Although the Constitution is by design a living document that can be amended, I think one of the main reasons it continues to hold such an important place in American political thought is its relative simplicity. The Constitution can still be read in one sitting, in stark contrast to the United States Code. It is still possible to commit each constitutional amendment to memory if you so desire. In my opinion, three factors have helped maintain the Constitution's simplicity. Firstly, those who hold the Constitution in high regard have traditionally been reluctant to alter the document unless they deemed it absolutely necessary, so they sought to implement government changes in other ways than through amending the Constitution. Secondly, chance has played a big role. I'm sure there have always been politicians who have wanted to alter the Constitution to suit their own aims or to mold it to fit to their personal philosophies; we're actually quite lucky that only one amendment, the 18th Amendment, had such a negative effect on the country that it was actually repealed. Most importantly, though, the Constitution is difficult to amend; while a constitutional amendment can be proposed by either Congress or state legislatures, it can only be ratified by a broad agreement of 3/4ths of the state legislatures, an impressive plurality.
Difficult as it is to amend, the Constitution in its present form is considered by at least one presidential candidate to be quite lacking in at least two areas. That candidate is Mike Huckabee, a champion of both a "right to life" amendment and a "defense of marriage" amendment. A president really can be little but a champion of any proposed constitutional amendment; if Huckabee really wanted to be directly involved in the process of amending the Constitution, he'd need to serve in Congress or in a state legislature. Nevertheless, Huckabee has used his position in the public eye to bring attention to two possible future constitutional amendments, and in so doing I think he has displayed his own attitude towards the Constitution. Indeed, Huckabee made his attitude quite explicit with his recent statement that he would like to "amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards." Clearly, Huckabee has no qualms about amending the Constitution when he thinks it's the morally right thing to do, but I wonder just what Huckabee wouldn't be willing to amend the Constitution over. If the Constitution is amended to the point where it is merely a reflection of whatever ideology happens to be popular at the time, it will become both complicated and meaningless. Huckabee's whole attitude towards amending the Constitution seems to be too flippant to me -- if he really believes the Constitution needs to be amended, he should make a case individually for each amendment and tell us why a constitutional amendment is preferable to other means of achieving the same goal. As it is, I'm left with the impression that a President Huckabee would uphold the Constitution only after it has been thoroughly "cleaned up" to meet some higher standards. (I'm imagining the governor hovering over the Constitution right now with a pen in his hand and a container of Wite-Out at his side).
Still, Huckabee's attitude towards the Constitution shouldn't cause anyone to reject the amendments he supports out of hand. I certainly think it is possible to respect the Constitution and yet still want to change it; I can't imagine the Constitution without a Bill of Rights, and I certainly wouldn't want to live in a country with legalized slavery and where women could not vote, so in my opinion constitutional amendments have brought about many very positive changes over the years. If, however, not every change is important enough to warrant an amendment, how does one possibly decide on what is worthy of an amendment and what is not? My pet theory is that the best constitutional amendments enshrine the rights of citizens rather than limit their freedom by prohibiting something. So many state and federal laws tell citizens what they cannot do -- don't drive above a certain speed, don't trade stocks based on insider information, don't run around naked in public, don't do this, don't do that. If restrictions can make society as a whole better off without hurting the individual too much, then that's OK (though I do tend to think we have too many laws), but I don't want all this stuff cluttering the Constitution. It's interesting that the amendments that Huckabee supports are often referred to with very positive-sounding names. A "right to life" amendment sounds like an affirmation of what many consider to be a very basic human right. A "defense of marriage" amendment sounds like a guarantee of a couple's right to have a recognized marriage. However, in practice, a "right to life" amendment will prohibit abortion and a "defense of marriage" amendment will prohibit gay marriage -- those prohibitions are the driving force behind the support for both proposed amendments. Depending on how these amendments are worded, they could end up having some unexpected effects when interpreted by the courts. For instance, a "right to life" amendment could end up being the demise of the death penalty, something Huckabee certainly would not support. A "defense of marriage" amendment could also be the last word on polygamy in America. Still, both amendments are ultimately prohibitions, and I don't think either belong in the Constitution any more than the 18th Amendment did. The "right to life" amendment is definitely closer to what I would consider a good amendment than the "defense of marriage" amendment, but there would need to be a much broader consensus in this country on a whole bevy of life issues -- not just abortion, but also the death penalty, health care rendered in life and death situations, and access to prescription drugs -- before such an amendment could or should be passed. I don't think I'm alone when I say I struggle to take a strong stance on many of those issues -- they're controversial for a reason.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
New Hampshire: Live Safe or Die
I didn't think the polls could maintain a perfect record of predicting the primary/caucus victors for very long, but I didn't realize New Hampshire would give us the first real surprise victor of the 2008 primary season. Of course, this surprise victor was the expected winner a few weeks ago, so nothing too shocking has occurred. Nonetheless, Barack Obama seemed to have everything going for him after his caucus victory in Iowa. Recent New Hampshire polls showed him with a decent lead over his nearest Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, and his supporters across the country were energized and prepared for another celebration. Clinton, however, played the role of buzz-killer by winning the New Hampshire Democratic primary by a narrow margin over Obama. John McCain's victory in the Republican primary was predicted by the polls, but he was also in a tight two-way race with Mitt Romney. Both McCain and Clinton are comeback kids to an extent -- McCain struggled in early polls and led a fiscally irresponsible early campaign, causing some to count him out well before a single vote was cast, while Clinton has been overshadowed in recent weeks by the energetic and charismatic Obama. What was it about these two that won over New Hampshire?
The winners in Iowa, Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama, share a common weakness. Neither of them have a reputation for being well-versed on foreign policy; by association, this suggests they might not be the best people, to use a very hackneyed phrase, to keep America safe. This is much more of a real weakness for Huckabee, I think, because he has already made several public gaffes when speaking on foreign policy, with Pakistan being his real Achilles heel so far. Obama had a questionable Pakistan moment of his own earlier in the campaign, but he seems overall more comfortable with foreign policy issues than Huckabee. The big national security related question mark hovering over Obama is his inexperience, and Hillary Clinton has been very careful not to let anyone forget it. Huckabee is even more inexperienced in foreign policy -- it's just not something governors deal with to the extent that senators do. Huckabee and Obama's victories in Iowa, thus, probably had very little to do with foreign policy or national security; instead, Iowa voters seemed to have domestic and social issues first and foremost in their minds.
