Recently in Joe Biden Category

"'What does that mean, false hopes?' he said at Claremont, the start of a 720-word summation about 'false hope' he repeated almost word for word during the day. 'How have we made progress in this country? Look, did John F. Kennedy look at the moon and say, 'Ah, it's too far?' We can't do that. We need a reality check. Dr. King standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. 'You know, this dream thing, it's a false hope. We can't expect equality.' 'False hopes. Let me tell you something about hope. I do talk about hope quite a bit. Out of necessity. There is no oddsmaker who would have said that I would be standing here when I was born in 1961.'" Invoking JFK and MLK, Obama turns Clinton's dismaying "false hopes" barb into campaign music. (And, hey, Al Smith is in there too: "We are happy warriors for change," Obama cried at a rally in Lebanon.")

For her part, Senator Clinton also went to the historical analogy well of late and came back with...Lyndon Johnson? "'Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act,' Clinton said. 'It took a president to get it done.'" (One of her introducers took it all a bit far and brought up Kennedy's murder: "'Some people compare one of the other candidates to John F. Kennedy. But he was assassinated. And Lyndon Baines Johnson was the one who actually' passed the civil rights legislation." As my sister-in-law Lotta also noted recently, Not Cool.) At any rate, Clinton's factual grasp of history is basically sound, if dismayingly top-heavy. In the inspiration department, however, LBJ probably isn't going to get it done.

“I count the past year as one of the most rewarding in a career of public service. Unfortunately I am withdrawing from the campaign today.” Obama aside, last night's results have spurred two very worthwhile Democratic candidates to close up shop: Chris Dodd and Joe Biden. Of course, this is by no means the end for these two...They have some serious work cut out for them in the Senate these days. (As for Bill Richardson, he says his 2% finish in Iowa puts him in "the Final Four," and he plans to stay in for now. Well, given his low numbers in Nevada and elsewhere, he's not exactly George Mason.)

"This feels good. It's just like I imagined it when I was talking to my Kindergarten teacher." As the focus now moves to New Hampshire in four days (here's a good historical overview of the Iowa-to-NH bounce), some interesting facts about Obama's resounding victory in the Iowa Caucus last night:

"They said this day would never come. They said our sights were set too high. They said this country was too divided; too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose.

That is what we started here in Iowa, and that is the message we now carry to New Hampshire and beyond; the same message we had when we were up and when we were down; the one that can change this country brick by brick, block by block, calloused hand by calloused hand – that together, ordinary people can do extraordinary things; because we are not a collection of Red States and Blue States, we are the United States of America; and at this moment, in this election, we are ready to believe again."

-- Sen. Barack Hussein Obama, hopefully the next President of our great nation. This was a huge win tonight, and right now I couldn't be happier. Obama's historic, moving victory speech was like something from another time, brimming over with progressive possibility. For the first time in a long time, it feels like we are moving in the right direction. I'll write something more meaningful tomorrow, when I'm feeling less giddy. But, for now...wow. Just wow.

An Early Round Knockout...

...or a new Democratic Frontrunner?

Barring a split decision of some kind, we should have our first real sense of how Election 2008 will all shake out by late this evening. Obviously, it seems somewhat bizarre to choose our two presidential candidates -- a full eleven months before Election Day -- solely by who can best navigate the byzantine complexities of the Iowa caucus system. But the cycle being as accelerated as it is, and with money, name recognition, and the post-Iowa press bounce playing the roles that they do, it's hard to see any other Democratic candidate gaining enough traction between now and Super Duper Tuesday (February 5) to stop Senator Clinton should she win tonight. And -- given her high negatives -- it's almost as hard to envision how Clinton might be able to come back should she definitively lose Iowa and New Hampshire to Obama or Edwards. So, with that mind, it's seems like the last, best time to write up an primary endorsement. Now, as long-time readers might remember, I threw myself behind Bill Bradley in 2000 and tepidly endorsed Howard Dean in 2004, so the track record around here isn't too good. But, hope springs eternal, so regarding 2008...

THE REST OF THE FIELD:

Even if it is a bit unfair, the fact that no other candidate besides the top three is breaking the 15% viability threshold in the polls helps facilitate clumping them together like this. Still, in a perfect world, CHRIS DODD in particular would merit a closer look from voters. An experienced Senate progressive who's stressed the importance of universal service, Dodd would likely make a fine president. But, for whatever reason, Dodd never established the media presence to be a true contender in 2008, and he goes down as the top of the second tier.

Senator JOE BIDEN has run a much better campaign than I ever expected, particularly given his dismal performance during the Alito hearings and his "clean and articulate" flub out of the gate. Indeed, Biden has shown a nuanced understanding of global issues and an impressive command over the foreign policy domain, and he has distinguished himself in debates with wit and (surprisingly enough) brevity. If he is inclined to take the job, I expect he'd make a fine Secretary of State in the next Democratic administration (although he may face some competition from the likes of Richard Holbrooke, particularly if Clinton wins the nomination.)

