Shocking comeback... for the favorite.
Talk on TV about the "Bradley Effect." If the polls were that off in NH it must be because people will tell pollsters they'll vote for a black man but in the privacy of the voting booth they wont. Thusly, 48 hours ago Obama was an "unstoppable bullet" and now he's just one of three candidates again.
Edwards just can't break through past the rock stars.
Nothing has changed. Really, after two states we're back to jump street. Iowa might as well have not happened at all.
And what did you expect? Step back and think about it. This is a UNIQUE election. 1st time in 50+ years that an incumbent isn't running. The party in power is virulently unpopular. The two leading candidates come from two groups that are unrepresented in the 43 member White Man President's Club. The third guy that can't break through is the closest thing we have to an incumbent because he was the VP candidate last time around.
On the GOP side you have a "comeback" by McCain who, the media will tell you was left for dead. What they won't say is he was left for dead because he was lame and his comeback was because his competitors were LAMER.
Going forward McCain "the comeback coot" will win northern states. Huckabee will win southern states with larger Evangelical populations. McCain will likely win the nomination and Huckabee will be VP. The GOP elites will not be happy but they know that they're not going to win anyway. They're going to start planning for 2010, going into backbench attack mode. Republicans are always better at attacking and thwarting progress than actually running things anyway. They know that. Especially if the next president is a black man or Hillary Clinton. They'll be well situated to snipe at everything Dems do. Expect a resurgence of militias in Michigan and Montana.
Back to the Dems - each state is going to be different. Obama had a huge advantage in Iowa with hordes of his supporters coming from Illinois to help. Would they show up in NH? No, not in the same numbers. NH voters undoubtedly thought twice about his experience gap as NH women felt that Clinton was getting a raw deal from the media and the other campaigns.
So it's back to the talented but inexperienced black man, and the divisive woman against the populist guy.
Which brings me to the Talking Heads (the band not the pundits) point - same as it ever was - the question remains: Who is the best choice to lead the Democratic Party to victory in November and to real change over the next 8 years? Who can bring a new New Deal to the American people including universal health care, energy independence, strengthened unionism bolstering a resurgent middle class, the reimplementation of a realistic and moral foreign policy that can engender respect around the world, reformulation of trade policy based on labor and environmental standards human rights, civil rights and yes, to an extent the protection of American jobs? Etc. etc. etc?
That answer hasn't changed for me it's still John Edwards.
I have always thought that the experience of having run a 50 state election before is invaluable.
I have always thought that being likable, for better or worse, is one of the most important metrics voters use.
I have always thought that Edwards' rhetoric showed that he gets it, straight forward, no nonsense, strong defense of unions, workers, the middle class.
I have always thought that Hillary Clinton was a good brilliant woman unfairly maligned. But maligned nonetheless, damaged, with very high negatives that just make it easier for the enemies of progress to vilify and rally support against. Even if she wins the presidency! Even if she is the one sitting in the Oval Office, the next Commander in Chief, it's not enough. Then the change has to start and even with larger numbers of Dems in the House and Senate the forces of ill will find it easier to derail the change.
I have always through that Barack Obama is a talented relatively young (one year younger than me anyway) next generation politician who can give a great speech. Honestly that's all I can say about him right now. He has great potential for the future. Hey, maybe he'll be elected president before his time. He will struggle if he is. Sorry non-football fans I'm going to use a football analogy: It's like a rookie QB in the NFL - for every Roethlisberger that comes in with a great team around him and hits the ground running there are ten Eli Mannings that take several seasons to get their feet under them and really grasp the job. Even Bill Clinton had a terrible 1st year in the WH!
And can I say one personal observation about Obama? On numerous occasions I've heard average people and political operatives say that they don't see him as black because well, he's so well spoken. Ok, I guess if I'm Obama I'll take that. GOP operatives in the media have said that he's a different kind of black, not like that Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Again, the backhanded compliment is still a compliment. But don't be naive enough to think that this kind of deference is going to last. Why is Obama giving speeches that sound more and more like sermons? He is increasingly using the cadence of the pulpit. And guess what, that makes him sound like Jesse and Al. It will raise eyebrows on white Americans who don't see him as "black"... yet.
What's it all mean? Again, just like with Hillary, even if he does get elected, and I think he can be, (and I think that despite his frustratingly right leaning rhetoric that has been designed to attract independents he will operate as a true progressive in the WH) he will have a difficult time getting all the change we need enacted. He will struggle. And he will give great speeches about struggle which will not end the struggle.
Edwards is still the choice. His rhetoric is still the clearest, the least affected by political double-speak. His plans still the most comprehensive. He is still the best campaigner who can go anywhere in the country and get heard by Ds, Rs, and Is. He will be the hardest for the right wing noise machine to vilify and militarize support against. Of course he has his negatives, everyone does. They'll try to brand him as "the Breck girl" and demonize trial lawyers. They'll try to say he's a slick, good looking guy who is a bad husband for making his poor sick wife campaign for him. They'll try anything. The Chamber of Commerce will spend the $60 million they promised to spend to derail him and our progress. They'll do that against any of our candidates.
It's my judgment still that they'll have the hardest time making things stick against Edwards. Edwards will have the best chance to get elected, and more importantly, the best chance of being able to implement the change we are committed to. His background as an uber-successful trial lawyer has prepared him best for the fight to come. I believe that his preparation and planning is the most comprehensive and clearest-eyed. He will hit the ground running on day 1 in the WH with a clear strategy to win the change wars.
I'm sure that Hillary's experience with her husband's administration will be informative on the 1st day of a potential Clinton administration II. I would rank her second in preparation because of that. But Iher whole campaign and the people around her seem to have the D.C. disease in their blood. They will seem well organized, and promise much but like her husband ultimately compromise and use half measures, get what little she can and crow about success. I think Obama will do the same when he can get anything at all. He would be by far the least prepared to occupy the WH and implement effective strategies. They're all exceedingly smart, but that's not enough.
That's what I believed two months ago, two weeks ago and what I believe now. Nothing's changed.