I don't want to paint the New Hampshire voter as being a reactionary force that was merely responding to the vote in Iowa, but I do think the New Hampshire primary voters had very different issues in mind compared to the voters in Iowa when they cast their votes. Most of the Republican candidates have tried to win their party's nomination by focusing on national security, but I've thought John McCain has had an edge over all the rest on this single issue from the start. I associate McCain's name with the troop surge in Iraq right along with the names of George Bush and David Petraeus. He's a military man. He's extremely experienced in dealing with national security issues. As tough an opponent he was to George Bush in 2000, McCain is in 2008 now quite suited to take on the Bush mantle. The only way Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, or Duncan Hunter can challenge McCain is through rhetoric -- none of those candidates has a record comparable to McCain's from a national security standpoint alone. In New Hampshire, though, Romney is well-known as the governor of Massachusetts, and he campaigned hard and spent freely in the state. It made sense for him to finish second. Giuliani, I think, was his own worst enemy -- his "big state strategy" was so public that it undermined his own hard work in New Hampshire. Still, Giuliani did narrowly finish ahead of Ron Paul, the only Republican to completely repudiate President Bush's foreign policy. Thompson and Hunter were also their own worst enemies, but for a different reason: they didn't give themselves much of a chance in New Hampshire because they didn't devote their time and energy into the state. Huckabee probably feels pretty pleased to finish 3d in a state that seemed pretty focused on national security considering how recently he made his series of foreign policy gaffes; however, I think that voters elsewhere will need to be more focused on domestic and social issues if he is to win the Republican nomination.
On the Democratic side of the race, there is quite a clash in views when it comes to foreign policy. Several candidates are running on a peace platform and promise an approach to American foreign policy that will be utterly unlike what was seen during the Bush administration. Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, and Bill Richardson perhaps ought to have appealed more to Iowan voters than the results indicated because they do very much believe that most all American problems can be solved at home, rather than abroad. They studiously avoid the politics of fear, but can be criticized for not focusing enough on national security issues. These three candidates were essentially afterthoughts in New Hampshire -- Richardson, experienced in foreign policy and a supporter of the military, did the best by winning nearly 5% of the vote, but he still finished a distant fourth here just as he did in Iowa. While Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards have all had harsh words to say about the war in Iraq since they began running for president, these three candidates don't advocate an immediate withdrawal from Iraq unlike Richardson, Gravel, and Kucinich. Obama and Edwards, though, are more focused on domestic issues, and neither have really presented themselves as a "national security" candidate in the Republican mold. Hillary Clinton, though, has done just that. She constantly points to her experience as evidence that she will be ready to lead through tough times. She essentially warns people about voting for Obama because he is so inexperienced that it might be unsafe to elect him. I think this message worked for Hillary in New Hampshire, but she doesn't have the edge over her fellow Democrats that John McCain has over the other Republicans. I just can't quite buy that being the spouse of a president gives experience comparable to actually serving in government; granted, Clinton was an active First Lady who was regularly in the spotlight, but most associate her with health care reform, not foreign policy or national security. When it comes right down to it, Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are all inexperienced senators in my view -- McCain will win the battle of years of public service every time. The presidency is no award for service, however, and I don't think national security issues alone will decide the ultimate winner or even the eventual Democratic and Republican nominees.
The winners in Iowa, Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama, share a common weakness. Neither of them have a reputation for being well-versed on foreign policy; by association, this suggests they might not be the best people, to use a very hackneyed phrase, to keep America safe. This is much more of a real weakness for Huckabee, I think, because he has already made several public gaffes when speaking on foreign policy, with Pakistan being his real Achilles heel so far. Obama had a questionable Pakistan moment of his own earlier in the campaign, but he seems overall more comfortable with foreign policy issues than Huckabee. The big national security related question mark hovering over Obama is his inexperience, and Hillary Clinton has been very careful not to let anyone forget it. Huckabee is even more inexperienced in foreign policy -- it's just not something governors deal with to the extent that senators do. Huckabee and Obama's victories in Iowa, thus, probably had very little to do with foreign policy or national security; instead, Iowa voters seemed to have domestic and social issues first and foremost in their minds.
I don't want to paint the New Hampshire voter as being a reactionary force that was merely responding to the vote in Iowa, but I do think the New Hampshire primary voters had very different issues in mind compared to the voters in Iowa when they cast their votes. Most of the Republican candidates have tried to win their party's nomination by focusing on national security, but I've thought John McCain has had an edge over all the rest on this single issue from the start. I associate McCain's name with the troop surge in Iraq right along with the names of George Bush and David Petraeus. He's a military man. He's extremely experienced in dealing with national security issues. As tough an opponent he was to George Bush in 2000, McCain is in 2008 now quite suited to take on the Bush mantle. The only way Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, or Duncan Hunter can challenge McCain is through rhetoric -- none of those candidates has a record comparable to McCain's from a national security standpoint alone. In New Hampshire, though, Romney is well-known as the governor of Massachusetts, and he campaigned hard and spent freely in the state. It made sense for him to finish second. Giuliani, I think, was his own worst enemy -- his "big state strategy" was so public that it undermined his own hard work in New Hampshire. Still, Giuliani did narrowly finish ahead of Ron Paul, the only Republican to completely repudiate President Bush's foreign policy. Thompson and Hunter were also their own worst enemies, but for a different reason: they didn't give themselves much of a chance in New Hampshire because they didn't devote their time and energy into the state. Huckabee probably feels pretty pleased to finish 3d in a state that seemed pretty focused on national security considering how recently he made his series of foreign policy gaffes; however, I think that voters elsewhere will need to be more focused on domestic and social issues if he is to win the Republican nomination.
On the Democratic side of the race, there is quite a clash in views when it comes to foreign policy. Several candidates are running on a peace platform and promise an approach to American foreign policy that will be utterly unlike what was seen during the Bush administration. Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, and Bill Richardson perhaps ought to have appealed more to Iowan voters than the results indicated because they do very much believe that most all American problems can be solved at home, rather than abroad. They studiously avoid the politics of fear, but can be criticized for not focusing enough on national security issues. These three candidates were essentially afterthoughts in New Hampshire -- Richardson, experienced in foreign policy and a supporter of the military, did the best by winning nearly 5% of the vote, but he still finished a distant fourth here just as he did in Iowa. While Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards have all had harsh words to say about the war in Iraq since they began running for president, these three candidates don't advocate an immediate withdrawal from Iraq unlike Richardson, Gravel, and Kucinich. Obama and Edwards, though, are more focused on domestic issues, and neither have really presented themselves as a "national security" candidate in the Republican mold. Hillary Clinton, though, has done just that. She constantly points to her experience as evidence that she will be ready to lead through tough times. She essentially warns people about voting for Obama because he is so inexperienced that it might be unsafe to elect him. I think this message worked for Hillary in New Hampshire, but she doesn't have the edge over her fellow Democrats that John McCain has over the other Republicans. I just can't quite buy that being the spouse of a president gives experience comparable to actually serving in government; granted, Clinton was an active First Lady who was regularly in the spotlight, but most associate her with health care reform, not foreign policy or national security. When it comes right down to it, Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are all inexperienced senators in my view -- McCain will win the battle of years of public service every time. The presidency is no award for service, however, and I don't think national security issues alone will decide the ultimate winner or even the eventual Democratic and Republican nominees.
