Hillary pt. 2 (Liabilities)

A week ago at this time Barack Obama was dominating the news. Now it is Hillary's turn. Yesterday we took a look at the assets Hillary Clinton brings with her in her bid for the presidency. It was an impressive list, which no doubt legitimizes her competition for front-runner status. But Hillary, like all other candidates, brings liabilities as well. Some are personal, some structural, and others historical. I will leave it up for comments as to whether her assets or her liabilities carry greater weight, and I welcome any thoughts on the matter. Without further ado, her liabilities:

• Hateability: One of Hillary's big assets is that she is a household name. That also serves as what is likely her biggest liability. Her unfavorability ratings, by many polls, have not dropped below 40% since 2005. That is unprecedented. Out of all the candidates for office, no one comes close. McCain's unfavorability is around 25%. Obama's is around 11%. The only person who has even mentioned a possible run whose unapproval ratings equal Hillary's are those of Newt Gingrich, who is roundly dismissed as "too unlikable". One could expect a number that high if she were a candidate running for re-election, when all the ire from the other side is directed solely on the candidate. But we are nowhere near that. In short, there is a major segment of America--and not just the conservative base--who has decided already that they won't vote for her.
• The Freakshow Lies in Wait: Since Hillary is so loved by many and so hated by many that there is even more incentive for the Freakshow that is the American political culture, and particularly the media, to hype/control/propagate stories that make her look bad. People click on articles about her. More people click when the story about her is "shocking" or "revealing" or "telling" or in some other way prone to work against her. The Freakshow wants her to explode.
  
  
• A Base Problem: This will not be as much of a liability in the general election, but the perception among the Radical Left like the Daily Kos is that she was way too cozy to President Bush for way too long. It took her forever to say that if she knew then what she knows now she wouldn't have voted for the War. But vote for the war she did, and she compounded that problem with her base by being very slow to retract support for it. Add that to the fact that they too can read her unfavorability numbers and one can start to hear the same whispers that accompanied Howard Dean in his hay day: "unelectable".
  
  
• History (The Scandals): Hillary's past is always a problem. To capture this problem, here's a quote I read in the book, The Way to Win:

  How did she make those enormous cattle futures profits? How did those long-missing billing records turn up in the White House? What role did she play in those infamous end-of-presidency pardons? What really happened with her staff and the indicted...fund-raising aide from her first campaign? What exactly is up with her marriage? And: pretty much everything about her brothers. (emphasis in original)

  And that doesn't even mention Whitewater (or Lewinsky). Speaking of Lewinsky...
  
  
• Bill: He may be the fundraiser-in-chief he may be the best strategist in the Democratic party, but he's a ticking time bomb that she can only hope doesn't go off until she is safely into a second term:
  • There are still (newer) allegations that he is not a one-woman man.
  • Though loved by many, he carries negative images with himself as well--the scandals and the more recent questions about his pre-9/11 terrorism dealings
  • His presence could create voter weariness among those who want something new
  • His presence keeps the questions about him and their personal life on the front-burner, thus keeping Hillary's message on the back-burner. Not what any candidate wants.
  • He overshadows her.
  
  
• Lack of Charisma: Hillary has incredible political skill. But she has no charisma. The larger the crowd and the more excited they get Hillary should get more inspiring. Sadly for her, she just comes off as shrill. One British paper put it best:

  She has the record, the position, the money, the support, the right hairstyle at last. Yet the only quality she cannot summon, however hard she works at it, is charm.

  The British can be blunt, but here it is true. Bush 43 is a horrible speaker, but when a candidate he did this well: he could be optimistic and deliver an applause line that made people want to applaud. Hillary makes people feel obligated to applaud. This is something that can't be taught. She can only hope her other assets outweigh this one.
  
  
• The Establishment Candidate: Contrasted with Barack, this one becomes clear: she represents what has been. She is the tried and true. While on one hand this is an asset, think about why Barack is so popular. He is new. He is a breath of fresh air. He is the anti-Hillary, and it has hurt her.
  
  
• Too Big for Her Own Good: Americans elect presidents who they like, but who they also think has a message/theme for their presidency. It is clear already what an Obama presidency would be about: hope. In 1999 Bush was pitching "restoring dignity to the White House". That was particularly important for him because by staying on message it took focus away from Bush 41. Hillary is always the story. She doesn't have a theme, and even if she did her persona might well overpower it. Her race is all about who she is, and this is a problem for any candidate, but particularly for one with as much baggage as Hillary.

To sum it up, Hillary has some image problems, and some non-image problems. Her image: Divider; 60s radical; Powerhungry; Cold; Uncharismatic. That's not saying she deserves those images, but they linger. Her non-images problems: Bill; ties to scandal; her sex; she is the establishment figure; she is hated like no other candidate. Will she overcome these? Do her assets outweigh them? These are what I submit for discussion.

