Privacy Policy

AdSense has recently requested that all publishers using its service now include a privacy policy on their site. I wasn't too thrilled about this at first -- I'm just a blogger, after all. I'm not collecting names, addresses, or Social Security numbers here. I don't know the ages, the genders, or the tastes and preferences of my readers. Why do I need a privacy policy?

I've thought about it a little more now and have decided that a privacy policy isn't such a bad thing to have though I'm not so sure I should be allowed to write one. Google particularly wants users to know about cookies and web beacons and how those two things relate to ads. Cookies and web beacons are two things that people probably don't know enough about, so I'm happy to spread some knowledge around. Quite possibly I'll end up spreading some misinformation as well since I'm not an online privacy expert, but Google AdSense asked for it!

First, let me reiterate what I stated in the first paragraph. I'm not collecting personal information on my visitors. Although web analytics tools exist that could tell me where my visitors come from, what their IP addresses are, and other such information, I'm currently not using any such software with this blog. The only thing I can possibly know about you is what you choose to reveal of yourself via comments or email, and I promise to try to forget any such user-revealed information as soon as possible.

Third party advertisers on this site may be collecting information on you through the use of cookies and web beacons, but you can choose to what extent you wish to allow them to collect this information. Web beacons can take various forms -- some are even images that are too small to be seen -- but their basic use is to collect information on a web user when that user visits a specific site or even reads a particular email: stuff like your IP address, browser of choice, and the time at which you visited the site may be recorded. Cookies are also identifiers, but they can actually be quite useful even for regular users. For instance, shopping sites often use cookies to help keep track of your virtual shopping basket as you add and delete items prior to actually making a purchase. Other sites use cookies to identify returning visitors so that those visitors do not have to manually reenter their login name and password on every visit. As useful as those uses of cookies might be, some companies undoubtedly use cookies along with web beacons largely for their own benefit. Imagine, for instance, that an enterprising sock manufacturer is able to discover that people who click on Mike Gravel ads also have an inordinate fondness for red socks. The potential revenue opportunities would be endless...but do you really want to participate in unpaid market research in that way? And what if there are aspects of your online activities that you'd rather not be linked together? Government web sites can issue cookies as easily as corporate sites can...for that matter, spammers and other online criminals can track you as well! Luckily, all major browsers allow users to disable cookies if they so choose, and many offer more advanced cookie management features (look around the privacy options in your browser to discover these features). Personally, I have my browser set to delete all cookies at the end of each browsing session. This allows me to make use of the features of cookies that I like while I surf, but it prevents me from being tracked on a long-term basis. It's harder to avoid web beacons altogether, but you could at least try surfing behind a proxy to prevent your true IP address from being revealed.

Google AdSense uses the DART cookie to help decide what ads should be shown based on a user's previous web surfing activity. So, for instance, you might tend to visit Democratic-leaning web sites. On this nonpartisan blog, you might get to view Democratic rather than Republican ads because of your past visits whilst a more Republican-leaning surfer might see other ads catered more towards his or her surfing. This might all seem a bit Big Brotherish, but you don't have to let Google tailor ads for you in this way if you find it objectionable -- you can opt out of the program altogether.

More useful information can be discovered via Wikipedia: check out the articles on cookies, web beacons, and proxies to become better informed.

The Two Phases of a Presidential Election

I've decided that I disagree with those people who complain that the presidential race starts too early. Iowa and New Hampshire may have begun the race in one form, but they also represented the end of the race in another form. Consider the winnowing of the race that started right after the first caucus and first primary. Even a few well-funded and well-supported candidates such as Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and John Edwards are now finished. Even though many voters have yet to have their say in the nomination process of either party, their choices have become very limited. Indeed, this phase of the election is very much of a process -- we are now in the midst of determining just who will be the nominee of each party, and after that we will move on to determine who will be the next president. It wasn't always like this.

I must admit that the 2007 side of the election wasn't always enjoyable, even for a budding political junkie like myself. It was hard work watching all those debates and researching all the candidates. Personally, I skipped a few debates and neglected several candidates; I still regret not looking more at the candidacy of Chris Dodd. Nonetheless, I find myself sometimes wishing we were back in that phase of the election again -- I call it the ideological phase. Back then there wasn't a process underway, really; instead, there was a battle for attention as each candidate scrambled to get his or her message out. Although Mike Gravel and Ron Paul are still in the race, candidates with alternative viewpoints are heard much more often and much more loudly in that first phase of an election. That's not entirely due to the media -- the race itself draws attention away from candidates with limited support once primaries and caucuses begin to be won or lost. I can't even argue that winning the ideological phase is vital to later success in the election. John McCain's candidacy, in particular, seemed to really start thriving in the process phase. I do feel that the ideological phase is vital to the intellectual health of America's political debate, however, and I'm already looking forward to 2011.