Friday, January 4, 2008
The Lessons of Iowa
Until yesterday the presidential race existed largely in the collective imagination of the American voting public. The few ways we had of gauging the support a candidate was receiving were none too reliable: polls can never be trusted completely, campaign donations do not always lead to votes, and people attending rallies are not necessarily true supporters. The Iowa caucuses changed all that; finally, Republicans and Democrats have made their choice for their favored candidate in a fashion that allows no argument (unless there was voter fraud). Whether or not Iowa will play an important role in choosing the nominees remains to be seen, but the important thing is that Iowa has played its role. People have voted. The race is truly underway now.
I expected Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee to win the Iowa caucuses as they did -- I must admit that I personally trust polls more than I should! Obviously, this is wonderful for both of those candidacies, but there were other important stories as well that emerged out of Iowa. The race for the Democratic nomination just got a lot more boring because Joe Biden and Chris Dodd dropped their presidential bids after their poor showings. I don't think either of those candidates really got a fair hearing from the Iowa electorate -- instead, what seems to have happened is that three Democratic candidates were assumed to have a chance at the nomination, and virtually everyone elected to support one of those three rather than risk backing a losing horse. While Obama won comfortably with help from a youth vote surge, John Edwards bested Hillary Clinton by only the narrowest of margins. The three-way race was exciting, but I think Iowa voters shortchanged themselves by only allowing themselves three choices. Iowa Republicans chose a different course: five candidates received 9% or more of the vote. The battle for third was arguably the most interesting: Fred Thompson received slightly more votes than John McCain. Given that there was one media report that Thompson was considering dropping out of the race, this third place showing is good for the man from Tennessee. Fourth and 13% of the vote is, frankly, awesome for a John McCain who did not make Iowa a priority for his campaign. John McCain is a serious contender again if he does well in the New Hampshire primaries next week as polls predict he will.
This is the first presidential election I've covered in this blog so I feel like I should consider the Iowa caucuses from a learning politics perspective. What can the caucuses tell us about the presidential race and politics in general? I think there are a few lessons to be learned from Iowa.
#1. Smooth speakers do have an advantage.
Many American presidents haven't been very charismatic speakers. Many politicians in general aren't particularly effective communicators despite the fact that speaking is an integral part of their job. I usually rationalize this by assuming that a candidate who doesn't speak flawlessly may seem more human than one who conveys too perfect a public persona. Iowa suggests something different: namely, that smooth speakers do have an advantage over the competition provided their politics also connect with voters. Why has Mike Huckabee succeeded where other religious conservatives have failed? The core values policies remain the same, but Huckabee is much more capable of transmitting his message in an appealing way to his base and everyone else than a Gary Bauer or a Pat Robertson (who, to his credit, did finish second in Iowa in 1988...I'm judging him on his charisma based on the 700 Club and other more recent TV appearances, so maybe he's actually awesome on the stump). Of course, another factor is that Huckabee isn't a one-dimensional candidate; he's comfortable discussing social issues and his support of the Fair Tax ought to garner him some support from non-evangelicals. The other really smooth Republican is Mitt Romney...who finished second. Barack Obama is probably the most gifted long-form speaker in the race this year, and I think his victory was also a testament to the power of good speaking. One of the reasons I'm disappointed that the second-tier Democrats have remained second-tier candidates (or dropped out) is that I sometimes find it hard to distinguish between Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama policy-wise. Clinton says she's more experienced, Edwards talks about class, and Obama promises hope and change...where is the policy there? Given the similarity of this trio, Obama's charisma and speaking ability has given him an edge on the competition. Once you have lent the Illinois senator your ears, Obama can differentiate himself from Clinton and Edwards by virtue of his more open foreign policy and his health care plan that promises near universal but not compulsory coverage.
#2. It's dangerous to ignore Iowa, but you might be able to get away with it.
Rudy Giuliani can be pleased over one thing about the Iowa caucuses: he totally destroyed Duncan Hunter. The problem is that although Hunter is barely a blip in most national polls and Giuliani has been a consistent frontrunner the two were essentially in the same boat in Iowa: both decided to focus their efforts elsewhere. Giuliani has a big state policy that could certainly earn him the nomination theoretically, but a big loss is never good press. There is a certain herd mentality in politics that makes a lot of voters not want to support a loser, so I have to wonder if Giuliani's new position as "Mr. 3%" is going to impact his electability in other states as well. Worse yet, the momentum other campaigns are getting threatens to overwhelm the Giuliani campaign. Nonetheless, Giuliani is working diligently in the background, focusing on big states like Florida. Giuliani might be feeling just a little bit bitter about another Republican who also failed to focus on Iowa: his name is John McCain. While McCain's debate performances have been strong, I assumed he would pay a heavy local political price for ignoring the Ames straw poll and not swarming Iowa as other candidates have done. Well, maybe McCain did pay a heavy price -- given that he finished 4th and was extremely close to catching Thompson for 3d, I have to wonder if McCain might not have won Iowa if he had taken a different strategy. I don't think any of the Democratic candidates ignored Iowa like McCain and Giuliani did. Indeed, I wonder if that is not one of the reasons that the big three Democrats totally stomped on the rest of the Democratic field. By not giving Iowans their due early on, McCain and Giuliani may have opened the door for ultimate caucus winner Mike Huckabee. I think Huckabee deserves his success, but considering that other deserving candidates have been almost totally ignored I don't think Huckabee's Cinderella story was inevitable by any means.
#3. Iowa cannot be bought.
What Mitt Romney tried to do with money Chris Dodd and Sam Brownback tried to do with their time and presence. Hillary Clinton counted on her organizational resources to carry her to victory in Iowa. None won. It's interesting that the Romney campaign's financial largesse did help lead Romney to victory in the Iowa straw poll and give him the early edge in the state, but it could not quite take him the whole way. Instead, a cash-strapped candidate whose campaign resonated more with the Iowa voting public ended up victorious by a significant margin. Clinton's vaunted organization could only deliver a third place finish in the caucuses...albeit an extremely strong third place finish. Although Dodd essentially made Iowa his home and Brownback visited every Iowa county, Iowans didn't flock in great numbers to either campaign. So, candidates can peddle their campaigns in Iowa till their wallets are empty, their organization is demoralized, and they themselves are physically exhausted and it still might not mean a thing: Iowans are fickle with their votes. Now I really question the wisdom of Chris Dodd's decision to focus so strongly on Iowa. It got him so little he would have some justification if he felt somewhat insulted at this moment -- I would strongly recommend that future candidates not pursue such myopic one-state strategies.