Hillary pt. 1 (Assets)

In the world of politics things can change fast. Six months ago Hillary Clinton looked to be the presumptive Democratic nominee for the White House. Today, she is locked in a very intriguing Cold War with the very charismatic junior Senator from Illinois for front-runner status. Six months from now, one may be looking like the nominee, or both may have been surpassed by one of the many other challengers.

A week ago neither of the two front-runners had made any move toward an official presidential run. Now, both have. Obama made the announcement that he is forming an exploratory committee (committees never tell candidates not to run, so once they are formed that means the candidate is in the race) on his website, followed mere days later by Hillary's announcement of the same.

Every candidate has assets and liabilities. Hillary is no different. Of course, she is unique among the Democratic hopefuls: the only woman, the only former First Lady (ever), the only one to have been a household name to Joe American for nearly 15 years (which in political years is like 87), and the list can go on. But just like the rest, she has assets to her credit, and liabilities that will snip at her.As I wrote last week, I'm convinced that those who think Hillary can't win are fooling themselves. So let's take a brief look at some of the things that belong in her "plus" column (note: these do not take into account whether any other candidate can negate these, or whether they might be liabilities at the same time; they are what they are--things that give Hillary an edge):

• Money, money, money: Most candidates have to spend hours on end making calls, shaking hands, attending fundraisers (events which give candidates an excellent chance to open mouth and insert foot). Hillary does not have to do that. She has a network of donors and fundraisers already set, and now set in motion, who can raise millions upon millions without her ever having to engage in the very daunting task of gathering funds.
  
  
• She's Fought the Freakshow (and lived to tell about it):In modern politics the media has every incentive to hype any misstep a candidate makes. Hillary has felt the fury of the Freakshow, and has been burned by it. By 1994 her name was a dirty word to Joe American. Yet she has reclaimed her image. She has earned her way back. Whatever doesn't kill you politically does indeed make you stronger. Anyone who can survive the Freakshow, has learned how not to get burned, and who has learned how to handle things that can blow up has built up a sort of immunity to the traps that can so easily befall anyone who's every move makes national news.
  
  
• The Establishment Ties: At any moment she can pick up the phone and call someone at nearly any interest group on the Left, any activist, any party leader, any high level strategist, and know the person on the other end of the phone. She has an astonishing base of connections from which to draw.
  
  
• Star Power: When Chris Dodd (D-CT) or Sam Brownback (R-KS) announced their intentions to run for President, Joe American took no notice. Even if he did it was likely followed by "who's that?". When Hillary announced everyone heard, and no one was surprised. This was one of the advantages that made then-Governor Bush such a powerhouse in 1999.
  
  
• The "Moderate" Factor: Like many (maybe most) I doubt Hillary's commitment to moderation. Nonetheless, she has done an amazing job of being not polarizing since entering the Senate in 2000. You may now be thinking, "but Hillary is polarizing". Agreed, but ask this question: is she polarizing because of her speeches/record in the Senate, or is it because of her years in the White House? I would argue that latter. In my analysis she has proven over the last 6+ years that she can be in office and not be the lightning rod. Remember, she voted for the War and has co-sponsored dozens of bills with the Red Team.
  
  
• Bill: He gives her a ton of advantages, and enhances some of the above:
  • He remains the best strategist in the Democratic Party
  • He is the "Fundraiser-in-Chief"
  • His is the power behind Hillary's vast cross-country political network
  • He provides charisma where she lacks it
  • People like him and some (though maybe few) will welcome her because of him
  • Is there a better advisor in the world on how to handle a race of this magnitude?
  • There are many, many more. Probably many more than I can possibly think of.
  
  
• Experience: No, not the experience of being a two-term Senator, but the experience of having been through two winning campaigns with Bill, two winning Senate campaigns, and purposefully watching how Bush 43 succeeded (and failed). She has been around the block and has been taking keen notes on how to win and how to lose. Even watching Kerry fail--which I believe she knew he would, or else she would not have sat on the sidelines--taught her the way to the top.
  
  
• Others: The only woman; smart committee assignments (like the Foreign Relations Committee, which gives her foreign policy credibility); a proven staff; her 2006 warm-up election; money in the bank that she can roll over to her next election.

Hillary Clinton is indeed unlike any other candidate. She has been a part of the political landscape of America for a very long time. She has changed her image over and over again, yet has survived. Though I do not like her politics, I must deeply respect what she has been able to do. Most anyone else would not have been able to rebound after her image exploded half way through Bill's first term. Most would not have been able to cherry-pick a state in which to run for (let alone win) a Senate seat. Most would have withered under the scrutiny of the Freakshow. Yet here she is, locked in a Cold War for front-runner status for the Democratic nomination.