That isn't to say that the general election will be bereft of ideological debate. If, for instance, John McCain ends up the Republican nominee and Barack Obama obtains the Democratic nomination, then we'll have two candidates expressing very different views on important issues like Iraq and health care. Still, we'll only have two voices, and I suspect that those voices will frequently be speaking of "experience" and "hope." Personally, I'm casting a vote for hope right now with a prayer: political gods, please grant us a strong third party or independent candidate that can get in the post-convention debates and help shape the dialogue!

Super Tuesday: Do People Vote in Groups?

I tend to think of voting as being a very individualistic process. Each voter must ultimately cast his or her own ballot singly so it seems natural to me that each voter should also make his or her mind up concerning who to vote for more or less independently as well, though of course everyone is influenced by the people and circumstances that surround them. That isn't quite how most political pundits seem to see it, and perhaps not quite how most politicians see it either. The pundits talk on and on about groups whose support a candidate has earned or is attempting to win. The candidates themselves seem to vie for the support of groups by attending special events geared towards certain groups and sometimes by pandering directly towards a specific group in speeches or debate performances. Which is it...do people vote more often as individuals or as parts of groups?

Exit polling data from Super Tuesday seems to make it fairly clear that group affiliation does play a big factor in how many people choose to vote. Barack Obama won a startling 80% of the African American vote yesterday, but, as the linked article also notes, Hillary Clinton garnered a large degree of support from the Hispanic community. Although Mitt Romney didn't have the day he had hoped for, it certainly wasn't because Mormon voters didn't support him in droves. Some of these percentages are just too big to ignore. How could Obama possibly win 94% of the African American vote in Illinois or Mitt Romney win close to 90% of the Mormon vote in Utah? In my experience, nine out of ten people don't agree on much of anything -- these overwhelming majorities at least raises the possibility that there are a significant number of people out there who aren't voting for a president so much as they are voting for their own race or religion, especially when you consider that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama hold many similar political positions just as Mitt Romney and John McCain do. Mike Huckabee arguably benefited more than anyone else from religous voters because the Christian conservative vote powered him to primary victories in several Southern states, though Huckabee didn't win a huge majority of these votes. There are similar stories to be told concerning women supporting Clinton, young people supporting Obama, and older voters supporting Clinton and McCain, but we also don't see 80% of any of these groups supporting a single candidate. Clearly, group affiliation impacts elections, but most groups don't cluster overwhelmingly around a single candidate, so individuals acting relatively individually still have a big impact.

Perhaps one of the great cultural questions surrounding this presidential election has been whether or not candidates like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney could draw widespread support from outside their particular groups. Neither sexism, racism, nor religious chauvinism has prevented men from supporting Clinton, whites from supporting Obama, or non-Mormons from supporting Romney. If nothing else, this presidential election ought to encourage many people from diverse backgrounds to at least consider running for president in the future. Given that race and religion seems to have influenced the vote for Romney and Obama so much, it seems likely that there was also a sizable percentage of people voting for other candidates for whom Obama's race or Romney's religion were negative factors. Nonetheless, when all was said and done, Obama and Romney remained viable candidates after Super Tuesday...though Obama is now in a much stronger position than is Romney. At the end of the day, it seems like it can finally be said that anyone can be elected president, though the coming general election will likely also add another chapter to this story.

I can well understand why some people would look at the 80%+ support for Obama among African Americans and Romney among Mormons with dismay and disappointment. Such a plurality does suggest that an awful lot of people are still voting for whoever seems to be most like them, just as critics of democracy that fear the "rule of the rabble" have long predicted. The fact that other groups did not vote so much in "lock-step" is one positive, and I think there is another factor worth considering: namely, that Obama and Romney are actually strong candidates with wide bases of support. Obama's candidacy is not centered around the fact that his father was from Kenya, and Romney has not made his Mormonism the focus of his campaign. Both have a history of success in politics, albeit not particularly long histories; Romney has also been successful in the private sector. My feeling is that it is the quality and electability of these candidates that has enabled such large majorities to be built within their particular communities. It's not fair to say that most African Americans or most Mormons that are voting for Obama and Romney are primarily motivated by their candidate's group affiliation; it is closer to the truth to say that Obama and Romney's group affiliations are just another positive that have encouraged (not caused) African American and Mormon support for Obama and Romney, respectively. My evidence for this? Al Sharpton, Carol Moseley Braun, Orrin Hatch. Good presidential candidates, all, but as I recall none of them made a big splash in the races they competed in. Sharpton won 17% of the African American vote in the 2004 South Carolina primaries, in contrast to Obama's comfortable majority in 2008.