I'm sure there will be a lot more lessons to be learned from the coming primaries and caucuses. Although the media will be focusing on the New Hampshire primaries next week, don't forget the Wyoming Republican caucuses on Saturday. Little Internet birds have been whispering that Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul could do well, so that should be fun.
I expected Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee to win the Iowa caucuses as they did -- I must admit that I personally trust polls more than I should! Obviously, this is wonderful for both of those candidacies, but there were other important stories as well that emerged out of Iowa. The race for the Democratic nomination just got a lot more boring because Joe Biden and Chris Dodd dropped their presidential bids after their poor showings. I don't think either of those candidates really got a fair hearing from the Iowa electorate -- instead, what seems to have happened is that three Democratic candidates were assumed to have a chance at the nomination, and virtually everyone elected to support one of those three rather than risk backing a losing horse. While Obama won comfortably with help from a youth vote surge, John Edwards bested Hillary Clinton by only the narrowest of margins. The three-way race was exciting, but I think Iowa voters shortchanged themselves by only allowing themselves three choices. Iowa Republicans chose a different course: five candidates received 9% or more of the vote. The battle for third was arguably the most interesting: Fred Thompson received slightly more votes than John McCain. Given that there was one media report that Thompson was considering dropping out of the race, this third place showing is good for the man from Tennessee. Fourth and 13% of the vote is, frankly, awesome for a John McCain who did not make Iowa a priority for his campaign. John McCain is a serious contender again if he does well in the New Hampshire primaries next week as polls predict he will.
This is the first presidential election I've covered in this blog so I feel like I should consider the Iowa caucuses from a learning politics perspective. What can the caucuses tell us about the presidential race and politics in general? I think there are a few lessons to be learned from Iowa.
#1. Smooth speakers do have an advantage.
Many American presidents haven't been very charismatic speakers. Many politicians in general aren't particularly effective communicators despite the fact that speaking is an integral part of their job. I usually rationalize this by assuming that a candidate who doesn't speak flawlessly may seem more human than one who conveys too perfect a public persona. Iowa suggests something different: namely, that smooth speakers do have an advantage over the competition provided their politics also connect with voters. Why has Mike Huckabee succeeded where other religious conservatives have failed? The core values policies remain the same, but Huckabee is much more capable of transmitting his message in an appealing way to his base and everyone else than a Gary Bauer or a Pat Robertson (who, to his credit, did finish second in Iowa in 1988...I'm judging him on his charisma based on the 700 Club and other more recent TV appearances, so maybe he's actually awesome on the stump). Of course, another factor is that Huckabee isn't a one-dimensional candidate; he's comfortable discussing social issues and his support of the Fair Tax ought to garner him some support from non-evangelicals. The other really smooth Republican is Mitt Romney...who finished second. Barack Obama is probably the most gifted long-form speaker in the race this year, and I think his victory was also a testament to the power of good speaking. One of the reasons I'm disappointed that the second-tier Democrats have remained second-tier candidates (or dropped out) is that I sometimes find it hard to distinguish between Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama policy-wise. Clinton says she's more experienced, Edwards talks about class, and Obama promises hope and change...where is the policy there? Given the similarity of this trio, Obama's charisma and speaking ability has given him an edge on the competition. Once you have lent the Illinois senator your ears, Obama can differentiate himself from Clinton and Edwards by virtue of his more open foreign policy and his health care plan that promises near universal but not compulsory coverage.
#2. It's dangerous to ignore Iowa, but you might be able to get away with it.
Rudy Giuliani can be pleased over one thing about the Iowa caucuses: he totally destroyed Duncan Hunter. The problem is that although Hunter is barely a blip in most national polls and Giuliani has been a consistent frontrunner the two were essentially in the same boat in Iowa: both decided to focus their efforts elsewhere. Giuliani has a big state policy that could certainly earn him the nomination theoretically, but a big loss is never good press. There is a certain herd mentality in politics that makes a lot of voters not want to support a loser, so I have to wonder if Giuliani's new position as "Mr. 3%" is going to impact his electability in other states as well. Worse yet, the momentum other campaigns are getting threatens to overwhelm the Giuliani campaign. Nonetheless, Giuliani is working diligently in the background, focusing on big states like Florida. Giuliani might be feeling just a little bit bitter about another Republican who also failed to focus on Iowa: his name is John McCain. While McCain's debate performances have been strong, I assumed he would pay a heavy local political price for ignoring the Ames straw poll and not swarming Iowa as other candidates have done. Well, maybe McCain did pay a heavy price -- given that he finished 4th and was extremely close to catching Thompson for 3d, I have to wonder if McCain might not have won Iowa if he had taken a different strategy. I don't think any of the Democratic candidates ignored Iowa like McCain and Giuliani did. Indeed, I wonder if that is not one of the reasons that the big three Democrats totally stomped on the rest of the Democratic field. By not giving Iowans their due early on, McCain and Giuliani may have opened the door for ultimate caucus winner Mike Huckabee. I think Huckabee deserves his success, but considering that other deserving candidates have been almost totally ignored I don't think Huckabee's Cinderella story was inevitable by any means.
#3. Iowa cannot be bought.
What Mitt Romney tried to do with money Chris Dodd and Sam Brownback tried to do with their time and presence. Hillary Clinton counted on her organizational resources to carry her to victory in Iowa. None won. It's interesting that the Romney campaign's financial largesse did help lead Romney to victory in the Iowa straw poll and give him the early edge in the state, but it could not quite take him the whole way. Instead, a cash-strapped candidate whose campaign resonated more with the Iowa voting public ended up victorious by a significant margin. Clinton's vaunted organization could only deliver a third place finish in the caucuses...albeit an extremely strong third place finish. Although Dodd essentially made Iowa his home and Brownback visited every Iowa county, Iowans didn't flock in great numbers to either campaign. So, candidates can peddle their campaigns in Iowa till their wallets are empty, their organization is demoralized, and they themselves are physically exhausted and it still might not mean a thing: Iowans are fickle with their votes. Now I really question the wisdom of Chris Dodd's decision to focus so strongly on Iowa. It got him so little he would have some justification if he felt somewhat insulted at this moment -- I would strongly recommend that future candidates not pursue such myopic one-state strategies.
I'm sure there will be a lot more lessons to be learned from the coming primaries and caucuses. Although the media will be focusing on the New Hampshire primaries next week, don't forget the Wyoming Republican caucuses on Saturday. Little Internet birds have been whispering that Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul could do well, so that should be fun.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Was Tom Tancredo Ever Really Running For President?
