The Jaker

Obama will be a 2 term President, but the 2nd term won't start in 2012

2011-08-04T12:53:00.002-04:00

That's what I'm truly starting to believe, based on current facts. Obama will lose in 2012 (to Mitt Romney or Rick Perry), because of a terrible economy. He'll find some very productive Clinton-style community-fortifying immediate post-presidency career. In 2016 the Dems will turn to someone like Gov Cuomo or Cory Booker to run against the incumbent.

But during one of the three presidential elections in the 2020s, when Obama is in his early to mid 60s, he will be "drafted" back to lead the Dem ticket, and will win a 2nd presidential term.

You heard it here (possibly) first.

2012 GOP Nomination Rankings

2010-12-08T13:08:00.001-05:00

Because this is how this blog started, here's my December 2010 take on who's most likely to win the GOP Nomination for President (from most likely to lease likely):

John Thune
Haley Barbour X
Marco Rubio X
Chris Christie X
Tim Pawlenty
Mitt Romney
Mike Huckabee
David Petraeus X
Sarah Palin
Newt Gingrich
Mitch Daniels
George Pataki
Jeb Bush X
Rudy Giuliani
Bobby Jindal X

The Xs mark people who may not run.

NYT graphics dept at it again

2009-07-07T12:17:00.000-04:00

This one's a beaut:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/07/02/business/economy/20090705-cycles-graphic.html

Republican Response

2009-02-24T22:49:00.001-05:00

Was that Bobby Jindal who gave the Republican Response tonight, or Kenneth the Page from 30 Rock???

Is it really "Stimulus" we need, or something more like "Hardship protection"

2009-01-13T11:24:00.003-05:00

I'm totally out of my league here - the likes of Paul Krugman, Larry Summers, Tyler Cowen, and other economists are much better equipped to opine on these matters.

But...

When I read in the news that the trade deficit has dropped to its lowest level since 2003, or that Americans are forswearing credit card debt and instead actually saving money, it makes me think... aren't there some good long-term things being learned during this recession, and perhaps we should let them sink in a little more before we try to spend our way out?

Yes, I recognize that this is easy for me to say: I have my job and my house. I realize that millions of people are out of work, facing agonizing choices of what bills to pay, losing their homes. And I think we should help those people by providing direct assistance in the forms of longer-lasting unemployment insurance, universal health insurance, education grants, and mortgage revalautions.

What I have a problem with are the measures aimed at increasing spending. American consumer spending was unsustainably high. Yes it's tempting to try to push it back up to that high to get rid of the temporary pain, but that is itself only a temporary solution. Instead we need to reset to sustainable consumption rates, and I think to some degree the recession is helping accomplish that.

While I'm on the subject (and because who knows when my next post might be), we could really improve things by taxing consumption and use of public goods (carbon tax, gas tax, etc.) instead of income the way we do now. The conversion should be revenue neutral, to ensure that the tax system remains progressive (the less money you have, the greater percentage you spend on consumption, gas, etc.). Our tax system could be set up to much better incentivize the behaviors that are favorable to the public.

For more on the unsustainability of US consumer spending, I recommend the 30-minute movie I.O.U.S.A you can watch free here: http://www.iousathemovie.com/

Republican Presidential Nominee - 2012

2008-11-10T11:45:00.000-05:00

My initial take:

Top Tier:
Newt Gingrich
David Petraeus
Mitt Romney
Sarah Palin
Mike Huckabee
Bobby Jindal

Second Tier:
Mitch Daniels
Rudy Giuliani
Ron Paul

Long Shots:
Condoleezza Rice
Bill O'Reilly

His face alone changes a lot

2008-11-05T18:05:00.002-05:00

This Andrew Sullivan paragraph from 2007 really hits home today.

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.

Just the beginning

2008-11-05T00:49:00.003-05:00

Election may have been the easy part. Governing will be difficult.