Yes, They Can

Barack Obama took his first step yesterday to becoming an official presidential candidate. Though it is not official, it appears that it will become so on February 10^th.

His fiercest competition for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, has been noticably silent for about the past month. Whether he, she, or neither is making waves, their mere presence is the elephant in the room whenever the topic of 2008 arises.

Having spent a great deal of time reading about the assets and liabilities of these two candidates I was shocked when yesterday a young black man say to me flatly (and with a tone of disappointment), "a black man and a woman? Looks like we'll have another Republican." Perhaps I am naïve, but America does not appear to me a place that any longer bars a person from any office on account of his/her demographics. Of course, will race and gender be a factor? Absolutely. However, those who view having either a woman or a minority in the White House as a novelty, in my analysis, will outweigh the few who refuse to vote for these two solely on the basis of sex or race.

Based on what I know of these two, it is likely that I will not be voting for either of them. However, here is a message for those who would like to sit back comfortably and say "Hillary can't win" and "America won't elect a black man": Either of these two can win. That is not to say that they will, just that they can.

Yes, Hillary has the image of a real wench. Yes, Barack has very very little experience. Yes, they are both liberals in moderate clothing. But make no mistake about it: they can win. Hillary has a list of assets a mile long. Barack makes people swoon with his heart-warming hope-speak (and has Oprah on his side).

As conservatives it would be comfortable to hide our heads in the sand and pretend like we live in warm cocoon of the Republican Revolution. That time is no more. We live in the Iraq era, in the Bush-hater era, in the Freakshow politcs era, and in the liberal-media's-lovefest-with-Obama/Hillary-era. If a conservative is going to take the White House he/she will have to win many battles, not the least of which is the image war that says, "yes, I too can win this election."

Which Year 3?

Yesterday we discussed the four-year cycle of presidential politics. This year, 2007, is "year 3", the year when the real candidates emerge and the real fundraising begins. In order to illustrate two different ways this Year 3 could go, we need to take a look back at the last two Year 3s--2003 and 1999.

By examining these years we have four possible examples to look at--a primary run-up for each of the two parties each year. However, since the 2003 Republican primary was a mere formality (with a Republican incumbent running for re-election), it does not serve our purposes.

Similarly, the 1999 Democratic primary is of less use to us, since Al Gore was the presumptive nominee for the vast majority of his second term as Vice President. As early as 1996, after Clinton secured re-election, Gore's advisors drew up a battle plan for a possible presidential run. Without question, Bill Bradley put up a respectable fight. Unfortunately for him, Gore was as close as one can come to being an incumbent without actually being one.

That leaves us two comparisons to look at: The Republican Year 3 of 1999 and the Democratic Year 3 of 2003. Let's take a look.

1999: George W. Bush came storming out of Texas with a collosal network of supporters across the country. He had name recognition, connections to million-dollar donors, and a strong conservative base with the so-called Religious Right in ascendancy. He was one amnog a number of candidates (namely, John McCain), but Bush always had the fundamentals it would take to win the White House. Having become intimitely familiar with the process as he watched his father lose to Bill Clinton in 1992, he was able to avoid the missteps losing candidates always make.

The Mainstream Media had crowned Bush the presumptive nominee in the summer of that Year 3, as evidenced by this June 21, 1999 Time cover:Though everyone saw that he could win the White House, many, even then, though he was intellectually overmatched by the likes of McCain and would fall short. Indeed, a few months into Year 4, McCain nearly ousted the eventual 43^rd President by defeating him in the New Hampshire primary, only to have Bush court value voters and come triumphantly back to win South Carolina--and the nomination--handily.

2003: This Year 3 stands in strong contrast with 1999. All Year 3 long it was Howard Dean, a previously little-known governor from a small New England state, who captured the heart of the anti-war movement. The Liberal media made Dean their king, as he became the story of the year. He, too, made the cover of Time in the summer of his Year 3:There were hopefuls who tagged along the whole way--Edwards, Lieberman, Bradley, Kerry, Gephardt, Sharpton, and the list goes on. None of the others even made a dent in the Dean campaign's front-runner status during Year 3. Dean got all the media attention, all the money, and therefore more media attention, which in turn led to more money. He had the base solidly in his corner.

But the rest of the story has become all too clear. The Left, though in love with Dean, knew he could not win a race wherein he would have to turn at least one Southern state blue. The Dean Year 3 could be called a "bait and switch". Dean dominated the news, dominated fundraising, dominated travel, dominated in the image wars, yet in the end it was all for naught.

That should teach us not to put too much stock in Year 3 impressions.