Tom Tancredo announced today that he would be quitting the presidential race. As with most things Tancredo, the Colorado Republican's decision has left me with some very mixed feelings. My big beef with Tancredo all along has been that he was so concerned with one issue -- illegal immigration -- that he neglected most all other issues. I don't think any one issue is important enough to elect a president based solely on his or her stance on that issue, so I've felt for a long time that Tancredo was the weakest candidate in the race. I've also felt for a while that Tancredo himself was not really that set on becoming president. Rather, I felt like he was using the prominence and media time afforded to him as a presidential candidate to talk about illegal immigration. He ran more of a crusade than a campaign, and he seems to believe that he was very successful in pushing an oft-ignored issue into the forefront of American political discourse. Perhaps Tancredo did do all he wanted to do, but I still feel unhappy that he would quit the presidential race just as it was entering its most exciting period. I don't see other longshot presidential candidates of principle like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich dropping out on the eve of the primaries -- those candidates are going to keep promulgating their ideas as long as they can remain in the public spotlight, and they will at least give their supporters an opportunity to cast votes on their behalf. Tancredo has denied his supporters that opportunity. Some of them will no doubt vote for their former candidate's endorsee, Mitt Romney, but I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few Tancredites are feeling dazed and confused tonight. Tancredo was certainly the most consistent and impassioned opponent of illegal immigration running for president; it's hard to say how much of the rhetoric other candidates spew about illegal immigration is not simply lip service rather than an exposition of genuinely held beliefs. Illegal immigration, after all, is one thing that very few candidates would actually come out and support for fear of angering a sizable portion of the electorate; Mike Gravel is an exception to this general rule, as usual.
I did think that Tom Tancredo had a role to play in this election even though he wasn't a particularly impressive candidate. Many people seem to dismiss the man as a hatemonger, a racist, and a nativist, but I don't think those characterizations are necessarily fair based on Tancredo's public presentation of his ideas. The nativist label actually does fit the man pretty well -- certainly Tancredo made it clear that he was all about preserving America's present culture and opposing immigration because it threatened that predominant culture. Although illegal immigration earned his deepest ire, Tancredo also was willing to state that he would like to see a moratorium on immigration in general. I don't think Tancredo generally expressed his nativist views in a particularly hateful way, but he no doubt echoed many arguments previously expressed by those opposed to Irish, Italian, Polish, Asian, and other immigration in America's not-so-distant past who did not always even try to hide their prejudices against certain ethnic groups. However, this nativism was only part of Tancredo's larger argument; to me, his most powerful criticisms of illegal immigration centered on economic issues. American "culture" is a very hard thing to pin down, but anyone can understand that an influx of cheap labor could be very bad for people who want to work for a decent (preferably high) wage. Likewise, the self-evident fact that illegal immigrants are people and as such have as much need for services as anyone else makes it easy to understand that illegal immigration can impact health care (and cost us money). Tancredo was excellent at linking illegal immigration to other issues like the cost of health care and the future of Social Security; in my opinion, it is that ability that is most lacking in the other candidates who claim to oppose illegal immigration. Thus, Tancredo's role in this election was to provide a voice for Americans who are worried about illegal immigration for a wide variety of reasons. The other candidates will continue to speak to those Americans, but I'm not sure any of them will be able to speak for them quite as Tancredo did.
I did think that Tom Tancredo had a role to play in this election even though he wasn't a particularly impressive candidate. Many people seem to dismiss the man as a hatemonger, a racist, and a nativist, but I don't think those characterizations are necessarily fair based on Tancredo's public presentation of his ideas. The nativist label actually does fit the man pretty well -- certainly Tancredo made it clear that he was all about preserving America's present culture and opposing immigration because it threatened that predominant culture. Although illegal immigration earned his deepest ire, Tancredo also was willing to state that he would like to see a moratorium on immigration in general. I don't think Tancredo generally expressed his nativist views in a particularly hateful way, but he no doubt echoed many arguments previously expressed by those opposed to Irish, Italian, Polish, Asian, and other immigration in America's not-so-distant past who did not always even try to hide their prejudices against certain ethnic groups. However, this nativism was only part of Tancredo's larger argument; to me, his most powerful criticisms of illegal immigration centered on economic issues. American "culture" is a very hard thing to pin down, but anyone can understand that an influx of cheap labor could be very bad for people who want to work for a decent (preferably high) wage. Likewise, the self-evident fact that illegal immigrants are people and as such have as much need for services as anyone else makes it easy to understand that illegal immigration can impact health care (and cost us money). Tancredo was excellent at linking illegal immigration to other issues like the cost of health care and the future of Social Security; in my opinion, it is that ability that is most lacking in the other candidates who claim to oppose illegal immigration. Thus, Tancredo's role in this election was to provide a voice for Americans who are worried about illegal immigration for a wide variety of reasons. The other candidates will continue to speak to those Americans, but I'm not sure any of them will be able to speak for them quite as Tancredo did.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
China: Most Favored, But Nobody's Favorite
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, China has probably been the nation most consistently disliked and distrusted by Americans. That's hardly unreasonable considering the reasons China tends to make the headlines: human rights abuses, poor working conditions, and imperialistic policies towards Tibet, Taiwan, and others. Perhaps the only good press China can get with any regularity is related to its rise into an economic superpower, but the methods China has used to rise are themselves very controversial. China the economic power is associated with cheap labor, currency manipulation, and indifference towards (if not complete neglect of) safety concerns.
China may not be loved, but its impact on American pocketbooks has been complex and by no means entirely negative. The abundance of cheap Chinese goods has enabled the average American to buy more. Despite recurring campaigns to get people to "Buy American," retailers like Wal-Mart that market mainly Chinese goods continue to attract millions of American consumers. There are definitely two sides to China's economic impact on the United States. You could focus on the American manufacturing jobs relocated to China, but you could also focus on the new jobs created by Wal-Mart, which is essentially a mass market for Chinese goods and definitely owes a lot of its continuing prosperity to China. Personally, I also think it's a good thing the prices of electronics are low enough that the average American can own a TV and a computer if they want to. I won't attribute that to China specifically, but China is certainly a major supplier of cheap electronics right now and consequently it is helping Americans become connected in an increasingly information-oriented world.