His considerable record notwithstanding, BILL RICHARDSON has never made a positive impression on me this election cycle. He has scowled his way through debates (when he wasn't capitulating to Clinton), he's shown himself to be a practitioner of the Dubya Fratboy school of leadership (nicknames, backslapping, etc.), and I've yet to hear anything from him that seems even remotely inspiring. In a way, he's been the Fred Thompson of the Democratic side -- the theoretical Dark Horse candidate who's been a total non-starter. At any rate, the fact that the New Mexico Governor can't even break the top three in nearby Nevada suggests his presidential bid isn't long for this world. (For what it's worth, he's apparently asked his supporters to back Obama in the caucuses.)

As in the 2004 cycle, DENNIS KUCINICH has been a breath of fresh air on stage -- he's the one (semi-viable) candidate who unabashedly refuses to join his colleagues in the protective camouflage of GOP-lite centrism. (This is no small feat given how reflexive this knee-jerk "triangulating" tendency has become among Dems in recent years.) Still, even he recognizes that Iowa will not be kind to him, and has also asked his supporters to vote Obama. So, (MIKE GRAVEL notwithstanding, I suppose, although, despite his impressive record of service, he never seemed much more than a novelty act), that leaves the Big Three:

HILLARY CLINTON:

Senator Clinton is a smart, tough, and formidable leader, and although the presidential merits of her experience as First Lady has lately been called more into question, no one can deny that she's a battle-tested veteran of the partisan wars of the 1990s, or that she's the candidate most accustomed to the vicissitudes of the GOP attack machine. She'd make a very good president, particularly compared to George W. Bush and any Republican running.

Still, I've already described my major concerns about Clinton's candidacy here, here, and particularly here, so if you'll permit me to quote from that last entry, my issues are thus: "[1] She's thoroughly lousy on campaign finance reform, to my mind the issue that bears on virtually all others; [2] she apparently didn't have the wherewithal or leadership instincts to realize the Iraq war was a terrible idea in 2003 (it didn't take all that much to figure it out, particularly when you figure how much more information Clinton had access to than we did); [3] her view of centrism is apparently to act like Joe Lieberman every so often; and [4] most of the nation has already decided for various reasons that they don't like her." Once you factor in her unseemly corporate backers, her woeful view of human rights versus national security, her recent campaign missteps and tribulations, and the dynasty issue to that list, I find it hard to get very enthused about Senator Clinton's candidacy.

If 2004 taught us anything, it's that the electability issue is a bit of a canard. We picked John Kerry because we believed he was more "electable" than Howard Dean, and that may have even been true. But can anyone name a single state that Kerry won in the general election that Dean wouldn't also have carried? All that being said, given her very strong negatives, I do think Senator Clinton is not only the least "electable" of the Big Three, but the only candidate -- in either party -- who could manage to reunite the fractured GOP this cycle. It may not be her fault, but she will invariably bring out the wingnuts in force to vote against her. I'd even go so far as to say that the GOP is banking on Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee. It's the best possible outcome for them, and they know it.

And given that the leadership Clinton offers is the same unambitious and uninspiring blend of triangulated-to-death DLC centrism practiced by her husband, why even take the chance? This is not to say Bill Clinton was a bad president, not at all. Given the times he was working in and the low-down, unprincipled miscreants he was often forced to contend with, you could even say he accomplished amazing things, once he got his sea legs. Still, we are now at a moment when the Republican party is in rout. The conservative movement which began in 1964, coalesced during the 70's and 80's, and gave us the likes of Reagan, Gingrich, and Bush has now -- at long last -- been thoroughly discredited. Our nation has paid a heavy price for this realization, in both blood and treasure. Now more than ever, it is time for Democrats to shake off the protective camouflage and step into the sunlight. Put simply, it is time for change.

JOHN EDWARDS:

John Edwards is a candidate I've always thought highly of and, indeed, I voted for him in the NY primary in 2004. While he got off to a shaky start this cycle, Edwards -- arguably the candidate with the most to win or lose today -- has improved considerably over the past few months. In fact, I probably agreed with him more than any other candidate onstage in most of the debates. He was often the only person to suggest that the current system is fundamentally broken, and that stronger lobbying and campaign finance laws are needed to cleanse the taint of money from our political process and to make it responsive again to the needs and aspirations of everyday voters. As I said in the two long posts on progressivism several weeks ago, I agree -- as many progressives did a century ago -- that the unchecked influence of vast sums of money in Washington is arguably the central political problem facing our republic. Countless terrible decisions made by this administration, and by their Democratic counterparts in Congress, flow directly from the sad fact that dollars speak louder than people. And all the 12-point policy proposals in the world on health care, taxes, education, whathaveyou, won't change a thing until this underlying problem is recognized and rectified. To my mind, Edwards should be applauded for ringing the alarm bell loudly and strongly. (Not for nothing has Ralph Nader endorsed him.) If this argument carries Edwards all the way to the presidency, the result would almost assuredly be good for the country.