On to 2003: So which Year 3 will it be? Well, possibly both. Unlike the past two Year 3s, neither side has an incumbent, or even a VP who is kind of like an incumbent. What might well happen is that the Dems could get a 1999 and the GOP a 2003. Maybe, just maybe, Hillary/Obama could ride their name recognition, media attention, and celebrity status all the way to the nomination, echoing back to Bush's 1999.

By the same token, McCain may well suffer Dean's fate. He might ride the horse named Frontrunner all the way through Year 3, only to have the primary voters reject him (though, of course, it would be for vastly different reasons than Democrats said no to Dean). He may be on the cover of Time. He may have the most money. He may be the media darling. But he may be destined for a Dean Year 3.

Odd Years

[Editor's Note: Yesterday's edition of the VoterVault was the unfortunate victim of unforseen technical difficulties. Some employers (namely, mine) have decided to firewall the VoterVault. Much apologies for having to delay the first post of this New Year. End Editor's Note]

The politics of Presidential elections always works in yearly cycles. Each year brings a unique set of events, along with its own intrigue. Since our presidential elections are every four years, naturally it is a four-year cycle. Let's pretend, for the sake of clarity, that last year was a presidential election year, and in the four-year cycle this would be "year 1". The cycle would go as follows:

• Year 1: The "feeling out" of the new President. This would involve the implementation of his/her policies, and the counter-formation of attacks by the opposition party. If the now president is newly elected (not an incumbent, as the winner in 2008 is sure to be), this can be an extrodinarily interesting year. If, however, the Pres. is an incumbent, this is the most boring year in the cyle.
  
  
• Year 2: The Midterm Year. Here the voters can either stick it to the President by voting against his/her party, or affirm the job the Pres. is doing by supporting his/her party. Elections are always fun, so "Year 2" can range from mildly exciting to downright thrilling.
  
  
• Year 3: The Candidates Emerge. It is in year three that the slate of candidates formalizes. Serious candidates spend the majority of the year--particularly every waking moment of the summer--raising money. Serious candidates now need to have about $50 million dollars by the end of the the year to stay competitive. Just for reference, Giuliani hopes to raise $25 million by April 1^st.
  
  
• Year 4: The Big Dance. Obviously, this is the most exciting year in the whole process. It is the big prize in politics. You certainly know this, so I need not spell it out.

2007 is "Year 3". The main candidates have already begun to emerge, though only one is official. For the Dems the two frontrunners are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, with John Edwards--the only official candidate--not far behind. They make up what I refer to as the Trifecta.

The GOP has only one front-runner, John McCain, with Giuliani not far behind. There are fringe candidates on the Left, but as of today they have needle-in-a-haystack odds. On the Right, however, there are real candidates who could de-throne McCain and certainly Giuliani.

Why the desparity between the parties? Simple. Hillary and Barack are liberals. McCain and Giuliani are moderates. Moderates lose primaries. That's pretty much a rule. Moderates make great legislators, but they make horrible presidential candidates. That is not to say that they would make horrible presidents. They would probably be very effective. But primary voters don't want great legislators. They don't want concensus-builders. They want the people who will fight for--and deliver--the policies they want.

Tune back in to the VoterVault tommorow as we will look a bit more in-depth at type of "year 3" 2007 could be. See you then.

The Second Fiddle

As many of us here at the VoterVault have been discussing, the Democrats have star power on their side. The three media darlings of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards stand as a political powerhouse. The GOP side has only one bright star who may be able to (but won't) match the draw of the Democratic Trifecta: John McCain.

McCain obviously wants to be president. His exploratory committee has a website, in which he poses in a series of glamor shots like this one:
As we all know, McCain has some serious problems with the conservative base. He is a maverick, sides with the President on immigration, is a member of the Gang of 14 (the moderate group of Senators who compromised over judicial nominees), drafted the McCain-Feingold bill on campaign finance reform (which many see as an assault on the first amendment), refused to vote for the federal marriage amendment, and would not stump for the marriage amendment in his own state.

Let's assume for one second that all these things and more will lead conservatives within the GOP to vote down McCain in the primaries. Who is the next in line?

Rudy Giuliani.

Giuliani has nearly as much star power as McCain. He has a solid public image. He is "America's Mayor". Rudy can run on his post-9/11 record as a strong leader. Close your eyes and you can envision his campaign commercials already: pictures of the city after 9/11 with Giuliani taking the reins. He is a mythical leadership hero.

But can he beat McCain in the primary?