Ultimately, how one feels about China trade tends to depend a lot on how one feels about free trade. Personally, I support free trade when it is accompanied by free information -- that is, I like the notion of a global market in which every country can buy or sell, which will naturally lead to specialization by those that can supply particular things more cheaply than others, but I think that the flow of information about the goods and services that are bought and sold needs to be as free as the trade itself. Some would rightly chastise China over its own commitment to free trade, but in my opinion China's real failure has been caused by its opposition to the free flow of information. What China has become in many people's minds is a peddler of poison, but the poison has been labeled as pet food or as toys rather than for what it really is. A lack of commitment to safety in both China and the United States has enabled imported and mislabeled Chinese poison to cause death, heartache, and anxiety, which is unacceptable in my opinion. I'm confident that the market will speak, eventually -- nobody really wants to substitute poison, even cheap poison, for food or toys -- but the tragedy is that this situation could repeat itself if consumers and governments don't gain greater access to information about all products bought and sold on the global market. The hysteria over Chinese toys right now could soon be eclipsed by a health crisis caused by Vietnamese catfish or Mexican textiles. The overall problem will remain so long as information is not free and widely available.
I heard some good things from the Democrats in the Iowa NPR debate on the China issue. Barack Obama and Joe Biden impressed me with their commitment to address China trade issues within the context of existing free trade agreements. Obama suggested that American inspectors should inspect Chinese exports in China before they ever reach American shores like Japan does for Chinese goods destined for China. That sounds like a good idea to me -- as long as there is some reasonably thorough inspection going on at some point in the trading process, we will be better off than we are now. Biden and Obama agreed that America had every right to choose to apply much more pressure on China than it has chosen to apply to this point. Biden refused to countenance the idea of a tariff war and instead argued that the World Trade Organization offered enough tools to enable America to stand up for its rights. Not every candidate was so keen on continuing business as usual. Dennis Kucinich is unashamedly protectionist. For him, China trade is just one big stumbling block. Even if it wasn't dangerous to Americans' health, China trade would still weaken American manufacturing and take away American jobs. He makes about as good a case against free trade as I have ever heard, and he is certainly consistent in his positions (for instance, he's as opposed to NAFTA as he is to free China trade). You certainly cannot argue that many of the "free trader" legislators that support subsidies for certain domestic producers are as consistent in their political philosophy. Kucinich's point of view was not the most unique expressed, however: Mike Gravel was the one candidate who seemed to be eager to support China. Bear in mind that the former Alaska senator's speaking time in the NPR debate was severely limited so he undoubtedly didn't get his chance to get his fair say in on any of the issues discussed. Nonetheless, Gravel did articulate one message fairly clearly: namely, he criticized the Democrats who condemned China for not considering Chinese interests as well as American interests when formulating America's trade policies. I do agree with Gravel in the sense that the far-reaching consequences of all political actions should be considered, but in the context of the debate Gravel sounded frankly as indifferent to safety concerns as the Chinese industrialists have shown themselves to be. That point of view is not really consistent with what I know of Gravel, but I have to strongly disagree with him if he thinks bettering the economic situation of China by continuing uninterrupted trade with China is more important than protecting pets, children, and everyone else who actually uses those goods.
China may not be loved, but its impact on American pocketbooks has been complex and by no means entirely negative. The abundance of cheap Chinese goods has enabled the average American to buy more. Despite recurring campaigns to get people to "Buy American," retailers like Wal-Mart that market mainly Chinese goods continue to attract millions of American consumers. There are definitely two sides to China's economic impact on the United States. You could focus on the American manufacturing jobs relocated to China, but you could also focus on the new jobs created by Wal-Mart, which is essentially a mass market for Chinese goods and definitely owes a lot of its continuing prosperity to China. Personally, I also think it's a good thing the prices of electronics are low enough that the average American can own a TV and a computer if they want to. I won't attribute that to China specifically, but China is certainly a major supplier of cheap electronics right now and consequently it is helping Americans become connected in an increasingly information-oriented world.
Ultimately, how one feels about China trade tends to depend a lot on how one feels about free trade. Personally, I support free trade when it is accompanied by free information -- that is, I like the notion of a global market in which every country can buy or sell, which will naturally lead to specialization by those that can supply particular things more cheaply than others, but I think that the flow of information about the goods and services that are bought and sold needs to be as free as the trade itself. Some would rightly chastise China over its own commitment to free trade, but in my opinion China's real failure has been caused by its opposition to the free flow of information. What China has become in many people's minds is a peddler of poison, but the poison has been labeled as pet food or as toys rather than for what it really is. A lack of commitment to safety in both China and the United States has enabled imported and mislabeled Chinese poison to cause death, heartache, and anxiety, which is unacceptable in my opinion. I'm confident that the market will speak, eventually -- nobody really wants to substitute poison, even cheap poison, for food or toys -- but the tragedy is that this situation could repeat itself if consumers and governments don't gain greater access to information about all products bought and sold on the global market. The hysteria over Chinese toys right now could soon be eclipsed by a health crisis caused by Vietnamese catfish or Mexican textiles. The overall problem will remain so long as information is not free and widely available.
I heard some good things from the Democrats in the Iowa NPR debate on the China issue. Barack Obama and Joe Biden impressed me with their commitment to address China trade issues within the context of existing free trade agreements. Obama suggested that American inspectors should inspect Chinese exports in China before they ever reach American shores like Japan does for Chinese goods destined for China. That sounds like a good idea to me -- as long as there is some reasonably thorough inspection going on at some point in the trading process, we will be better off than we are now. Biden and Obama agreed that America had every right to choose to apply much more pressure on China than it has chosen to apply to this point. Biden refused to countenance the idea of a tariff war and instead argued that the World Trade Organization offered enough tools to enable America to stand up for its rights. Not every candidate was so keen on continuing business as usual. Dennis Kucinich is unashamedly protectionist. For him, China trade is just one big stumbling block. Even if it wasn't dangerous to Americans' health, China trade would still weaken American manufacturing and take away American jobs. He makes about as good a case against free trade as I have ever heard, and he is certainly consistent in his positions (for instance, he's as opposed to NAFTA as he is to free China trade). You certainly cannot argue that many of the "free trader" legislators that support subsidies for certain domestic producers are as consistent in their political philosophy. Kucinich's point of view was not the most unique expressed, however: Mike Gravel was the one candidate who seemed to be eager to support China. Bear in mind that the former Alaska senator's speaking time in the NPR debate was severely limited so he undoubtedly didn't get his chance to get his fair say in on any of the issues discussed. Nonetheless, Gravel did articulate one message fairly clearly: namely, he criticized the Democrats who condemned China for not considering Chinese interests as well as American interests when formulating America's trade policies. I do agree with Gravel in the sense that the far-reaching consequences of all political actions should be considered, but in the context of the debate Gravel sounded frankly as indifferent to safety concerns as the Chinese industrialists have shown themselves to be. That point of view is not really consistent with what I know of Gravel, but I have to strongly disagree with him if he thinks bettering the economic situation of China by continuing uninterrupted trade with China is more important than protecting pets, children, and everyone else who actually uses those goods.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Iran: Crouching Tiger or Paper Tiger?