That being said, if I were caucusing in Iowa today, I would not be voting for John Edwards. Not because of any fault of Edwards -- he's my strong second choice -- but rather because I think there is one other candidate out there who shows more progressive potential. More on him in a moment, but, before I switch topics, here's the rub. As much as I admire Edwards for articulating the problem before us, I don't actually agree all that much with his solution to that problem. Put simply, Edwards is sounding the chord of populism, and populism is not progressivism. Populism speaks in a language of class, of insiders and outsiders, of haves and have-nots. Populism is often characterized by free-floating anger towards an elite "insider" cadre of some sort, and, while it's reductionist to group everyone together like this, populism has worked as well for Tom Watson and Huey Long as it has for Joe McCarthy and Ronald Reagan. It's a blunt instrument that despises elites of any kind and relies on and perpetuates an us-versus-them mentality among Americans. From everything I've seen of him in the debates and otherwise, John Edwards isn't really using the inclusive language of progressive citizenship to make his case. He's wielding the often divisive cudgel of populism. Now, if I have to pick a side, I'm obviously with the people against the oligarchs. And if this is the only way America will wake up and recognize the stench of legalized corruption, so be it. But I still think this nation will embrace civic progressivism along the lines I recently discussed, given the right leadership...

BARACK OBAMA:

If Edwards has been articulating the key progressive problem -- corruption in government -- then Barack Obama embodies the key progressive solution. Like no other candidate we've seen on the Left in nearly a half-century, Obama has the potential to restore Americans' faith in government and bring people back into the political process. Many skeptics among the punditry have derided Obama as a "hopemonger," but, to my mind, his optimistic appeal shouldn't be taken lightly. In a country where less than half of us vote anymore, anything that encourages people who have felt disenfranchised to look anew at or become enthused about our common citizenship is a godsend. In short, Obama -- young, thoughtful, intelligent, charismatic -- seems the only candidate with the potential to spark a true progressive revival. True, Obama isn't quite speaking the language of progressivism yet. But he's been veering closer to it than either Clinton or Edwards (Note, for example, the line quoted in his stump speech at the link above: "Americans all across the country are hungry for -- desperate for -- a new type of politics. Something different. A politics focused not on what divides us but on our common values and our common ideals." This argument that we are one people, all in it together and bound together as citizens by our commonalities, is the very warp and woof of civic progressivism.)

What goes for the nation goes for the globe. As Andrew Sullivan noted in his endorsement of Obama back in November, an Obama presidency single-handedly "rebrands" the United States in the eyes of the world. No other candidate running suggests so immediately and profoundly that we live by the democratic ideals we espouse, that we are a nation of diversity committed to individual flourishing, and that America is a land where anyone and everyone has the opportunity to rise to their full potential.

This holds true for our enemies as much as our friends (many of whom will be glad to see anyone but Dubya in the Oval Office.) As Sullivan put it, "Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man -- Barack Hussein Obama -- is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can."

Progressive potential and global symbolism aside, Obama has shown himself to possess the requisite talents needed to make an excellent president. As we all know, he was the only major candidate with the judgment to speak out against the Iraq War from the start. In debates, he's proven himself light on his feet and displayed a quick, voracious mind. (As Slate's Michael Kinsley put it, "When I hear him discussing some issue, I hear intelligence and reflection and almost a joy in thinking it through.") During his tenure in the Senate, he's shown a pronounced ability to work with people across the aisle, and counts among his friends and working partners such paleolithic conservatives as Sam Brownback and Tom Coburn. His Dreams from My Father testifies to a life of travel and experience that would serve him well in the Oval Office. And, unlike Senator Clinton, Obama has been a friend to campaign finance and lobbying reform, which remains crucial to any real change happening in the next four-to-eight years.

Now, obviously there are some lacunae surrounding Obama. He is a young man, and relatively new to national politics. He has admittedly been vague at times, and could have done considerably more these past few months, when given the nation's ear, to highlight the issues he finds important. There's a possibility -- maybe even a strong possibility -- that he'll end up a Tommy Carcetti-like president: a well-meaning reformer outmatched and buffeted to and fro by the entrenched forces arrayed against him. After nearly eight years of Dubya, Washington is pretty screwed up these days, and I'm not naive enough to think any one politician can undo all the damage that's been wrought in recent years. Still, given the Democratic field, my money's on Barack Obama. He has the potential to be a very special candidate -- the kind that comes around only once or twice a generation -- and I hope this evening sees the first of many successes for his campaign.

GitM votes Obama.

With Iowa coming up tomorrow, one last look at the Democratic polls: Reuters/MSNBC/Zogby has Obama and Clinton tied at 28%, with Edwards at 26%. CNN/Opinion Research puts Clinton in the lead at 33% to Obama's 31% and Edwards' 22%. And the Des Moines Register/Selzer's last poll -- considered the most trusted in the industry, partly due to its getting the 2004 results right -- has Obama up big at 32% to Clinton's 25% and Edwards' 24%. (This result presumes a large independent turnout for Obama, however, which is by no means a given.) In any case, the one good bet is it's going to be a barnburner tomorrow evening. Sometime before then, most likely by tomorrow afternoon, I plan to put up a longer endorsement-style post, since the nomination could well be a fait accompli by the NY primary on Feb. 5. No real surprise who I'm getting behind, but at least y'all will be able to poke holes in my reasoning.