Let's do a quick and dirty rundown of the McCain positions for which he is vilified, and see how Rudy compares:

• Moderate on justices: McCain led the charge in the Gang of 14 to come up with a compromise with the Democrats, rather than leading the charge to get conservatives on the bench. Basically, he can't be trusted to fill the Court with strict constructionist justices.
  • Giuliani: could be expected to do the same.
• Immigration: McCain has supported the comprehensive approach to immigration reform, which many conservatives view as rewarding those who broke our laws to get into this country.
  • Giuliani: as mayor was even softer on immigration than McCain.
• Campaign Finance Reform: McCain wrote the bill that enlarges the government bureaucracy and assails free speech, and simultaneously fails to control the influence of money on politics.
  • Giuliani supports the bill and has been willing to attack free speech when it is politically convenient for him.
• Gay Marriage: McCain voted against the federal marriage amendment, and though his official stance was in favor of his state's ban on gay marriage, he refused to campaign for it.
  • Giuliani is openly pro-gay marriage.
• Hostile to religious conservatives: McCain blasted the Religious Right after his 2000 primary loss to 43 (something for which I cannot blame him, as I discussed here). Only recently has he begun to play to the Religious Right and court their vote.
  • Giuliani: If McCain is not religiously conservative enough, then Rudy must be downright anathema to them.

We here on the conservative side see a McCain nomination as a weakening the conservative presence within the Republican party. As we study the candidates, what is clear is that the liberals have solidified their position within the Democratic party and the moderates are on the rise on the Right.

Is there a conservative candidate out there who can knock off both McCain and Giuliani? Is it Brownback? Doubt it. Is is Huckabee? Who's Huckabee? Is it the stormin' Mormin', Mitt Romney? Likely unelectable.

I am far from suggesting that conservatives suck it up and vote for McCain or Giuliani. My point is simply this: at this point conservatives are faced with a choice: do we want to vote for someone who can win to keep a member of the Trifecta out of office? Or are we to vote our conscience, vote for a true conservative who is less likely to win the general election, and hope to make the GOP more conservative?

Here we are, 14 months from the primaries, and the options are bleak. May things change, and change dramatically.

Primary Assault

Parties hate primaries for many reason, and we are heading headlong into primary season.

Though I would like to see some modifications to our primary system nationwide, there is one major strength the current process possesses: it ensures that the candidate who emerges will be battle-tested by his/her own party. The weakest are weeded out in a rather Darwinian fashion. The strong survive, the weak perish.

That was what was running through my head as I read yet another article about Barack Obama. This article, however, was quite different than any other on the subject. It focused on why Obama might not run. If you have time, I encourage you to read the whole thing. If not, here are some highlights:

• Just as I mentioned in this post, the author notes that "Mr. Obama is also smart enough to know that he has become too popular too quickly. His supporters are doing him a disservice with their indifference to his lack of experience."
• Hillary's side is already preparing Obamattacks against him like "Just a little while ago, he was in Springfield worrying about license-tag fees"
• Obama still represents somewhat of an "empty vessel" into which people are pouring their hopes. Being an empty vessel can very quickly turn into being viewed as an empty suit instead.

The thing that the parties hate most about the primaries is that they are a civil war. One of the huge advantages Bush had over Kerry is that he did not have a primary fight. Kerry emerged early, but nonetheless had been battered by the likes of Dean and Gephardt. Now It's the Democratic trifecta who will beat up on each other for a while. Unless Obama and Hillary come to an agreement to run together (Clinton for Pres. and Obama as VP), this could get ugly. As long as it's a three-way race, Edwards will be forced to play the most agressive, and therefore the most attacking campaign.

There is another big attack line against Obama that will come from the Clinton people, though not from Clinton herself. Hillary has spent the better part of three years running away from the Left and trying to appear moderate. She got herself appointed to the Armed Services Committee to bolster her foreign policy experience. She refused until just this week to bash the Iraq War. She voted for the War to begin with. She has been following the traditional (Bill) Clinton school of politics. Here's where the big attack on Obama will come:

On Obama's liberalism: "The fact that he originally opposed the war in Iraq would help him with primary voters, but it's unclear how many Democrats want to plump for someone who, according to National Journal, has a more liberal voting record than Hillary Clinton. Last year Mr. Obama had a perfect 100% voting record from both the Americans for Democratic Action and the AFL-CIO...[And] his record as a state legislator is even more liberal. In 1996, he spoke out against the Defense of Marriage Act, which the Senate approved 85-14 and Mr. Clinton signed into law. He twice voted "present" on a bill to ban partial-birth abortions. In 1999 he was the only state senator to oppose a law that prohibited early prison release for sex offenders. Is anyone naive enough to believe Mrs. Clinton wouldn't use those positions as evidence that he couldn't win?"

Yes, she can, and yes, she will. "Barack Hussein Obama is too liberal to get elected" will be her rallying cry. That is, unless they form an alliance before that.Obviously, a Clinton-Obama alliance would be horrific for the Red Team. It would merge the star power of the two and further marginalize McCain or (insert seriously-unlikely-to-win-candidate here). Perhaps each of their own political ambitions will prevent such an alliance. Perhaps Clinton will bash him into oblivion. Those, however, seem at this point like wishful thinking.