That said, my picks for key Obama cabinet posts (with notes about who I think it will be:

Chief of Staff:
My pick: David Plouffe
Will be: Rahm Emmanuel (my problem with Emmanuel is I think he's too short-sighted)

State:
My pick: Dick Lugar
Will be: Dick Lugar

Treasury:
My pick: Tim Geithner
Will be: Larry Summers

Defense:
My pick: Robert Gates
Will be: Chuck Hagel

Prediction 2008

2008-11-03T17:44:00.000-05:00

Pres:
Obama: 291 (wins PA, VA, NV, CO, NM, NH, IA)
McCain: 247 (holds FL, OH, MO, NC)

Senate:
Dems: Pickups in VA, NM, CO, NH, OR, AK, NC
GOP: Retain MN, GA, KY, MS

Douthat on Palin 2012

2008-10-23T15:21:00.002-04:00

For a take on Palin's chances in 2012 from a very smart, young, thoughtful Republican, read this.

An excerpt:

Basically, I agree with the Ambinder-Cillizza take on the question - namely, that Sarah Palin might well be a formidable contender for the GOP nomination in 2012 even if she's massively unpopular with the sixty-five percent of America that doesn't vote in Republican primaries. In an Obama-era GOP, where the various factions and candidates are competing for control of a increasingly purist rump, isn't hard to see a scenario in which Palin unites evangelical voters and talk-radio conservatives - constituencies that split between Huckabee and either Romney or Fred Thompson, respectively, in 2008 - and rides that bloc to victory against a field that's just as divided as it was in '08.
...
What's very, very hard, though, is to see how a primary campaign fought and won along those lines would put Palin in a position to actually win the White House

Here's My Worry

2008-10-20T10:26:00.002-04:00

If I decide to worry about the outcome of this election, here's how I do it:

There have been lots of stories about how Obama is making many more red states competitive. States like Virginia, Missouri, North Carolina, Indiana - all of which John Kerry probably never stepped foot in. That's great. Obama certainly has more ways he can combine states to get to 270 electoral college votes.

But what is not happening, is he is not pulling away dramatically in the traditional swing states - Ohio, Florida, Colorado are all still within 5-7 pts in current polling.

So Obama hasn't really MOVED the swing states (ie. solidified the existing swing states, and shifted the battle to a new set), but rather has EXPANDED the group of swing states.

Which bring me to my worry. Obama is susceptible to two things:
1) Bad polling, in which a 5 pt lead in all the new swing states somehow becomes a 1-2 pt win for McCain; or
2) A dramatic event in the next 2 weeks, that is sufficient to tip 5-10% of the electorate towards McCain in the closing days.

I don't think it will happen, but I worry nevertheless.

Is Palin the Jessica Simpson of Politics?

2008-10-15T12:03:00.004-04:00

My theory on Jessica Simpson, when that reality show with her and Nick Lachey was on, was that she was a little (not a lot) smarter than portrayed, and definitely media savvy enough to realize that she was building her brand by playing the part and keeping the show on the air. The criticism of her as a ditz didn't really seem to bother her.

I now think Sarah Palin is a little (not a lot) smarter than portrayed, and while sufficiently underqualified for VP that she probably should have turned the job down, I think she's politically savvy enough to realize that her political brand (amongst Republicans) will be greatly enhanced by the 10 or so weeks she spent in the middle of the public eye, even despite all the criticism she's getting. And that a John McCain loss may actually be BETTER for her than a win.

She seemed to confirm this on Limbaugh yesterday: “I’ve got nothing to lose in this,” Ms. Palin said. “And I think America has everything to gain by understanding the differences, the contrasts here between Obama and McCain.”

She's totally pulling a Jessica Simpson on us. And it's working.

Bill Kristol's advice to McCain

2008-10-13T10:57:00.000-04:00

If McCain did this, I'd be more worried:

I Hate to Say It

2008-10-10T12:34:00.004-04:00

But electing Barack Obama, which we appear likely to do, is not going to solve all of the country's problems,
because a lot of people like this live here, and they will hate/fear Obama, and refuse to rally in support of anything he proposes to heal the country.