The recent National Intelligence Estimate which reported that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 is both heartening and frustrating. The good news, of course, is that if the report is true then Iran is not moving in a nuclear direction; thus, the World War III feared by President Bush is a little bit less of an immanent danger, and the political climate has changed to such an extent that war with Iran is becoming much less likely. The Estimate is also frustrating, though; why is it that out of nowhere intelligence can surface which contradicts years of rhetoric and prior intelligence? In the pursuit of truth, mistakes will be made....that's a fundamental life lesson I've learned as a science student. In intelligence, the consequences of a mistake are so great that I can't help but worry about the overall state of America's ability to gather information on her enemies. It has become clear that the Iraq war was predicated on flawed intelligence. In the case of Iran, we don't know which intelligence assessment of Iran's nuclear weapons capability is really correct yet, but we do know that Iran either does have a post-2003 nuclear weapons program or it does not. I'm more inclined to believe the present assessment reflected in the most recent Estimate more because it is current and presumably based on an total intelligence picture that includes information gathered over many years, but can we really trust intelligence anymore in general? If intelligence is not consistently trustworthy, it can hardly be used as either a basis either for waging war or for making peace.
Although I am adamantly opposed to any war with Iran, I'm still very suspicious of Iran because of its past rhetoric and past actions. Cautious diplomacy is in order, I think...if a peaceful relationship between Iran and the United States can be established, the world will be a much better place, but I'm not too keen on the idea of bargaining with Iran at this point. Let's let the rhetoric cool down on both sides before there's talk of deeper economic cooperation. The time for investment and nuclear power collaboration is yet to come.
The Democratic candidates in the Iowa NPR debate seemed to largely be in favor new policy towards Iran in which diplomacy would be emphasized. While most of the candidates made it clear that they did believe Iran to still be a threat to some extent, they uniformly disagreed with President Bush's position that the National Intelligence Estimate should not change America's attitude towards Iran. Barack Obama was the first to mention Iran's support of Hamas and Hezbollah as an example of the continuing threat Iran still poses, which Hillary Clinton echoed. Mike Gravel was the only candidate to openly declare that he did not consider Iran to be any threat whatsoever; he even made an argument for Iran's right to fund Hamas and Hezbollah, comparing Iran's aid to those organizations to the United States' foreign aid to Israel. I'm glad that Gravel was bold enough to declare Iran as not being a threat; sometimes, I feel like Americans after 9/11 are way too easily frightened of countries and terrorist organizations that do not have anywhere near the resources that the American government has. Gravel isn't scared of Iran, and his contribution to the discussion was to me a reminder that, although Iran can do plenty of harm in the world, it's not as if an Iranian invasion or a nuclear holocaust is very likely to occur in the near future. America can be suspicious of Iran and treat it with caution, but it does not need to be so frightened of Iran that it acts impulsively and irrationally. Unlike Gravel, I do continue to consider Iran a threat, partly because of Iranian support for terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah. There was a good deal of condemnation of President Bush's "rush to war," including some accusations that Bush intended to lead America into war with Iran in a way very similar to how he launched the war against Iraq. I thought Joe Biden was Bush's most eloquent critic in the Iowa NPR debate. He stressed that he was not simply opposed to a "rush to war." Rather, he made it clear that he was "advocating no war, no justification for war." Biden hasn't really established himself as an anti-war candidate in my mind; he does, after all, advocate that American troops in reduced numbers remain in Iraq, and he has a history of supporting intervention in other countries. In this debate regarding Iran, however, he seemed to out-Kucinich Dennis Kucinich!
John Edwards attempted to make a big issue out of Hillary Clinton's vote in support of declaring the Iranian National Guard a terrorist organization. I was a bit surprised when that declaration passed myself, primarily due to terminology...I'm still not used to considering a branch of a nation's military a "terrorist" organization, but considering that armies have surely terrorized many more people throughout history than shadowy organizations like Al-Qaeda have perhaps the designation is more than fair. Edwards' argument that Clinton's vote showed that there was a clear distinction between the Democrats -- that is, between Hillary Clinton and all the other Democratic candidates -- did not really hold water with me. Clinton has said she does not advocate war with Iran. She can still believe that the Iranian National Guard is a terrorist organization...those two viewpoints are not mutually exclusive. Edwards argued that in effect Clinton was giving the president the pretext to go to war, but that argument suggests that in order to inhibit Bush's power it is necessary for Congress to refuse to call a terrorist a terrorist. That's not a very satisfying state of affairs -- surely Bush can still be restrained from going to war without Congress losing its ability to condemn terrorist organizations. It would've required more votes than that cast by Senator Clinton to actually lead America into another war. For Edwards' argument to have been effective, I think the former senator would have needed to argue that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard was being mischaracterized -- that is, it was improperly labeled as a terrorist organization for ulterior motives and thus Clinton's vote was cast either because she is in league with President Bush on Iran or because she was too foolish to see through the subterfuge.
Although I am adamantly opposed to any war with Iran, I'm still very suspicious of Iran because of its past rhetoric and past actions. Cautious diplomacy is in order, I think...if a peaceful relationship between Iran and the United States can be established, the world will be a much better place, but I'm not too keen on the idea of bargaining with Iran at this point. Let's let the rhetoric cool down on both sides before there's talk of deeper economic cooperation. The time for investment and nuclear power collaboration is yet to come.
The Democratic candidates in the Iowa NPR debate seemed to largely be in favor new policy towards Iran in which diplomacy would be emphasized. While most of the candidates made it clear that they did believe Iran to still be a threat to some extent, they uniformly disagreed with President Bush's position that the National Intelligence Estimate should not change America's attitude towards Iran. Barack Obama was the first to mention Iran's support of Hamas and Hezbollah as an example of the continuing threat Iran still poses, which Hillary Clinton echoed. Mike Gravel was the only candidate to openly declare that he did not consider Iran to be any threat whatsoever; he even made an argument for Iran's right to fund Hamas and Hezbollah, comparing Iran's aid to those organizations to the United States' foreign aid to Israel. I'm glad that Gravel was bold enough to declare Iran as not being a threat; sometimes, I feel like Americans after 9/11 are way too easily frightened of countries and terrorist organizations that do not have anywhere near the resources that the American government has. Gravel isn't scared of Iran, and his contribution to the discussion was to me a reminder that, although Iran can do plenty of harm in the world, it's not as if an Iranian invasion or a nuclear holocaust is very likely to occur in the near future. America can be suspicious of Iran and treat it with caution, but it does not need to be so frightened of Iran that it acts impulsively and irrationally. Unlike Gravel, I do continue to consider Iran a threat, partly because of Iranian support for terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah. There was a good deal of condemnation of President Bush's "rush to war," including some accusations that Bush intended to lead America into war with Iran in a way very similar to how he launched the war against Iraq. I thought Joe Biden was Bush's most eloquent critic in the Iowa NPR debate. He stressed that he was not simply opposed to a "rush to war." Rather, he made it clear that he was "advocating no war, no justification for war." Biden hasn't really established himself as an anti-war candidate in my mind; he does, after all, advocate that American troops in reduced numbers remain in Iraq, and he has a history of supporting intervention in other countries. In this debate regarding Iran, however, he seemed to out-Kucinich Dennis Kucinich!