The most hopeful perspective for those of us on the Right is this scenario: Clinton sees Barack as her only serious competition. She bashes him and bashes him until he approaches her and offers to be her VP. They run together and America is truly opposed to Hillary. Her public image tanks (unlikely, seeing as how she has become so politically skilled), and America votes against her rather than for the Red Team.

Not a great outlook, I know. But lots can change in 22 months. Here's to hoping.

[Editor's Note:If you have not yet, and you have a chance, check out the comments on yesterday's post. Lots of great comments from some really intelligent folks. [End Editor's Note]

The Pretty Pony

They are refusing to confirm or deny it, but it appears that John Edwards, the former Vice Presidential nominee, is throwing his name in the hat for a presidential run in '08. His political skills are solid. His Southern accent a plus. His looks...well, he's long been noticed by the ladies.Edwards is joining a field that is dominated by political celebrities in Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. While Edwards may fall far short of their celebrity status, he can certainly hold his own among them.

Ponder this question for a while: can the GOP match the star power of this Democratic trifecta?

As we sit still over 22 months away from the Presidential election, it appears that no matter who the Red Team fields in '08, he/she will be over matched. Even John McCain, with his strong positioning as a moderate and a war hawk, pails in comparison to the media attention lavished on the Big Three Dems.

To a large degree the media has created these political giants. In the Freakshow age, it is likely that only the media could bring them down. At this point, both Clinton and Edwards are relatively battle-tested. As discussed earlier, Obama is at the mercy of the Freakshow, and sadly could lose control of his public image relatively easily.

Hillary was destroyed by the Freakshow in the early years of Bill Clinton's first term. She led the charge to socialize health care and faced backlash in both the media and the electorate. She became the face of the imposing, big, impersonal, wasteful, socialized government. They even created a word to symbolize the debacle that was her health care initiative: hillarycare.

Having been destroyed in the last decade, she has rebuilt even stronger in this one.

Edwards has never been destroyed by the Freakshow, nor has he been squarely in its sights for any extended period of time. Nevertheless, he has tasted enough of it, and has shown an ability to navigate its minefields. He is silver-tongued and his "Two-Americas" mantra has the ability to be useful in both the primaries and the general election. That is a sing of a quality message, despite the fact that it's loaded with liberal though about how to address that problem.

McCain has a cozy relationship with the media, but with his age, his party affiliation, and his propensity to go against his party just to be the maverick, he is constantly in danger of losing control of his public image to the Freakshow that is the American political culture.

22 months away, but all signs indicate that this election will be fought in the Democratic primary. I hope things change, but the Pretty Pony's entrance into the race is certainly an indication that the Democratic field is jam-packed. The GOP field, on the other hand, is looking pretty sparse.

Obama by the Ads

The election has been over for a month. Hopefully by now our anger, disgust, and disdain toward all the negative ads has subsided enough that we can have a frank discussion about why these are so bad.

In order to have a concrete understanding of the depth of awfulness that these ads embody let us embark on a case study: Barack Obama.There are rumors and articles on a daily basis on Obama's likely presidential run. He made the very overt step of visiting New Hampshire this past week. So basically, he's running. Everyone seems to love him. He is very endearing, very well-spoken, very charismatic, and very attractive. I've heard lots of people very excited about this rising star. He talks about hope, about his upbringing in poverty, and about his faith. It's no wonder that people are drawn to him.

However, it has long been understood that his biggest weakness is his lack of experience. Usually when someone says "I really like Barack Obama" I ask them what he has done that they like. Invariably, they revert to "he's smart, he's charismatic, he seems very nice...I just like him." Fair enough. However, this is the big problem for Barack: he has impressed them with his looks, charm, personality, and talking points, and they have fallen in love. But this love is built on a foundation of his persona.

Foundations built on personality are inherently susceptible to collapse.

In the minds of most Americans, Barack is not clearly defined. His book about hope got him a ton of press, especially when he went on Oprah, but it has not cemented in the mind of Joe American who this guy is.

Enter political ads.

In our fast-food, YouTube, CNN, Infotainment culture, Americans have a very short attention span. If you are reading this blog (and especially this far down in a post) you are not likely one of those people who are easily swayed by political ads. Unfortunately, you are not like most people. Joe American can be easily swayed. If he couldn't, politicians would not use negative ads. If Joe American were rational, reasonable, and truly took the time to sort through complex issues, negative ads would be a thing of the past. Sadly, they are not.