"At the same time, Iowa's vaunted precinct caucuses -- especially those of the Democratic Party -- violate some of the most elemental values of a vibrant and open political process. As far as a mechanism for selecting a president is concerned, you might end up with Iowa's model if you set out to design a system that discouraged participation and violated basic democratic values." Whoever wins the Democratic caucus in Iowa tomorrow, CNN's Jeff Greenfield reminds us, it's a pretty lousy process. "What if you're in a union and want to pick someone your union hasn't endorsed, and your shop steward is there, watching you from across the room? Or the person who holds your mortgage? Or your spouse? Tough...[In addition] a candidate who won a lot of the precincts narrowly would wind up winning a bigger portion of the delegates than a rival who piled up votes in one corner of Iowa -- even if that corner yielded a higher overall number of supporters. It's all the disproportional representation of the Electoral College, in miniature. And that was the price for forming the Union, not a guide for running elections."

Another new poll, by way of the Des Moines Register, puts Obama slightly in the Iowa lead at 28%, to Clinton's 25% and Edwards' 23%. (All candidates are within the margin of error of 4.4 percentage points.) Also, it seems Obama may well have cut deeply into Clinton's impressive support among Iowa women: "In the new poll, Obama leads with support from 31 percent of women likely attend the caucuses, compared to 26 percent for Clinton. In October, Clinton was the preferred candidate of 34 percent of women caucusgoers, compared to 21 percent for Obama" Still, Clinton maintains her generational ace in the hole: "Clinton is the top choice among caucusgoers 55 years old and older. The largest share of Democratic caucusgoers -- exactly half -- are in this age group." Meanwhile, on the GOP side, Mike Huckabee leads Mitt Romney 29%-24%, with no one else even close. "That's a gain of 17 percentage points since the last Iowa Poll was taken in early October, when Huckabee trailed both Romney and Fred Thompson." We have a ways to go yet, but it's looking like we've got ourselves a barnburner on both sides of the aisle, and I'm obviously pleased as punch that Obama is not only in the running but leading the pack. Onward and upward.

Update: "Now the fun part starts"? Sensing the obvious danger to her candidacy in Obama's Iowa lead, Hillary Clinton announces she's going negative, and illustrates thus by insinuating Obama has character issues. “'I want a long term relationship,' she said. 'I don’t want to just have a one night stand with all of you.'"

"'Whether it's fair or not fair, the fact of the matter is that my colleague from New York, Senator Clinton, there are 50 percent of the American public that say they're not going to vote for her. I'm not saying anything that people don't know already. I don't necessarily like it, but those are the facts,' Dodd said." Edwards, Obama, and Dodd (finally) release the hounds at last night's Democratic debate in Philadelphia. Said Edwards: "I mean, another perspective on why the Republicans keep talking about Senator Clinton is, Senator, they may actually want to run against you, and that's the reason they keep bringing you up." (Update: Edwards' Youtube team pounces on the politics of parsing.)To be honest, I DVR'ed the debate and haven't watched it yet, partly because I'm rather dispirited about the whole process (among other things) these days, and partly because the NBA's opening-night double-header was on TNT...which means, if nothing else, there should be something on TV most nights from now until June. (The Knicks start Friday.)

"I find it amusing that those who helped to authorize and engineer the biggest foreign policy disaster in our generation are now criticizing me for making sure that we are on the right battlefield and not the wrong battlefield in the war against terrorism." The attacks grow more pointed among the Dems at last night's AFL-CIO debate (which I missed), and it sounds like both Obama and Edwards got in some good zingers. (Edwards: "The one thing you can count on is you will never see a picture of me on the front of Fortune magazine saying I am the candidate that big, corporate America is betting on.") And yet, a new poll finds Senator Clinton widening her lead over Obama to 18 points and enjoying huge advantages in big states like Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. Hmm. Is the race already over? The inveterate pessimist in me says definitely maybe, but let's remember, Howard Dean was looking pretty solid in August of 2003. We have a ways to go yet. (I mean, the critical Jolie and di Caprio endorsements are still up for grabs, for example. And Obama does have Bourne and Clooney locked up.)

Well, it may seem like they've been going at it for awhile now...nevertheless, the first official Democratic primary debate was held last night, co-sponsored by the good folks at CNN and YouTube. [Transcript.] (As you likely heard, this gimmick this time was that the questions were submitted by Youtube users the nation over. All in all, they turned out to be a mixed bag, but no more or less cutting than the ones usually conjured up by George Stephanopoulos, Anderson Cooper, or some other venerable talking head of the moment. Still, not a single query on campaign finance reform managed to sneak through the vetters...so now, I kinda wish I had at least tried to submit one.)