They'll say voter fraud got him elected, or that it was the Economy that pushed him over the top. (News flash: Obama was going to win without the economic disaster.)

The only thing we can do to reduce this effect, is turn this thing into a landslide: +10 or greater on popular vote. Let's get to it.

UPDATE: Krugman obviously reads my blog.

The False Comfort of Uber-Optimism

2008-09-25T13:34:00.004-04:00

I consider this piece a must read in the NYT.

As a product of a European family, I've found the often-unbridled American sense of optimism and self-confidence (We're Americans, we can get through this, we can accomplish anything we put our mind to, etc etc.) to be strange, undesirable, and capable of producing unwanted outcomes.

Barbara Ehrenreich calls this "the delusional optimism of mainstream, all-American, positive thinking". I agree, and think it's a partial cause of the mess this country is in. We just assume that foreign banks will always want to hold the dollar, because America is, of course, the premiere business location. We assume that our healthcare must be the best in the world.

She's right that a dose of realism is urgently required as we face the extreme challenges of waking up to our reduced place in the world in the next decade or so.

I Call Bullshit on Republicans

2008-09-24T12:19:00.002-04:00

They don't actually believe what they say.

From the 2008 Republican Party Platform:

"We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself."

hat tip to politicalwire

The Palin Impact: Looking 4 Years Ahead

2008-09-16T19:05:00.002-04:00

The reinvigoration of McCain's campaign following the unveiling of Sarah Palin makes me think this is a trend we'll see in the next few Presidential elections - the pick a VP nominee from nowhere, as long as she/he has a good story to tell.

Of course you can't get away with such a person actually running for the top job and winning. Voters as a group don't let that fly. See Howard Dean for close but no cigar.

But the VP nominee is different - you really only need 1 vote - that of the P candidate. And sometimes all it takes to get that vote is a little executive experience, and a good story.

So look out all you mayors, comptrollers, high school principals, hockey team coaches, and moms/dads. You could be next to be called upon to serve your country!

Oh no!

2008-09-12T09:59:00.001-04:00

Palin says "nucular". Nooooooooooooo!

I'm just so sick of it

2008-09-11T10:38:00.003-04:00

“Sarah Palin is the most remarkable success story in the history of American politics,” - Fred Thompson

A McCain ad saying Obama supported "comprehensive sex education" for kindergartners.

Another saying Obama will raise taxes on the middle class.

Here's what I'd like to see: A debate where the only topics discussed are third-party assesments of the candidates' plans. For example: a segment where Brian Williams or whoever starts with the summary findings (below) of the Tax Policy Center's review of each plan, and asks each candidate to react.

Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years, according to a newly updated analysis by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center. Compared to current law, TPC estimates the Obama plan would cut taxes by $2.9 trillion from 2009-2018. McCain would reduce taxes by nearly $4.2 trillion. Obama would give larger tax cuts to low- and moderate-income households and pay some of the cost by raising taxes on high-income taxpayers. In contrast, McCain would cut taxes across the board and give the biggest cuts to the highest-income households.

The Obama plan would reduce taxes for low- and moderate-income families, but raise them significantly for high-bracket taxpayers (see Figure 2). By 2012, middle-income taxpayers would see their after-tax income rise by about 5 percent, or nearly $2,200 annually. Those in the top 1 percent would face a $19,000 average tax increase—a 1.5 percent reduction in after-tax income.

McCain would lift after-tax incomes an average of about 3 percent, or $1,400 annually, for middle-income taxpayers by 2012. But, in sharp contrast to Obama, he would cut taxes for those in the top 1% by more than $125,000, raising their after-tax income an average 9.5 percent.

"Mr. McCain - do you care to comment?"

"Female Reagan"

2008-09-04T12:22:00.002-04:00

In two words, this is exactly what worries me about Sarah Palin. The fact that the Republican base, and even some moderates, could project on her the image of what they think the perfect politician should be like (even if she isn't it).

Could it happen??