These ads are designed to appeal to our emotions, whether it be fear, anger, disgust, hatred, or all of the above. Since they are rooted in an appeal to emotion, they are by definition not concerned with being reasonable. Let's take for example just two ads (one Republican, one Democrat):

GASP! SHOCK! CHAGRIN! This sex-crazed, tax-payer-abusing piece of slime wants our vote?! That's our political culture. What you don't know and won't see unless you research it is that the "call to a phone sex line" lasted only a few seconds and the phone number shares the same last seven numbers as a state department phone number. Obviously, someone dialed the wrong area code and immediately hung up. But this is the Freakshow. There is no room for reason or decency--only emotion. How 'bout this one:

WHAT A TROOP-HATING BASTARD! Yeah, only one problem: every statement of fact was proved wrong. Every bit of it (yes, every bit) was a bold-faced lie. The supposed "vote against" body armor for the troops was an amendment to give over a billion dollars for unspecified items for the national guard. When pressed for more specifics, the amendment's sponsor said it would go to "skin exposure reduction paste" (read: sunscreen), "mobile chemical agent detectors", and "collective shelters" in case of chemical attacks in Iraq. While we can debate the merits of those things, what is clear is that the claim that the politician voted against armor for the troops is a load of crap. But what an emotional load of crap it was.

Let me get to my point. I don't know if Barack Obama would make a good president. Despite being a very politically-informed person, I can't tell you what he would do as president. I can't tell you what his most firmly held positions are, or what policies he firmly opposes. What I do know is this: political ads will not help me understand who this man is or what he would do as president.

Most likely, because Obama's image is not built on a foundation that has stood the test of time, a series of negative attack ads have the potential to destroy him before his campaign gets very far off the ground. These attacks will likely come from other Democrats in the primaries. In the end, since I'm a conservative, I will likely vote against Obama, but that fact makes me no less sad that our unintelligent political culture is positioned to destroy him so someone else can gain power.

This culture of attack will only take you and me further from understanding the truth. It will certainly take both you and me further away from any kind of rational discussion about what is best for the country. If we never discuss what is best for the country we cannot understand who is best fit to lead us there.

Political ads may make you and me vote a certain way, but if we do not rise above them we are just playing roulette with the future of America.

A Bad Case of Baselash

From 1999 to early 2005 President Bush enjoyed the favor of 51% of Americans. Despite the intense hatred against him from the Far Left, he walked the fine line of placating the base, while taking some strong and very visible stands in the opposite direction, thus helping his standing with moderates. He worked this masterfully for a long while. The base tolerated his occassional jaunts off the conservative trail (such as the prescription drug benefit) because they saw that such moves were taken with an eye to preserving the political success of the movement as a whole. That time has past.

Bush has lost the base.

The dynamics of 43's presidency changed dramatically after his re-election. Events turned against him and there was no longer the constant threat of a Democratic presidency to rally the base to his side. Without that driving motivation, and without wild success in foreign policy, the base was tired. As Halperin and Harris point out in their book The Way to Win, "There is a thin line between rallying the base and being trampled by the horde".

43 has been trampled by the horde. Worse, he does not have the political capital to restore order among the rank-and-file. This happened not long after his second innagural address. The President laid a three-strike whammy on the base and lost them for good.

Strike One: Harriet Miers. The ultimate treasure of one's party winning the presidency is nominating members of the Supreme Court. When Clinton won, who did he choose? None other than the chief counsel of the ACLU. The ACLU for goodness' sake. The ultra liberals. The Far Left incarnate. That was his right. He won, and he got the prize. Conservatives gave her the up-or-down vote she deserved, and that was that. 20-40 years of the ACLU on the Court. It makes my blood boil, but that's how it is. I, like all other conservatives, must get over it. He won. That's his right. But then our guy won. The swing vote on the Court retired. The Chief Justice died. One solid conservative (Roberts) replaced the Chief. And who does 43 choose to create the new conservative majority? Harriet Miers. Harriet Freakin' Miers. Conservative firebrand? No. Solid conservative record? No. Enough to make Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer squirm? No. The base took a step back.Strike Two: Dubai. Oh, someone wants to buy our ports? This company (or its owner, the United Arab Emirates) has had ties to terrorism? No big deal. Hey, it's a free market, right? The problem with this move was not even that it was a bad one within itself. Dubai has a solid history of operating ports in Western countries without incident. The problem with this move was that it was so gallactically stupid on a PR level as to make every conservative in America as "where the h--- is Rove and why is he letting his team be so moronic?" And the base took another step back.Strike Three: Immigration. Without question there is a free-market-for-labor crowd within the conservative movement. They are well-reasoned and well-meaning. But on the PR level, they are a lost cause. Safety. Security. Rule of Law. These things are paramount among the base as a whole, and among swing voters. Arguing for any position--no matter how nuanced and intellectually honest--that is soft on people who broke the law will incite backlash among the voters. Especially among the base. And the rallying base becomes a trampling horde.This last strike is rearing its ugly head once again.