And the verdict this time? Well, no one broke out of the pack as a result of their performance last night, which -- the talking heads tell me (hey, David Gergen's gotta eat) -- means a win for Clinton. But, as with the past few debates, I still find my position further solidifying in favor of Obama and Edwards, and against the Senator from New York. (My reasons have been put forth previously here and here.) In fact, the most irritating moment of the debate for me, and I'll admit that this'll be considered well beyond stupid and pedantic to most people, was Senator Clinton's butchering of the distinction between "liberal" and "progressive" to contort her way out of having to name herself the former. For what it's worth, the key element of a turn-of-the-century progressive was never "someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms" -- that would be a liberal. Indeed, arguably the major flaw in the progressive movement -- until after WWI -- was its inattentiveness to individual rights and freedoms...hence, Prohibition, or, to take an even more sordid example, the proliferation of Jim Crow in the South.

But, more importantly, and this is what really irked me, Hillary Clinton has proven herself to be the least progressive of the Democratic candidates, in that she's been the most willing to get into bed with corporate interests time and time again. (And, for you historians reading this, yes, I'm calling shenanigans on Kolko.)

Ok, I'll concede, Clinton can't honestly be expected to deliver a comprehensive historical disquisition about liberalism v. progressivism in a 45-second debate answer. But, please don't chalk up my concern simply to being an aggrieved aspiring egghead just yet. (And, hey, speaking of parochial, Obama mentioned my hometown, Florence, SC, tonight, albeit not in a positive light. But I digress again.) The fact is, the differences between liberalism and progressivism do matter, particularly when you consider [a] how often politicians in our party seem confused, or even ignorant, about the Left's guiding political philosophies these days, and [b] how different a truly progressive presidential candidate would seem from what Hillary Clinton has yet offered us.

Most importantly, a true "modern progressive" would push campaign finance reform, ethics in government, and voting reform though the heavens fall. These are hardly central tenets of the Clinton campaign, to say the least. And, along with the obvious necessities of a sane, competent, foreign policy, accessible, affordable health care, and comprehensively reworked environmental and energy plans, a real "modern progressive" would also extol education, civics reform, universal (if not mandatory) service, community-building, a vast increase in arts and science funding, an end to child poverty...all ways to help renew the bonds of citizenship, to help encourage an active, engaged, self-governing electorate, and to help foster a new generation of Americans more attuned and responsive to the concerns of their fellow men and women -- here and around the globe -- than they are to the self-absorbed and increasingly inescapable dictates of rapacious consumerism and the corporate bottom line.

It's late, and I've clearly started soapboxing. Still, what I wrote back in 2000 here, before I came to Columbia, still holds: "I know it all sounds a bit academic and removed from reality, but, what can I say? This is where my idealism (or what vestiges of it that survive this election cycle) lies." Well, it's been a few election cycles since then, and in many other ways the years since have not been kind, in terms of progressivism or otherwise. I'd very much like to continue indulging in "the audacity of hope" when it comes to such matters -- I know it's way early in the game, and that we're probably still at least a good 3 or 4 "Macaca moments" out before this all gets decided. But increasingly, and particularly after listening to these debates thus far and the virtual Clinton coronation by the talking heads thereafter, other quotes often come to mind as well. For example: "Look for your friends, but do not trust to hope. It has forsaken these lands."

I'm not saying Clinton would make a terrible president -- Obviously, she'd be much better than the current fiasco of an administration. (But, as always, who wouldn't be?) But I do increasingly fear her tenure -- if it's marked by the same confused, wishy-washy and corporate-friendly Republican-lite "centrism" her campaign and the DLC have pushed in the past -- will make for yet another missed opportunity in terms of fostering real progressive change in this country. (And Senator Clinton, to get to the point: I know progressives. I've spent the past six years and change studying progressives. And, you, Madam, have been no progressive.)

Round 2 of the money game is in the books, and, surprisingly (or perhaps not), Barack Obama came out on top with $31 million to Hillary Clinton's (estimated) $27 million. (John Edwards pulled $9 million, Richardson $7 million.) "Obama's war chest in the second quarter was built on the strength of 154,000 new contributors, giving him well over a quarter-million donors since he started the race...[Clinton's] fund-raising team has been relying much more heavily on larger donors."