2008-09-02T10:57:00.002-04:00

Is it possible that GOP delegates, concerned about the slate of scandals coming out from Alaska, will mount a serious effort to nominate someone else for Vice President?

It would have to be a very well known, staunch conservative. Someone like James Dobson, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, or... Dick Cheney! Perhaps Darth Cheney is masterminding the whole thing as we speak!

Sarah Palin

2008-08-29T14:42:00.005-04:00

Well, I think McCain made a very shrewd political choice. A suburban, telegenic, executive, working mom, with the ability to fire up the conservative base.

Obama chose the person he felt would best help him govern once in office, but McCain, clearly concerned about November and not what happens afterward, chose the person that gives him a better chance to win, in the process putting someone who 2 years ago was an oil company regulator and former mayor of a town of 7,000 a heartbeat away from running the free world.

One fun fact, here's what Palin said earlier this year about the vice presidency:

Palin replied: “[A]s for that V.P. talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I
still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it
exactly that the V.P. does every day? I’m used to being very productive and
working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that V.P .slot
would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things
that we’re trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S., before I can
even start addressing that question.”

Obama should win on the economy

2008-08-27T13:16:00.002-04:00

Great NYT Magazine piece on Obama's economic viewpoint. Very well written, easy to read and understand, this is the kind of article I wish every voter was forced to read (and feel free to give us the corresponding one on McCain's economic values. That would be a laugh. Could you even get to 7 pages, or would it be done at "Cut taxes, because that's what Reagan says").

Per the piece, Obama will provide a MUCH BIGGER tax cut to the vast majority of Americans (everyone under $118k)

For the bottom 80 percent of the population — those households making $118,000 or less — McCain’s various tax cuts would mean a net savings of about $200 a year on average. Obama’s proposals would bring $900 a year in savings. So for most people, Obama is the tax cutter in this campaign.

This should be drilled into people somehow. Put it in many commercials. Say it in the debates.

And which of these sounds more appropriate:

McCain, by continuing the basic thrust of Bush’s tax policies and adding a few new wrinkles, would cut taxes for the top 0.1 percent of earners — those making an average of $9.1 million — by another $190,000 a year, on top of the Bush reductions. Obama would raise taxes on this top 0.1 percent by an average of $800,000 a year.... The bulk of Obama’s tax increases on the wealthy — about $500,000 of that $800,000 — would simply take away Bush’s tax cuts. The remaining $300,000 wouldn’t nearly reverse their pretax income gains in recent years.

Toot toot, and a GOP VP Pick

2008-08-27T13:14:00.002-04:00

That's me tooting my own horn a little bit, for correctly predicting Joe Biden as Obama's running mate.

Since I never picked one guy for the GOP, I'll do it now: Pawlenty. I don't think McCain can pick Romney now (two very rich guys isn't the right image against Obama/Biden). Thune could still be a darkhorse, as could Palin. But I'll go with the down-home economically-helpfull Pawlenty.

John McCain is to The Economy as George W. Bush is to Foreign Policy

2008-07-21T13:35:00.003-04:00

please oh please let's not elect this man President.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/opinion/20rich.html?ei=5087&em=&en=bf3ebbdcbb67e7fc&ex=1216785600&pagewanted=print

July 20, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
It’s the Economic Stupidity, Stupid
By FRANK RICH
THE best thing to happen to John McCain was for the three network anchors to leave him in the dust this week while they chase Barack Obama on his global Lollapalooza tour. Were voters forced to actually focus on Mr. McCain’s response to our spiraling economic crisis at home, the prospect of his ascension to the Oval Office could set off a panic that would make the IndyMac Bank bust in Pasadena look as merry as the Rose Bowl.

“In a time of war,” Mr. McCain said last week, “the commander in chief doesn’t get a learning curve.” Fair enough, but he imparted this wisdom in a speech that was almost a year behind Mr. Obama in recognizing Afghanistan as the central front in the war against Al Qaeda. Given that it took the deadliest Taliban suicide bombing in Kabul since 9/11 to get Mr. McCain’s attention, you have to wonder if even General Custer’s learning curve was faster than his.