Is Ron Paul Too Economical When Discussing Economics?

I'm much more a saver than a spender at heart, so I'm quite reluctant to condemn anyone for being too economical. In Ron Paul's case, however, it isn't his frugality with money I'm concerned about, but rather instead his economical use of language. Paul is easy to understand when he talks about the war in Iraq and other wars like it. He expresses his ideas both forcefully and in terms most anyone can comprehend. Indeed, it is sometimes his opponents who are less clear in their language when they throw out phrases like non-interventionism in criticism of Congressman Paul. One of Paul's other favorite things to discuss is the economy and his idea of government's quite limited role in economic affairs. Given the gloomy economic outlook that many have right now, I think people are interested in hearing about alternative approaches to economic issues. Thus far, however, Paul hasn't seemed very effective at pushing forth his economic message in an easy to understand manner.

One of the things I like about Ron Paul is that he is a reader and a thinker. He has been quite good at appealing to the intellect of those who are willing to give him the time of day, and I think his lasting political legacy will be the interest in politics and economics that he has sparked in the minds of many people, including numerous young people and others who don't ordinarily pay much attention to elections. I doubt Paul relishes the role of teacher, but his unorthodox politics have essentially necessitated that he try to appeal to an audience that has not already been converted to his views (as Paul discovered in 1988, there simply aren't enough libertarians to elect a libertarian president on their own). In that sense, Paul has a much harder road to the White House than a religious conservative candidate whose supporters base their core political beliefs on their faith or a socially liberal candidate whose supporters have been voting for pro-choice, pro-education candidates their entire lives. Sure, Paul also has a base of true believers to call his own, but it's relatively small compared to the base of voters that will support a Mitt Romney or a Hillary Clinton. Paul has had no choice but to sway minds in order to win votes.

Swaying minds is much more difficult when one speaks above the head of one's audience, however, and I think this is a mistake Paul makes too often, especially during the debates when discussing economics. For instance, in the last Republican debate at the Reagan Library, Paul made a reference to the "guns and butter" tradeoff that governments must face when planning budgets and setting policies(the guns represent defense spending and the butter represents social spending). It is a classic dilemma that just about everyone who has ever studied economics is familiar with, but there are an awful lot of people who have never studied economics to any degree. Paul should realize that a lot of people have never given economics a chance; "guns and butter" is going to sound like gibberish to them, even though the concept being referenced is actually very easy to understand. Paul would be more effective if he went straight for the concept and left the confusing lingo behind. Talking like an economics textbook isn't wise in a country where economics textbooks rely on a captive audience of college students to account for most of their sales. Similarly, when Paul talks about monetary policy and the gold standard in vague terms he is also losing the attention of some of his audience. Some of the people who are listening to him have never even thought about what gives their currency value; some of them don't understand what the gold standard is; some probably think American money is still backed by gold and don't know what the big deal is about. To effectively reach a large audience with wide differences in education level and interests, Paul needs to do some explaining as well as expressing. That is hard to do during a debate, where speaking time is limited, but Paul needs as many people as possible to both hear and understand his message.

Although I've singled out Paul in this post, I think most politicians could probably be more effective if they avoided vague language and terminology that might be unfamiliar to much of their audience. For instance, I personally feel uncomfortable with the oft-repeated term "Islamofascism." My first thought on hearing that term is that Al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists have formed a government that operates similar to how Mussolini's Italy did. The term is confusing to me because I primarily associate fascism with a certain time and place in history; I don't just think of it is as a political ideology. I was also taken by surprise by John McCain's recent attacks against the Alternative Minimum Tax, but only because I had no idea what that was until he started mentioning it. I was curious enough about the tax to google it, and I thus discovered that one of the controversies surrounding this tax is that a lot of people don't learn about it until after they start to owe it. What one politician thinks is a big issue is often something the people he or she is speaking to have never heard of; politicians sometimes need to inform before they can persuade.

