The Democrats: last night's debate

It was rough and tumble, with Obama and Clinton going at it rather angrily, as ABC reports.

You know, some Democrats who I've talked to insist that no matter how rough the Obama/Clinton battle gets, that the Democrats will come together, once a nominee is known, and have a "love fest" (as one contact of mine put it) at this summer's convention.

Well, it's true that I haven't heard Clinton or Obama supporters vow to take a walk if their candidate is denied the nomination. But it's early. As this thing gets angrier and angrier, who knows what will happen.

Interesting prediction

On the 2008 presidential race--from Michael Novak on NRO: "Let the record show that in the Iowa debate of December 13, 2007, the Democrats crossed the Rubicon into defeat in November, 2008. For on this day candidate Hillary Clinton announced that as President she would repeal all the tax cuts made since her husband was president, and return taxpayers to the tax rates they were paying during the 1990s. And Candidates Obama and Edwards competed to see who could be even more emphatic about raising taxes, when he became President.Perhaps blinded by the sunset brilliance of their own left wing, the Democrats chose on that day to abandon all taxpayers who are grateful for the child deduction and the other cuts in tax rates (at every level) that they enjoyed after the Clintons left office in January, 2000."

Naturally we conservatives support tax cuts. We believe your private property (which includes your earnings) should be protected. But I don't think our bias is showing when we suspect that a lot of Americans agree with us on taxes. I've seen no evidence that Americans want taxes significantly raised, even on the rich.

Democratic spittle

Or, Michael Ledeen rightly suggests that the Democrats' suggestion that they will improve our standing with our allies if only they get the White House is spit in those allies' face: "Unable to deal with serious questions, they unload on the weak and the distant. First, led by that great buffoon Joe Biden, they decide to declare their desire for the partition of Iraq, thereby delivering a mouthful of spittle into the face of our ally. Then, looking about desperately for some other Middle Eastern ally to insult, they find the Turks, and SPLAT-O! They denounce the whole country for the massacre of Armenians a hundred years ago. Another triumph of statecraft over the idiocies of Cowboy W. There's one other democracy in the region that needs a few insults, and that would be Israel. Hang on, there's still a working day in Washington this week...And these guys want the White House? On the grounds that they will have happier relations with the world at large? Bwaaaaahahaha."

Good points. I'd add that demanding a bugout from Iraq won't exactly encourage our other allies to have faith that we will stand by them when crises come, either.

Democrats Campaign 2008 update: battle of ideas

Note, in this NY Times article today on Senator Clinton's campaign, this nugget concerning her major campaign speech of yesterday. Quote: "Mrs. Clinton spoke on the first day of a two-day kickoff for her fall push, which her camp is calling “The Change We Need,” a parry to Mr. Obama’s effort to position himself as the candidate of change. The stage at Mrs. Clinton’s rallies, in Concord and here in Portsmouth, included the words “Change + Experience” — an example of the Clinton camp’s argument that she is the most experienced candidate and would still represent change, as a woman and an ideological opposite of President Bush. “Some people think you should have to choose between change and experience,” Mrs. Clinton said in Concord. “Well, with me, you don’t have to choose. I have spent my entire life fighting for change.”

Problem: this shows that Mrs. Clinton is on the defensive. Senator Obama has already claimed the "change" idea for himself. Hillary up to now has discussed the notion of change some, but had not made it an emphasis of her campaign. But now she is. It smacks of "Look, I'm for change, too." That's playing defense, with the issues framed the way Obama wants them framed. It's not a good sign for the Clinton campaign. Senator Clinton is identified with Washington D.C; she's seen as an insider. Barack Obama's relative youth, the fact that he hasn't been in Washington nearly as long, will make it almost impossible for anyone to trump him in the "change" department. We'll see if he's able to take full advantage of this.

Seems a bit premature to me

But Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters is willing to take the risk. Quote from his blog today:
"With Hillary Clinton having just about wrapped up the Democratic nomination for president, speculation has begun on her choice of running mate."

Wow. I mean, respected polls have her essentially tied with Edwards and Obama in Iowa.
If Senator Clinton loses in Iowa, everything is changed.

Yet another Democratic debate

The Democrats debated (again) this morning; details are everywhere on the web, but a good summary is here. There wasn't too much new. Bill Richardson was more energetic, trying to get into the race, and eagerly pointed out his desire to have all U.S. troops out of Iraq within 8 months. John Edwards said again that he'd fight for the poor against the powerful. Hillary Clinton got her biggest applause for claiming that Republicans attack her because she knows how to beat them. Barack Obama seeks to portray all the other major candidates as old Washington players stuck in "conventional" thinking, while he's the main agent of change. Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel and Biden mainly clutter the stage.

Senator Clinton's act sounded a little old, tired, and strained today, to me. Meanwhile I do think Senator Obama is skillfully attempting to do a difficult thing---to both appeal to the well-educated, urban, professional constituency which best responds to his "change" appeal, yet to reach out also to traditional Democrat constituencies by pledging more government involvement in health care, aid to the poor and unfortunate, etc. But it's a difficult line to walk, and Hillary remains the front-runner. And maybe there are too many debates--in any case, right now there are too many candidates, which means nobody gets to talk very long or to go into much depth, making it further difficult to get outside the box and (even civilly) challenge each other, and anyway today there were too many forced, toothy smiles along with ginned-up remarks on how much they all agree on everything, and a lot of I'm-gonna-stick-to-my-script-if-it-kills-me-itis. I doubt today's debate changes much.