"'You can look at this stage and see an African American, a Latino, a woman contesting for the presidency of the United States,' Clinton said. 'But there is so much left to be done, and for anyone to assert that race is not a problem in America is to deny the reality in front of our very eyes.'" Unfortunately, I missed the third Democratic debate at Howard University debate last night, so I can't comment on the performances of Clinton, Obama, Edwards et al. I can say that this new NBC poll showing that 52% of the electorate wouldn't consider voting for Hillary under any circumstances conforms to one of my major concerns with her nomination. As I said before, she's a smart, talented, and impressive politico who'd undoubtedly sail the ship of state much more smoothly than the current administration. (Of course, so would you, I, the night-janitor at the local McDonalds, or almost anyone else one can think of.) But, really: [1] she's thoroughly lousy on campaign finance reform, to my mind the issue that bears on virtually all others; [2] she apparently didn't have the wherewithal or leadership instincts to realize the Iraq war was a terrible idea in 2003 (it didn't take all that much to figure it out, particularly when you figure how much more information Clinton had access to than we did); [3] her view of centrism is apparently to act like Joe Lieberman every so often; and [4] most of the nation has already decided for various reasons that they don't like her. With the Republicans scattered and in retreat, their ideology in eclipse, why do we keep throwing up marginal, tired candidates -- Gore, Kerry, Clinton -- on the off-chance that the electorate will manage to surmount their strong negatives, hold their collective nose, and vote for them?

To be fair, the other Dems haven't been all that great at articulating a progressive alternative to Republican-lite DLC-ishness yet either, but at least there's some potential for it there. Sen. Obama's got all the right JFK moves, and this all-things-to-all-people ambiguity may be one of his strongest political assets. But right now I think he's relying too much on his initial spate of public goodwill, and missing a chance to really draw the nation's attention to the issues that concern him. And John Edwards' son-of-a-millworker-made-good brand of populism, while laudable, doesn't yet seem fully formed to me. But, at the very least, Edwards -- unlike some of his more-willing-to-triangulate opponents -- seems more often than not to let his flag fly, and act from the courage of his convictions. Right now, particularly with McCain hopelessly derailed by his blatant compromises of principle, Edwards may be the closest we've got to a Straight-Talk-Express this year (well, this side of Kucinich, Gravel, and Paul.)

At the moment, I'm still leaning towards Obama, just because of his tremendous upside -- he, unlike virtually every other candidate, has the possibility to transform, revitalize, and realign our current political debate if he plays his cards right. But, Edwards is still in my estimation, and I'll be taking a long hard look at him over the coming months (and either, in my humble opinion, are preferable to Senator Clinton, for the reasons listed above.)

So, for the first time and by a (statistically-insignifcant) margin of 32% to 30%, Barack Obama has moved ahead of Hillary Clinton in the polls. And, in more good news for the Obama camp, this poll was mostly taken before last week's first Democratic debate, so there might still be a bump to come. For, at least to my admittedly jaundiced eye, Obama came across as far and away the most impressive candidate last Thursday. I feared he might seem callow and inexperienced going in, but Obama came across to me as thoughtful, nuanced, and, when needed, decisive...in short, he seemed suitably presidential, while still exuding that youthful flair and enthusiasm that makes him such a potentially exciting vehicle for generational political change in 2008. (And, boding well for the general election, Obama also seemed well-practiced in the art of debate jujitsu, deftly tossing aside at least two clear trip-up questions -- on shady campaign contributors and Israel -- with remarkable ease.) As for Clinton, well, it's not entirely her fault, I guess -- unlike Obama, she's been with us for a decade and a half now, and is nothing if not a known quantity. But she came across to me as the same cautious, methodical, triangulating centrist she's shown herself to be over the past fifteen years in public life, and it's getting harder to imagine myself being anything but underwhelmed by her as a candidate in the general election.

John Edwards still seems the best of the rest, but he didn't do much on Thursday to stand out, I thought. (I expect he'll do better as the candidates decrease in number.) I found Richardson surprisingly uninspiring, given all the good things often said of him. (The Governor really needs to work on his presentation -- he kept scowling and frowning his way through every question like Old Man Potter.) Biden came across as better than usual but still interminably Bidenish -- that cute one-word answer couldn't mask his Senate-honed penchant for blathering and monologuing. Distinguished and discerning, Dodd actually seems like he'd make a fine president, if money and star power weren't so often the defining factors in this business. (As it is, it doesn't look good.) Speaking of which, the 2008 Kucinich seemed Kucinich-lite next to the throwback rantings of Mike Gravel, who was intermittently amusing with the Admiral Stockdale-isms at first, but who grew wearisome, in my opinion, by the end. (I'm all for the idea that the military-industrial complex has ballooned into a monstrosity, but saying things like America in fact has no enemies sounds a bit naive after 9/11, and is the type of thing the GOP agitprop hounds tend to have a field day with.)

"'A Democratic candidate could go out there and muck it up and raise questions about his or her competence or judgment,' says Andy Kohut, director of the non-partisan Pew Research Center. 'But the landscape really is tilted in a Democratic direction.'" In USA Today, Susan Page lists five reasons why 2008 is looking Democratic. But, don't tell these guys: The Republicans go at it tonight at the Reagan Presidential Library, 8pm, MSNBC.

TiVo time for the political junkies among us: Campaign 2008 begins in earnest this Thursday evening, when the first Democratic debate will take place in Orangeburg, SC. "Thursday's debate will air live on MSNBC from 7 to 8:30 p.m. and stream live on MSNBC.com."