Yesterday it came out that the Democrats are planning on passing an immigration reform bill that makes it basically painless for people to break our laws, break our borders, come here illegally, pay a fine, and voila! they can jump right on the path to legal citizenship. The rub of it is that 43 agrees with them.

Congress and the President will dress this bill up nice and pretty as anything but amnesty, but in the end we all know the truth. This is amnesty lite. It doesn't matter that most Americans oppose amnesty. It doesn't matter that the vast majority of the conservative base opposes amnesty. 43 no longer needs the base to win office. He has entered the lame-duck years. This is to our country's peril. There are even rumors that the Dems will cut the funding for the 700-mile double layer fencing to be build along the Mexico border. Frankly, I hope they do. Why? That will create a backlash against them.

Here's the big picture as we gear up for '08. The base is fragmented and disenchanted. Is there anyone who can put this broken picture of a movement back together? Can McCain? Can Guilliani? Can Romney? Can Anyone? It will take a master to rally the base without it becoming the stampeeding horde.

For now there is no master on the horizon. May we fine him/her, and may he/she come to our rescue.

The Left that Lost

Imagine you're one of the Daily Kosers. You've spent the last 3-4ish years preaching the socialist, anti-American hard Left gospel (cloaked largely in Anti-Bush rhetoric). Your hatred for all things Republican boils over all the time. You bleed Blue. Your party finally gets power for the first time in twelve years. And how did that come to be?

You were the only viable alternative.

What a kick to the crotch that must be. You win power and Time says "The center is the place to be." You don't want the Center. You want the Left. What's worse, the very people who carried you to victory don't share your views. Double-shot to the crotch. Tester: pro-gun. Casey: pro-life. Lieberman: pro-war. Webb: who knows, but not hard Left. The reality that your party would not have been able to take the House or Senate if the candidates pushed your view must cut deep.

Man, that sucks.

What message did the electorate send to the new Democratic Congress? If you listen to the Old Media, every report seems to say the same thing: Americans want moderation. NBC says Americans want an end to partisan bickering. ABC says they want a return to the middle. Their analysis is that voters are asking for unity and a more centrist style of governance. TIME even put this on their cover:

I disagree with their analysis. The center is not the place to be. The center is the place to be for Democrats.

The electorate did not vote Democrat because of their moderation. This is blatantly obvious. Were the Democrats running a campaign of unity? Were they talking like Moderates? Were they calling on Left and Right to share in a big group hug? No. Certainly, several moderate Democrats won key election, and that deserves special attention (which it will receive below), but my point is this: the only Democrats talking about moderate positions were themselves moderates. Pelosi, Kerry, Dean--they all trotted out the same bashing and slandering they've run out there before. It was not a call to moderation, nor was it what the people voted for. Instead, they voted against the War. They voted against corruption. They voted against drunken-sailor spending. They voted against President Bush. The Democrats were in the fortunate position of being the only viable alternative.

People neither voted for the Left, nor for the Middle.

The Middle is the place to be for Democrats for several reasons. First, as I discussed in this post, being in power is going to force the Democrats to put up or shut up. Let's go over the points briefly concerning why the Dems can't go Left:

• The times the Dems have run hard Left, they've gotten their hats handed to them by the voters (see 1992-1994 and the resulting Republican Revolution). The hard Left is simply even less acceptable to the people than the hard Right. Every time I read an article like this it makes me and every other normal American want to puke. That's the hard Left.
• They have the weakest Senatorial majority possible--one vote. Three words: Lieberman, Tester, Casey.
• The veto pen. Even if they could push through a Leftist agenda, Bush holds it and will certainly use it. One could argue that they could force Bush's hand and thereby make him look like the bad guy. That's not likely. Remember, Bush can't go much lower, and the Dems have to produce. Voter's won't buy the "Republicans stopped us" excuse.

Assuming that, in fact, Pelosi, Reid, et al, don’t go that far Left, they will have a serious base problem. Moveon.org and the Daily Kos are powerful forces within the Democratic party that must be reckoned with. They are the new, ugly, hard Left. They have effectively subverted organized labor and the Old Media as the power-brokers on their side of the aisle. They raise money like it’s no one’s business. When George Soros went looking for ways to spend millions to beat Bush in '04, he didn't even blink. It went to moveon.org. The last thing any of the Dem Presidential hopefuls will want to do is anger them. This will force presidential contenders to run further Left than the rest of the party, thus weakening the position of the eventual nominee come general election time.

The irony in all this is, assuming they stay somewhat close to the center, their '08 problem will be the same one the GOP had ’06—a base not in love with their party.

The Democrats won, but the Left may well have lost.