Obama and Edwards lobby to make lobbying reform an issue

...and of course they seek to use the issue to attack the front-runner, Senator Clinton. Details here. I dunno--Obama claims he wants to be a new, transformative candidate...yet this issue is an old one. It's been ping-ponged back and forth for years. And it's never really been shown that lobbyists' contributions directly influence how House and Senate members vote. One wonders if this kind of old line of attack can do Obama or Edwards much good. UPDATE: Jeanne Cummings of Politico.com agrees with me. Might be that lobbying reform was so 2006.

Polls: Obama still moving up?

An ABC-Washington Post poll has Obama, Edwards, and Clinton virtually tied in Iowa. That's a change--past polls had shown Edwards leading; and i saw a poll last week that had Senator Clinton with a 9 point lead. Again--the "establishment" has disliked Senator Obama's recent statements on foreign policy, and I myself don't find them particularly sensible. But that doesn't mean that Democratic primary voters don't like them. Just maybe they do.

Note also that in Iowa New Mexico governor Bill Richardson is at 11%. He too has improved his standing in recent weeks. I've read rumblings recently from political insiders that his fund-raising numbers and other indicators suggest he could still be a player in this race. We'll see.

Obama, Clinton in New Hampshire dead heat

More details here. Senator Clinton last week jumped on Obama last week, as you remember, when he said he would meet personally with the leaders of Syria or Cuba in his first year as president. Clinton said that was "irresponsible" and "naive." As you remember, I suggested that Mrs. Clinton was correct from the point of view of policy; but I wasn't so sure that her attacks would play so well with liberal Democratic primary voters. The tightening race in New Hampshire suggests that maybe, indeed, she went too far. It also means that Democratic activisits are pretty liberal.

Rewindorama on Senator Obama

You know, what's especially interesting about Senator Obama's tough talk today on Pakistan is what happens we contrast it with one of the first major foreign policy addresses the Senator gave, back in late April to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Let's take a look...

Back in April, Senator Obama said: "We have seen the consequences of a foreign policy based on a flawed ideology, and a belief that tough talk can replace real strength and vision." Hmmm--plenty of "tough talk" from you today, though.

Back in April, Senator Obama said: "And America must lead by reaching out to all those living disconnected lives of despair in the world's forgotten corners - because while there will always be those who succumb to hate and strap bombs to their bodies, there are millions more who want to take another path - who want our beacon of hope to shine its light their way." Actually, here the Senator agrees with President Bush, who argues that people in the world have an instinctive yearning for democracy, which is why America must seek to promote it (in Iraq, for example).

Back in April, Senator Obama said: "Our interests are best served when people and governments from Jerusalem and Amman to Damascus and Tehran understand that America will stand with our friends, work hard to build a peaceful Middle East, and refuse to cede the future of the region to those who seek perpetual conflict and instability." Er, withdrawing from Iraq and abandoning its government is not a good example of standing "with our friends"; and should leaving Iraq make it a haven for terrorists, what will that do to the region? And what would invading Pakistan without that government's consent do to our standing in the region?

Back in April, Senator Obama urged a doubling of our foreign aid spending by 2012, saying: "Because we cannot hope to shape a world where opportunity outweighs danger unless we ensure that every child, everywhere, is taught to build and not to destroy." The danger, of course, is if we do anything that encourages the destroyers to think that their destruction has influenced our decisions, That they have made us think we must bribe them to cease their destruction.

Senator Obama had some sensible recommendations in his speech, as well. We may very well need to expand the size of our military in coming years to meet the many threats facing us. But he today contradicted himself...

Obama to urge new offensives...

So today Senator Obama will make a speech in which he says an Obama administration will strike Al Qaeda cells in Pakistan, as well as send more troops to Afghanistan (while pulling out from Iraq). Muscular-sounding. Which is what he's seeking. And being more aggressive against Al Q in Pakistan isn't a bad idea. One suspects here, though, that the Obama camp is being a bit reactive, trying to burnish it's tough-on-terror and knowledgeable-on-foreign-policy credentials in the wake of last week's dust-up with the Clinton campaign over meeting with foreign leaders. Is Obama really sincere about this? It smacks less of sincerity, and more of a political move, to me. But Democrats will have to decide. UPDATE: and maybe I'm too hasty in suggesting that Obama might have a much of an idea here in the first place. Obama is suggesting striking in Pakistan even if its government doesn't give us the OK. That's reckless, given that for example the Musharraf regime has been cooperative with us to a point vs Al Qaeda (do we want to risk that?), and given that Pakistan has nukes (if we invade Pakistan to go after Al Q but without their consent, do we want to risk a war with a nuclear-armed Pakistan?). John Podhoretz at The Corner suggests Obama put this forward only for effect, that he'd never do it. He may be right.

Mrs. Edwards hassles Hillary

Her criticism of Senator Clinton can be found in this Salon interview, here; as Drudge is reporting, Elizabeth Edwards said in part: "Sometimes you feel you have to behave as a man and not talk about women's issues...I'm not convinced she'd be as good an advocate for women. She needs a rationale greater for her campaign than I've heard..."

Hmmm. What's going on here? Several things, I think: 1] Senator Clinton remains the frontrunner among Democrats for the 2008 party presidential nomination. John Edwards right now sits 3rd, at best. The Edwards campaign needs to knock Hillary down a bit, to create a buzz. One way to do that is to attack. 2] But John Edwards doesn't want to attack himself. That would look too "divisive" and "negative." 3] Plus, maybe he doesn't want what would appear to be, among many Democratic and liberal women, the negative connotations of a man attacking a woman. So 4] have his wife do it. And how can the Clinton campaign retailiate? It won't be easy to do so. After all 5] Elizabeth Edwards has cancer.

Interesting strategy; we'll see what happens. UPDATE: likely the above is part of a concerted strategy to have Mrs. Edwards play a larger role in her husband's campaign, in order to boost his standing among Democratic women. See for example the latest Edwards campaign ad, which features his wife.