clinton in the first and second place showing, though the Register’s poll for Obama yields a significant difference because of the percentage of independents included among respondents. Unfortunately for Clinton, independents could make or break this caucus process. If she is polling statistically even with Obama among Democrats, then independents can be the “x” factor. The Democratic caucus is expected to have double the turnout of the Republicans, meaning more first time caucus-goers and independents will vote.

Lucky thing for Obama–he leads in both demographics.

Edwards and Clinton are relying on caucus veterans, and hoping Obama’s supporters don’t turn out. The Clinton campaign has in the past tried to discourage youth voters from caucasing (because both Clinton and Edwards would prefer this to be a “traditional” caucus evening). However, given the excitement and the gravity of this presidential election, analysts have high expectations. And as for Edwards? Placing third in two polls cannot be good; he’s ignoring these results, licking his wounds and moving on. Wednesday he will start a 36 hour tour all-nighter as he travels across Iowa. But I would agree with CNN’s Keating Holland in saying: “The survey suggests that for the Democrats, a three-way race may have effectively become a two-way race.”

Edwards’ only hope? 25% of Democrats are still making up their minds… so were 50% in 2004.

Edwards Cannot win the Nomination

Yesterday the Edwards Campaign had great resaon to rejoice. Three new polls show John Edwards with the big mo, but can he sustain it until Thursday? Check out these numbers:

MSNBC, Dec. 30, 2007
Among Iowa caucas-goers
John Edwards 24%
Hillary Clinton 23%
Barack Obama 22%
MoE +/- 5

Reuters/C-Span/Zogby, Dec. 30, 2007
Second choice among Iowa caucus-goers*
John Edwards 30.4%
Barack Obama 24.9%
Hillary Clinton 12.9%

MSNBC, Dec. 30, 2007
Second choice among Iowa caucus-goers
John Edwards 36%
Barack Obama 26%
Hillary Clinton 26%

American Research Group, Dec. 30, 2007
Among New Hampshire Voters
Hillary Clinton 31%
Barack Obama 27%
John Edwards 21%

Same poll, among independent voters:
Edwards 36%
Obama 23%

In the last two weeks:
Clinton – 7%
Obama + 3%
Edwards + 6%

*In Iowa all candidates must obtain a 15% threshold after the first round of caucusing to be considered “viable.” Candidates without 15% support in their precinct are eliminated, and their supporters must either choose another candidate or go home.

In short, every Iowa poll shows a statistical dead heat, BUT these three out today show Edwards in first place in IA, first among second choice candidates, and gaining among Democrats and Independents in New Hampshire.

What the Edwards campaign is looking to do is translate a victory in Iowa into momentum going into New Hampshire. Edwards has spent the better part of two years campaigning in Iowa, and so his grassroots ground infrastructure is superior. He is well known around the state, and has solidified his image in the rural Western counties of Iowa.

Both the Obama and the Clinton campaigns would prefer an Edwards victory should their respective candidate not place. Edwards lacks the financial support to run a national campaign, and an Iowa victory would make him completely dependent on momentum. Clinton is fairly secure in Edwards winning because after Iowa, he has little established ground infrastructure. Despite recent gains in New Hampshire most polls still show him dragging. A victory in Iowa would mean that he’d have to make up a 10% gap between him and Obama/Clinton in NH, and 20-25% nationally. Another reality is that his message wouldn’t likely appeal to average NH voters; his entire pitch to rural farmers has been to battle evil lobbyists and corporate greed that are consuming our interests in Washington, something that honestly wouldn’t resonate with the many urban and suburban Democrats in New Hampshire who may have jobs in large corporations. Despite one poll that shows a significant “surge” for Edwards in New Hampshire, there are 4 other polls that all show him lagging 12% (RCP). In South Carolina, he has up to a 22% deficit based off of 5 different polls.