And, in related news, a new Rasmussen poll has Obama now tied with Hillary at 32%, with Edwards coming in at third (17%). "Thirty-three percent (33%) of Likely Voters say they'd definitely vote for Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D). That's the highest total received by any of ten leading Presidential hopefuls included in the poll...Opinions are most solid concerning the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, New York Senator Hillary Clinton -- 78% have an opinion of whether they'll definitely vote for or against her regardless of who she runs against. That includes 30% who would definitely vote for the former First Lady and 48% who would definitely vote against her."

"'What strikes me now is the degree to which the fairly fiscally irresponsible policies of the last six years have put Democrats in a box,' Mr. Greenstein said. 'They've got these large tax cuts in place, they have even larger fiscal problems in the coming decades and they have large unmet needs right now, such as 45 million uninsured people. Addressing all three of those things will be very difficult.'" The NYT discusses briefly how the 2008 Dems are planning to approach Dubya's tax cuts -- As you might expect, everyone agrees that the giveaways to the tiny percentage of wealthiest Americans, those with incomes over $200,000, will have to stop. "'Yes, we'll have to raise taxes,' Mr. Edwards declared in February in one of the first statements by a Democratic candidate on the issue."

Yes, folks, this is how we choose a president in this country: Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash. The first primary is effectively over, and Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney lead the begging and scraping for loot at $26 and $21 million respectively. On the GOP side, Rudy came in second at $15 million, with McCain trailing at third with $12.5 million. Meanwhile, for the Dems: John Edwards has $14 million, Bill Richardson $6 million, Chris Dodd $4 million, and Joe Biden a clean, articulate $3 million. Still obviously missing, Barack Obama, who is rumored to be up around the 20 mark. While I hate to indulge this stupid financing system, I hope it's something like that, as I'm still rooting for he or Edwards over Sen. Clinton in the primary, and the Clinton money machine is, without a doubt, a sleek, well-oiled contraption. Update: Make that $25 million for Obama.

"He's 'the first mainstream African American [presidential candidate] who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man.'" As you no doubt heard, Joe Biden torpedoed his own official candidacy announcement this week by using dubious language to describe his rival, Barack Obama. (Well, at least the words were his own.) The sticking point in the news seems to be Biden's talk of Obama as "clean" -- Al Sharpton had a nice riposte: "I take a bath every day." But really, "articulate" is pretty bad too: It's one of those classic buzzwords of unwitting racist condescension. (He's so well-spoken!) Say it ain't so, Joe.

"If I were a state legislator, I'd vote for it to move off the grounds -- out of the state." Another MLK day means another chance to lament the embarrassment that is the Confederate flag flying prominently outside my home State House (albeit no longer above the Capitol.) In South Carolina today, Senators and presidential hopefuls Chris Dodd and Joe Biden called for the flag's removal. "Biden expects legislators here will eventually move the flag. Pointing to his heart, he said, 'as people become more and more aware of what it means to African-Americans here, this is only a matter of time.'"

"Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me." I'm still furiously playing catch-up, so I'm obviously a day or two behind on blogging this...Then again, Dubya's just as obviously three or four years behind in announcing it, so I'll call it a wash. Nonetheless, after finally admitting that his administration has seriously screwed up in Iraq, Bush --- sidestepping the suggestions of the Baker-Hamilton commission -- calls for sending 21,500 more troops to the region, in what's being billed as a "surge." (Re: "escalation.") When you get right down to it, Dubya's basic argument in his televised address on Wednesday was this: "Through wishful thinking and outright incompetence, I've dug two nations into a huge hole. Please, please, please let me keep digging..."

Here's the thing -- A massive troop increase would've made a good deal of sense in 2003, during those crucial days just after the fall of the Hussein regime. A show of power then -- and a quicker restoration of order and basic services -- would have paid huge dividends down the road. But, now, all these years later, after so much infrastructure has been destroyed and so many sectarian schisms have been allowed to fester? 21,500 troops -- many of them not fresh recruits but wearied soldiers returning to the region or having their tours extended -- isn't going to make a dent in the Whack-a-Mole game we've been playing against insurgents since 2003. At best, this escalation is a show of good faith to the al-Maliki government, which seems to be not much more than a brittle political arm of Shiite extremists (Exhibit A: the manner of Saddam's hanging; Exhibit B: the refusal to do anything -- until now -- to rein in Al Sadr's Mahdi Army.) Yes, folks, throwing more troops at a losing situation, backing a shaky government that can't handle its own security issues, rattling the saber at Cambodia/Iran...who says Dubya isn't a student of history?

Fortunately, for the first time since the beginning of the war, Congress isn't having it, with even some Republicans joining Dems in rallying against the proposed troop increase and today venting their wrath at Condi Rice before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. (No doubt the poll numbers against Dubya's plan is helping to stiffen some GOP spines.) Still, Dubya has some allies in this fight -- While the Dems are universally opposed to the escalation gamble [Dem Response by Durbin | Biden | Clinton | Dodd | Edwards | Feingold | Obama | Pelosi] and a not-insubstantial number of Republicans are balking, some key GOP pols are still supporting Dubya's move (most notably John McCain, who's been calling for a troop increase since day one, and Rudy Giuliani, likely trying to right the 2008 ship after his recent devastating document dump.)