Mr. McCain still doesn’t understand that we can’t send troops to Afghanistan unless they’re shifted from Iraq. But simple math, to put it charitably, has never been his forte. When it comes to the central front of American anxiety — the economy — his learning curve has flat-lined.

In 2000, he told an interviewer that he would make up for his lack of attention to “those issues.” As he entered the 2008 campaign, Mr. McCain was still saying the same, vowing to read “Greenspan’s book” as a tutorial. Last weekend, the resolutely analog candidate told The New York Times he is at last starting to learn how “to get online myself.” Perhaps he’ll retire his abacus by Election Day.

Mr. McCain’s fiscal ineptitude has received so little scrutiny in some press quarters that his chief economic adviser, the former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, got a free pass until the moment he self-immolated on video by whining about “a nation of whiners.” The McCain-Gramm bond, dating back 15 years, is more scandalous than Mr. Obama’s connection with his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Mr. McCain has been so dependent on Mr. Gramm for economic policy that he sent him to newspaper editorial board meetings, no doubt to correct the candidate’s numbers much as Joe Lieberman cleans up after his confusions of Sunni and Shia.

Just two weeks before publicly sharing his thoughts about America’s “mental recession,” Mr. Gramm laid out equally incendiary views in a Wall Street Journal profile that portrayed him as “almost certainly” the McCain choice for Treasury secretary. Mr. Gramm said that the former chief executive of AT&T, Ed Whitacre, was “probably the most exploited worker in American history” since he received only a $158 million pay package rather than the “billions” he deserved for his success in growing Southwestern Bell.

But no one in the news media seemed to notice Mr. Gramm’s naked expression of the mind-set he’d bring to a McCain White House. And few journalists have vetted the presumptive Treasury secretary’s post-Senate history as an executive at UBS. The stock of that banking giant has lost 70 percent of its value in a year after its reckless adventures in the subprime lending market. It’s now fending off federal investigation for helping the megarich avoid taxes.

Mr. McCain made a big show of banishing Mr. Gramm after his whining “gaffe,” but it’s surely at most a temporary suspension. When the candidate said back in January that there’s nobody he knows who is stronger on economic issues than his old Senate pal, he was telling the truth. Left to his own devices — or those of his new No. 1 economic surrogate, Carly Fiorina — Mr. McCain is clueless. Even Arnold Schwarzenegger, a supporter, said that Mr. McCain’s latest panacea for high gas prices, offshore drilling, is snake oil — and then announced his availability to serve as energy czar in an Obama administration.

The term flip-flopping doesn’t do justice to Mr. McCain’s self-contradictory economic pronouncements because that implies there’s some rational, if hypocritical, logic at work. What he serves up instead is plain old incoherence, as if he were compulsively consulting one of those old Magic 8 Balls. In a single 24-hour period in April, Mr. McCain went from saying there’s been “great economic progress” during the Bush presidency to saying “Americans are not better off than they were eight years ago.” He reversed his initial condemnation of mortgage bailouts in just two weeks.

In February Mr. McCain said he would balance the federal budget by the end of his first term even while extending the gargantuan Bush tax cuts. In April he said he’d accomplish this by the end of his second term. In July he’s again saying he’ll do it in his first term. Why not just say he’ll do it on Inauguration Day? It really doesn’t matter since he’s never supplied real numbers that would give this promise even a patina of credibility.

Mr. McCain’s plan for Social Security reform is “along the lines that President Bush proposed.” Or so he said in March. He came out against such “privatization” in June (though his policy descriptions still support it). Last week he indicated he isn’t completely clear on what Social Security does. He called the program’s premise — young taxpayers foot the bill for their elders (including him) — an “absolute disgrace.”