My prediction is that if Edwards wins Iowa, it’s a victory for the Clinton campaign. His support among rural townships gives him a huge edge in Iowa’s caucus, because western counties are disproportionately represented in the delegate selection process. Given the choice between Edwards winning in Iowa and Clinton, the Obama campaign would prefer Edwards, because at least that would fend off Hillary’s aura of inevitability.

According to OpenSecrets, Edwards has raised $30m and spent $17m, compared with Clinton ($91m raised, $51m spent) and Obama ($80m raised, $44m spent).

These poll numbers out today demonstrate to me that Edwards has momentum, but once again I’d like to take these numbers with a grain of salt. They’re polling an extremely close race, and none of this matters other than to show that Edwards is up, Clinton is down, and Obama is fairing well. And it’s still 3 days until Iowa, could it be possible that Edwards is peaking too early?

Putting the "Christ" in Christmas

All the candidates seem to have interesting approaches to Christmas in their ads.

John Edwards conveys his populist message of helping others who are less fortunate–seems to fit right in around Christmas time. Theme: Charity.

Barack Obama sits around his family and a fireplace and wishes all people a Merry Christmas and a Happy Holidays. Seems like a video Christmas card, perhaps because it is. Theme: Family.

Hillary Clinton’s ad is strange, and I would say terrible. I can’t even assign a Christmas/Holiday value because it doesn’t have one. Her ad is policy oriented–with a Christmas spice. But really, lets be realistic about the message; why is it that Universal Health care, Universal Pre-K and Alternative Energy are GIFTS??? She’s a candidate for president, not a goddess of divine wills who we common folk must ask for favors when we want them. We are the American people and she works for us. Politicians work for us. She is NOT GIVING us anything. Terrible ad, just ridiculous.

I think she sounds a bit robotic when she says, “I’m Hillary CLIN-TON and I approve this message.”

I won’t go through the Republicans, but I thought most of them were good. John McCain and Mike Huckabee utilized the theme of religion, while Ron Paul emphasized family. Like Hillary’s, I have no idea what Rudy Guiliani was going for.

Putting the "Christ" in Christmas

All the candidates seem to have interesting approaches to Christmas in their ads.

John Edwards conveys his populist message of helping others who are less fortunate–seems to fit right in around Christmas time. Theme: Charity.

Barack Obama sits around his family and a fireplace and wishes all people a Merry Christmas and a Happy Holidays. Seems like a video Christmas card, perhaps because it is. Theme: Family.

Hillary Clinton’s ad is strange, and I would say terrible. I can’t even assign a Christmas/Holiday value because it doesn’t have one. Her ad is policy oriented–with a Christmas spice. But really, lets be realistic about the message; why is it that Universal Health care, Universal Pre-K and Alternative Energy are GIFTS??? She’s a candidate for president, not a goddess of divine wills who we common folk must ask for favors when we want them. We are the American people and she works for us. Politicians work for us. She is NOT GIVING us anything. Terrible ad, just ridiculous.

I think she sounds a bit robotic when she says, “I’m Hillary CLIN-TON and I approve this message.”

I won’t go through the Republicans, but I thought most of them were good. John McCain and Mike Huckabee utilized the theme of religion, while Ron Paul emphasized family. Like Hillary’s, I have no idea what Rudy Guiliani was going for.

John Edwards & the Failed Southern Strategy

In 2004 John Kerry and John Edwards ran a compelling campaign. Together, they combined southern hospitality with northern liberalism, and lost.

In any presidential campaign, origin plays a huge role in selecting your vice presidential nominee. If you’re running for president, you want your nominee from a different region to appeal to voters of that region- making it more likely that you’ll win in the overall Electoral College.

In 1972 McGovern’s (SD) running mate was Shriver (MD); in 1966 Carter’s (GA) running mate was Mondale (MN); in 1948 Dewey’s (KY) running mate was Warren (CA). Some of these were losing campaigns, but together they’re evidence of a popular political tactic: to broaden the scope (and appeal) of the national party’s ticket, one must select a “regionally significant” candidate.