"When my party retakes the White House, there may very well be a Democratic John Roberts nominated to the Court, a man or woman with outstanding qualifications, highly respected by virtually everyone in the legal community, and perhaps with a paper trail of political experience or service on the progressive side of the ideological spectrum. When that day comes, and it will, that will be the test for this Committee and the Senate. And, in the end, it is one of the central reasons I will vote to confirm Judge John Roberts to be perhaps the last Chief Justice of the United States in my lifetime."

By a vote of 13-5, John Roberts is approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee -- with Dems Patrick Leahy, Herb Kohl, and Russ Feingold joining the Republican majority -- and will no doubt become the Court's next Chief Justice. The Dems -- and particularly Sen. Feingold -- are already getting flak for their Yes votes from People for the American Way and other liberal groups. (For their part, Hillary and Joe Biden have decided to keep the 2008 primary voters happy.) Well, just as I think Feingold was right to vote yes on Ashcroft in 2001, I think he made the correct decision here, both in terms of principle and politics.

In terms of principle, I think Feingold's statement above is exactly correct. We could go through 1000 nominees, and Dubya would never pick anyone who comes remotely close to being a progressive -- Sadly, the conservative tinge of the Supreme Court was decided last November, with Dubya's re-election. The question before the Senate was whether Roberts was (a) competent enough to fill the position of Chief and (b) whether he adhered to the broad mainstream (albeit conservative mainstream) of American legal thought. I watched almost all of the Roberts hearings and, although he dodged and weaved past way too many important questions, he was clearly (a) hyper-competent and (b) more respectful of existing legal precedent than many other conservative freakshows Dubya could have appointed (and might still.) Roberts said a number of times that he believed in a constitutional right to privacy, that Griswold was good and settled law, and that (although most agree on this anyway, Janice Rogers Brown notwithstanding) the Lochner Court was not an appropriate or worthwhile historical role model for today's judiciary. Perhaps he's lying, but it's no small business to lie before the Senate. I think Feingold was right to take his word at face value and vote yes, with reservations.

Voting for or against a 50-year-old Chief Justice is not a decision to be taken lightly, and I'm sure Dems on both sides of the vote chose their stance on principle. But, to be base for a moment and consider the politics of the situation, the Yes voters allowed themselves wiggle-room on the next nominee that most Dems have basically wasted on a sure thing. Roberts is replacing Rehnquist, a conservative for a conservative. The real battle lies ahead, when Dubya appoints a justice to take O'Connor's swing-vote position. Where are the Dems who voted no on Roberts going to go? Chances are the next candidate for justice will be less competent and more conservative, in the scary-fundy sense, than Roberts, but the no-voting Dems have lost all pull by not keeping their powder dry. Had the Dems acceded to Roberts' nomination, they would have easier recourse to a possible filibuster in Round 2, particularly with the fair-play-minded Gang of 14. Now, not so much.

At any rate, I'll admit to being already something of a Feingold groupie -- More than any other Dem, except perhaps the late Paul Wellstone, I view him as my Senator in Congress, the closest thing to a true progressive out there. (For what it's worth, I also thought he did a better job than any other Dem in his questioning of Roberts, with the possible exception of Dick Durbin.) Still, I think he made the right decision in this vote, and I hope very much that groups on the left who disagreed with his choice here keep an eye on the big picture and don't start calling for his head.

And Roberts? Well, I'm never going to agree with the guy on a lot of issues, that's for sure. But, in the hearings, I thought he came across as conservative in the old and best sense of the term -- cautious, restrained, not inclined to break tradition -- and not as a frothing, fundamentalist reactionary like any number of judges Dubya has appointed to the bench. Let's hope, for all our sakes, that this turns out to be the case.

Election 2008 Round-Up: While Joe Biden is most concerned about Hillary Clinton as his possible primary competition, several of the nation's governors aim to prove him wrong, and have started a-schmoozin' to that effect.

Say what you will about the Dem ticket, but at least they understand the importance of protecting our precious bodily fluids from terrorist and Communist impurifications. This October, John Edwards will introduce Dr. Strangelove for Turner Classic Movies. (By way of Quiddity.) For the rest of the "Party Politics and the Movies" series, John McCain chose Paths of Glory, Joe Biden picked Dead Poets Society, and Orrin Hatch took To Kill a Mockingbird.

By respective votes of 303-125 and 87-12, the Iraq funding bill passes the House and Senate. (In terms of the Dem contenders, Lieberman and Gephardt voted in favor of the bill, while Kerry, Kucinich, and Edwards did not.) So Dubya got his money this time...let's hope it's enough to get the job done. Perhaps it's time for Congress to reconsider the Biden Amendment?