4/30/07

Last Thursday night, the Democratic Presidential hopefulls had their first debate. 8 candidates were invited; Sens. Hillary Clinton (NY), Barack Obama (IL), Joe Biden (DE), and Chris Dodd (CT), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH), Gov. Bill Richardson (NM), and former Sens. John Edwards (SC) and Mike Gravel (AK).

Topics varied, but the big one was, of course, the War in Iraq. This favored Obama, who was the only one of the Big Three to oppose the War from the beginning. In fact, Obama had the best night overall, as all of his answers were well-thought out and multi-faceted. A lot of people believe that Rep. Kucinich was the big loser of the night, as the most vocal radical leftist was Sen. Gravel, but I think that Gravel's presence made Kucinich, who was the most radical candidate in '04, look more mainstream in comparison. Kucinich, however, lost big when he challenged Barack Obama on the perceived inconsistency of voting to fund a War he did not support, but Obama handled his challenge gracefully.

Hillary Clinton got through the evening without any major bumps, which is always the goal of the front-runner. Joe Biden came off as affable, but wasn't able to get into the specifics of his Iraqi plan, which is unfortunate, as he probably has the most realistic handleon that situation. Bill Richardson was all over the map, coming off as very leftist on some issues, very rightist on others; and he reiterated his comments that he was late on jumping on Alberto Gonzales because he was Hispanic (although, to be fair, he also pointed out that he has now called for his resignation).

John Edwards came off reasonably well, but some of his anti-intellectualist rhetoric ("it takes more than high-fallutin' words to become President") sounded unnatural. Chris Dodd was eminently forgettable; he'd do himself a big favor getting out of the race before he wastes any more money.

Final Scorecard:

The Big Winner: Barack Obama
Winners: Hillary Clinton, John Edwards
Neither Winners Nor Losers: Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich
Losers: Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd
The Crazy Guy: Mike Gravel

This week the Repubs have their debate, and no less than 10 candidates are on the billing. More on that Wednesday.

2/25/07

We're coming up on that time of the Presidential cycle. This summer will be when the candidates make their big fund-raising push for next year's primaries, and you can expect a lot of stumping across the country once the weather warms up for good. Of course, I'll be writing primarily about the Democratic side of the race on this blog, but for this post I want to concentrate on the Republican side.

In a way, I find the GOP race more intriguing than the Democratic race. The Dems will be choosing between three candidates who are all pretty much well-known, well-respected, and well-liked by all segments of the Party. The Republicans, on the other hand, won't just be choosing a presidential nominee, but will also be choosing which brand of Republicanism will be the direction in which the Party will move forward.

The media is presenting this as, like the Democratic race, a choice between three candidates, and to simplify matters further, they happen to be the three candidates that are most alike. However, I think that there are five horses in this race, and I'll break them down, starting with the one you have most likely heard of and moving down to the least.

If I had to put the label of "favorite" on somebody right now, that label would belong to former New York mayor Rudolph Guliani. Rudy is remembered as a hero by many people after his leadership following the 9/11 attacks. Guliani also has a tough-guy reputation from his days as NY mayor before the attacks, and he'd be the "law and order" candidate, for sure. He would be a particularly effective nominee if he were running against, say, Hillary Clinton. However, all is not roses in Guliani-land. The "Christians" probably wouldn't be too comfortable voting for a guy who views marriage as a transitional state, and whose views on homosexual and women's rights might be considered by many in the Bible Belt as too progressive. Not to mention his being from New York would be a turn off for many Repub voters down south, as well.

The guy who would have been the favorite this time a year ago, but whose campaign is hitting roadblock after roadblock, is Arizona senator John McCain. McCain was W's top competitor for the nod in '00, but his "Straight Talk Express" careened into the wall in South Carolina. McCain has a military background, which should be an asset, especially in the Republican primary, and his steadfast support of the Iraq war could help him out seeking the nomination; most Americans are against the war, but that doesn't mean most Republicans are. McCain, like Guliani, will have a hard time with the "Christian" folks, who might see him as too liberal on social issues (read: he doesn't hate fags enough). And it has to be pretty obvious to most folks that a guy running on how great the Iraqi War is going is probably unelectable in the general election.

The third man in the media's three-man race is former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. Now, Romney's big strength is that he has proven he can win general elections, even in a Democratic stronghold (although Massachusetts has had recently, until the '06 elections, a string of Republican governors). But, once again, that kind of broad appeal comes at a price. The "Christians" won't be as impressed with his ability to appeal to liberals as a Libertarian might be. And that fact that Romney is a Mormon might go over well in Utah, but the Religious Right in the rest of the country has no love for any religion they consider deviant, even if they are politically in lock step with them.

You'll notice that none of the three candidates above have any great appeal to the "Christians" that make up the backbone of the Republican Party. This is why I think it is a big mistake by the traditional media to ignore two other Republican candidates: former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and Kansas Senator Sam Brownback. You might be saying, "who?", which should clue you into the biggest weakness these two candidates face: name recognition. However, by appealing to the RR, these two are giving themselves a legitimate shot to do some serious damage in primary season.

So, there you have it. Three candiates that appeal to the classic conservative/neo-conservative/libertarian wing of the party, and two that will be trying to win the Bible Belt. Which one comes out on top may be telling not just for who gets the nomination, but which group gains control over the Republican Party, if only in the short term.