Going back to 2004, there is no question in my mind that Edwards’ North Carolinian heritage played a role in John Kerry’s decision to put him on the ticket. Unfortunately, Kerry’s strategy failed.

In North Carolina, Bush/Cheney beat Kerry/Edwards 56% to 44%. For a candidate, it is embarrassing to lose your home state, especially when it once elected you U.S. Senator just six years back. Reports CNN, Edwards’ placement on the 2004 ticket only bolstered Democratic support in the state by 1.5%; a meager percentage that surely is a humiliation. Many still remember the 1984 landslide Reagan victory over Walter Mondale- where the only state voting Democratic was Mondale’s home state of Minnesota (and there he only won slightly). More recently was in 2000, when Al Gore lost the election with his home state of Tennessee; Gore has gone on record saying that was really humiliating.

Yet many pundits blame the Gore loss in Tennessee on the growing political red/blue divisions in this country. Interesting how they can so neurotically point to a conservative Tennessee culture and say, “well obviously no liberal can win there! Durr…”

No moron, one did… his name was William Jefferson Clinton and he did so with the help of the regional strategy in vice presidential candidates only four years prior. DURR….

Thus, there is one common theme here… it’s not good to lose your home state… you generally lose the election when you do. At the very least your home state should be your sanctuary (like Mondale’s campaign)- not your enemy’s stronghold.

Ultimately, the inability of Edwards to win North Carolina should really raise some questions (and eyebrows) among New Hampshire Democrats. The main reason they continue to look to him is his continuing commitment to working class families. Edwards is the son of a mill worker; he grew up in a lower middle class family; he’s spent his political career fighting for jobs and ending poverty; his son Wade died at the age of 16.

It’s the failed Kerry policy that has me concerned that the Democratic party in 2008 is going to produce another weak ticket. Kerry was a Massachusetts liberal, and Edwards a southern liberal. Edwards however, did not hold up his end and win North Carolina as Gore did for Clinton in Tennessee, as Mondale did for Carter in Minnesota, and as any successful campaign’s vice president has done for the presidential nominee in American history.

In 2008, a ticket is needed that is truly regionally significant, and if there is one thing we’ve learned from John Edwards it’s that he can’t carry the party in the south- so someone else will have to. BUT, before I just throw John Edwards to the hounds, there are two things that first must be understood:

1. 2008 is a different campaign in a different political climate. Perhaps a change of message will make Edwards more appealing. Though he didn’t have much of an effect on his home state, it’s possible that he can create a new image that would make him effective in 2008. (Even though I still think that the 2004 1.5% Democratic increase in North Carolina is a HUGE warning bell.)
2. Regional strategy is a general rule- and to every rule there are always exceptions. Politics has several exceptions, and though I’m calling it a “rule” I can’t say for certain that it’s most definitely causal. If anything, these are correlations between being from somewhere and winning that place, and though the correlation may be strong- every election is different. (Even still, Edwards is a liability given previous correlations).

I’m eager to hear Edwards in the First Presidential Debate April 5th in New Hampshire, as I am the rest of the candidates. Edwards above all the others has that sense of Southern hospitality which acts in cadence with his sincere air of humility. He’s a genuine guy who cares about working class Americans, the future of this great nation and projecting a positive image abroad. That said, he may be a political liability. As presidential campaigns are full of surprises, I suggest we see if Edwards can roll out a surprise in the coming months…

American Research Group Poll of Likely New Hampshire Democrats
January 6, 2007
Hillary Rodham Clinton: 27%
Barack Obama: 21%
John Edwards: 18%
John Kerry: 6%
Dennis Kucinich: 4%
Wesley Clark: 2%
Bill Richardson: 2%
Joesph Biden, Chris Dodd, Tom Vilsack 1%
Undecided: 17%