John Edwards attempted to make a big issue out of Hillary Clinton's vote in support of declaring the Iranian National Guard a terrorist organization. I was a bit surprised when that declaration passed myself, primarily due to terminology...I'm still not used to considering a branch of a nation's military a "terrorist" organization, but considering that armies have surely terrorized many more people throughout history than shadowy organizations like Al-Qaeda have perhaps the designation is more than fair. Edwards' argument that Clinton's vote showed that there was a clear distinction between the Democrats -- that is, between Hillary Clinton and all the other Democratic candidates -- did not really hold water with me. Clinton has said she does not advocate war with Iran. She can still believe that the Iranian National Guard is a terrorist organization...those two viewpoints are not mutually exclusive. Edwards argued that in effect Clinton was giving the president the pretext to go to war, but that argument suggests that in order to inhibit Bush's power it is necessary for Congress to refuse to call a terrorist a terrorist. That's not a very satisfying state of affairs -- surely Bush can still be restrained from going to war without Congress losing its ability to condemn terrorist organizations. It would've required more votes than that cast by Senator Clinton to actually lead America into another war. For Edwards' argument to have been effective, I think the former senator would have needed to argue that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard was being mischaracterized -- that is, it was improperly labeled as a terrorist organization for ulterior motives and thus Clinton's vote was cast either because she is in league with President Bush on Iran or because she was too foolish to see through the subterfuge.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
The Democrats Take on Iran, China, and Illegal Immigration
All the Democratic presidential candidates except Bill Richardson gathered in Iowa this afternoon for a radio debate broadcast by National Public Radio. This debate was the first radio debate I can remember ever listening to; I think the all-aural limitation of radio as a medium makes for a somewhat different experience for both listeners and candidates. The atmosphere was certainly much more calm and staid than the last couple of Democratic TV debates I've watched; perhaps the debate format, in which candidates were not given strict time limits for their answers and in which only three major topics were addressed, contributed to this atmosphere as well as the medium. The candidates were no doubt more relaxed because they did not have face a live audience; furthermore, the listening audience for a Tuesday afternoon debate on NPR is probably not that large so perhaps the candidates felt less under the microscope today. Unfortunately, the time distribution in this debate was terrible. It was very much a Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards show, a reflection of the tight three-way race in Iowa at the moment. Thus, even though this was Mike Gravel's big comeback debate, I often found myself wondering if he was even present during long stretches of today's debate.
I noticed that Hillary Clinton did something clever early on in this debate that seemed to set the tone for the afternoon. By quoting previous remarks of Obama and Edwards on Iran, she sought to limit their ability to attack her without being particularly aggressive herself. This tactic seemed to work well; this debate wasn't very contentious at all...frankly, it tended a bit more towards "boring." To an extent, I felt like most of the candidates were handicapped by the topics discussed today. No Democrat is running on an Iran, China, and illegal immigration platform -- those aren't what I would really core issues for the Democratic candidates in 2008, but they were topical given the new intelligence assessment of Iran's nuclear program, the recent Chinese toy recalls, and the ongoing immigration debate. Apart from the eternal contrarian, Mike Gravel, the Democrats seemed to by-and-large agree on these issues: they urged a more conciliatory and diplomatic approach towards Iran, promised to be tougher on China especially on economic issues, and advocated immigration reform without deportation. This was quite a good slate of issues for Joe Biden, however, who loves discussing foreign policy. He sounded sharp today; this was definitely his kind of debate. Each of the other candidates not named Gravel struggled to distinguish his or her candidacy from the rest of the pack while at the same time largely agreeing with his or her rivals in the actual debate. Dennis Kucinich sought to do this by pointing out his consistency: his steadfast opposition to the Iraq war was adduced as evidence for his commitment to avoiding war elsewhere in the Middle East, and he also pointed out his record of continuing opposition to free trade with China. The rest of the candidates, I thought, were largely unsuccessful at distinguishing themselves from their opposition. After listening to the debate, I did feel like Obama had performed better than Clinton or Edwards, but I think that was a pretty subjective judgment made on the fly that I might very well change if I listened to the debate again or read a transcript.
Over the next few days, I plan to tackle each of the three issues the Democrats debated today in a separate blog post. Opinions and conclusions will be compared. Gravel will be mentioned with alarming regularity. Least importantly, I will write more than two blog posts this month.
I noticed that Hillary Clinton did something clever early on in this debate that seemed to set the tone for the afternoon. By quoting previous remarks of Obama and Edwards on Iran, she sought to limit their ability to attack her without being particularly aggressive herself. This tactic seemed to work well; this debate wasn't very contentious at all...frankly, it tended a bit more towards "boring." To an extent, I felt like most of the candidates were handicapped by the topics discussed today. No Democrat is running on an Iran, China, and illegal immigration platform -- those aren't what I would really core issues for the Democratic candidates in 2008, but they were topical given the new intelligence assessment of Iran's nuclear program, the recent Chinese toy recalls, and the ongoing immigration debate. Apart from the eternal contrarian, Mike Gravel, the Democrats seemed to by-and-large agree on these issues: they urged a more conciliatory and diplomatic approach towards Iran, promised to be tougher on China especially on economic issues, and advocated immigration reform without deportation. This was quite a good slate of issues for Joe Biden, however, who loves discussing foreign policy. He sounded sharp today; this was definitely his kind of debate. Each of the other candidates not named Gravel struggled to distinguish his or her candidacy from the rest of the pack while at the same time largely agreeing with his or her rivals in the actual debate. Dennis Kucinich sought to do this by pointing out his consistency: his steadfast opposition to the Iraq war was adduced as evidence for his commitment to avoiding war elsewhere in the Middle East, and he also pointed out his record of continuing opposition to free trade with China. The rest of the candidates, I thought, were largely unsuccessful at distinguishing themselves from their opposition. After listening to the debate, I did feel like Obama had performed better than Clinton or Edwards, but I think that was a pretty subjective judgment made on the fly that I might very well change if I listened to the debate again or read a transcript.
Over the next few days, I plan to tackle each of the three issues the Democrats debated today in a separate blog post. Opinions and conclusions will be compared. Gravel will be mentioned with alarming regularity. Least importantly, I will write more than two blog posts this month.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)