Barack Obama, the Last Pro-Choice Democrat (on Health Care)

One of the clear policy differences between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (and between Obama and John Edwards) is related to their plans for universal health care. Although both Democratic candidates for president have promised to make universal health care a reality if they are elected, they disagree philosophically on whether or not health insurance is something that should be mandatory -- a nice way of saying "forced" -- or not. Obama wants to correct the flaws in the present system which lead to people being unable to get insurance because of the high cost of premiums or because no health insurance company is willing to offer them insurance. From Obama's perspective, health insurance is something almost everyone wants, but it is also something which not everyone is currently being allowed access to. Thus, Obama thinks that government's role in health care reform should be to tear down the barriers which are preventing people from getting insurance. People who can't afford health insurance will be subsidized; people denied insurance from private companies will have access to a national health care plan, like everyone else. Obama draws a line at having government force people to have health insurance, although he does insist that all children be insured. Clinton and Edwards don't draw that line; in fact, they believe it would be wrong to let anyone go without health insurance, even if certain people don't want to have insurance.

I think the pivotal question here is whether or not people have the right to make decisions that might be wrong or dangerous to themselves and costly to society. As individuals, most people would undoubtedly prefer to have as many choices open to them as possible because they trust themselves to make good choices and don't want the government to tell them how to live their lives. As members of society, people tend to fear what other people who think differently than them might do, so it becomes more appealing from that perspective to limit other people's choices. Yet when we limit other people's choices through government intervention we also end up limiting our own choices as well. Anything that supposedly makes society better through the limitation of individual choice also makes our country less free. That doesn't mean we should never limit an individual's ability to make choices, of course, but I do think we should at least think about how taking choices away will affect the individual whenever we make policy decisions that will limit freedom.

Is there ever a legitimate reason to not want health care? I tend to think a fair number of people who would be insured by Clinton and Edwards probably won't be insured under Obama, but I also think the number of uninsured will fall dramatically. The continuing numbers of the uninsured will likely include wealthy Americans who aren't worried about the costs of health care, Americans who can afford health insurance but for whom it would be a significant and recurring cost they'd rather not take on, poor Americans who fall through the cracks of the system and don't get insured even though their insurance would be subsidized, and Americans whose beliefs and opinions prevent them from seeking either health insurance or health care of any kind. Each of these groups brings a set of problems to the table. The wealthy and other people who opt not to buy health insurance don't pool their funds to help pay for the health care of others. Taxes, though, will insure that this group does still pay something. The poor who don't get insured will be victims of bureaucracy, denied by government inefficiency what they were previously denied in the name of corporate efficiency. From a civil liberties perspective, it is the fringe group of people who don't want health insurance because of their beliefs or opinions who are most in danger of having their rights trampled on. Personally, I'm not too fond of hospitals, but that wouldn't stop me from going to one if I really needed help, and I do think most people who work in hospitals are trying to do the best they can to save lives and restore health. I also think health insurance is a good thing and I'm glad to have it. Still, I cringe at the thought of telling someone that they are wrong for distrusting doctors and hospitals or for having beliefs that discourage the use of modern medicine. Health care, after all, isn't just sweetness and light. People do die and suffer because of ill-treatment and incompetence in health care institutions, the insured and the uninsured alike. While I think health insurance and health care providers are the cause of much, much more good than they are of evil, I can't say that it is invalid or wrong or crazy to take the opposite view and not want to have health insurance as a result. Similarly, if you don't want to buy into a health insurance industry that has, by most accounts, not done a very good job of allowing access to health care for everyone, I cannot fault you for that. The reason people are clamoring for universal health care is because private insurance failed to deliver it to meet the needs of all; the leading Democrats seem to think government and private insurance can work together to make health care work, but I could understand why anyone might be skeptical of that notion. Thus, it seems to me that there are legitimate (although sometimes selfish and sometimes odd) reasons to not want health insurance. However, it is worth noting that while people may willingly opt out of having health insurance they may not be so willing to opt out of receiving health care (they may even be so injured that they can no longer make such a choice at all); in those cases, the cost of providing health care to a "free rider" will sometimes have to be born collectively by society as a result of an individual's choice.

All things considered, I do like Obama's approach towards health care reform better than the approaches of his Democratic rivals. I think he is right that most people do want health insurance and would choose to have it if it is truly available to all. I don't think it is government's responsibility to put a gun to people's heads and say, "Get insured!" Instead, I prefer government to be an advocate and an enabler rather than a tyrant. Simply making health insurance available to everyone who wants it will be a serious funding and bureaucratic challenge; why further complicate things by also forcing health insurance on people who don't want it? This would be a partial rather than a complete solution, however, because there will still be people who remain uninsured. In an imperfect world where people do not think or believe the same things, perhaps a partial solution is the best we can have.

Mike Huckabee and the Constitution

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.

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.