Given that Mr. McCain’s sole private-sector job was a fleeting stint in public relations at his father-in-law’s beer distributorship, he comes by his economic ignorance honestly. But there’s no A team aboard the Straight Talk Express to fill him in. His campaign economist, the former Bush adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin, could be found in the June 5 issue of American Banker suggesting even at that late date that we still don’t know “the depth of the housing crisis” and proposing that “monitoring is the right thing to do in these circumstances.”

Ms. Fiorina, the ubiquitous new public face of McCain economic policy, adds nothing to the mix beyond her incessant display of corporate jargon, from “trend lines” to “start-ups.” Before she was fired at Hewlett-Packard, its stock had declined 50 percent during her five-plus years in charge. She missed earning projections — by 23 percent in one quarter — much as she now misrepresents both the Obama and McCain records. This month she said Mr. McCain wanted to require insurance plans to cover birth control medications along with Viagra, when in fact he had voted against it.

Ms. Fiorina received a $42 million payout (half in cash) from H.P., according to a shareholders’ subsequent lawsuit. With this inspiring résumé, she now aspires to be Mr. McCain’s running mate. So does the irrepressible Mitt Romney, who actually was a business whiz before serving as Massachusetts’s governor. Beltway wisdom has it that the addition of such a corporate star will remedy Mr. McCain’s fiscal flatulence.

But Mr. Romney, while more plausible than Ms. Fiorina, is hardly what America wants at this desperate time. His leveraged buyout dealings as co-founder of Bain Capital induced plant closings, mass layoffs and outsourcing. If Mr. McCain truly intends to “put our country’s interests” above politics and reach across the aisle to move the nation forward, as he constantly tells us, why not go for a vice president who’s the very best fit for the huge challenges at hand?

The obvious choice would be Michael Bloomberg — who, as a former Republican turned independent, would necessitate that Mr. McCain reach only halfway across the aisle, and to someone who is his friend rather than a vanquished rival he is learning to tolerate.

Romney vs. Bloomberg is not a close contest. Bloomberg L.P. has roughly three times the revenues and employees of Bain & Company, where Mr. Romney ultimately served as chief executive. Mr. Romney rescued the Salt Lake City Olympics while running it in 2002, but Mayor Bloomberg revitalized New York, the nation’s largest metropolis, after the most devastating attack in our history. The city he manages has more than twice the budget of Mr. Romney’s state.

Yes, Mr. Bloomberg is a closet Democrat and an alpha dog who doesn’t want to be a second banana. And his views on gay civil rights and abortion would roil the G.O.P. base. But Mr. Romney shared some of those same views before he flip-flopped, and besides, these are not ordinary times. Millions of Americans are losing their homes and jobs. Whole industries are going belly up. The national crisis at hand, not yesterday’s culture wars, should drive the vice-presidential pick.

Mr. McCain reminds us every day how principled he is. That presumably means he’d risk a revolt by his party’s dwindling agents of intolerance and do everything in his power to persuade Mr. Bloomberg to join his ticket in the spirit of patriotic sacrifice. The politics could be advantageous too. A Bloomberg surprise could impress independents and keep the television audience tuned in to a G.O.P. convention that will unfold in the shadow of Mr. Obama’s address to 75,000 screaming fans in Denver.

But this is fantasy political baseball, not reality. Mr. McCain, sad to say, hung up his old maverick’s spurs the day he embraced the Bush tax cuts he had once opposed as “too tilted to the wealthy.” And Mr. Bloomberg? It’s hard to picture a titan who built his empire on computer terminals investing any capital, political or otherwise, in a chief executive who is still learning how to do, as Mr. McCain puts it, “a Google.”

VPs

2008-07-08T14:39:00.002-04:00

Now that Jim Webb pulled out (which surprised me... I think he might have been the guy), I think Obama's running mate will be Joe Biden. Sure, he has lots of warts, but he's sensible. And ultimately, I think Obama wants someone who can help him enact sensible policies, rather than help in the political winds of the campaign. Sebelius, Richardson, Kaine next most likely in my view.

McCain has way more good choices available. Romney, Crist, Jindal, Lieberman, Pawlenty, Portman, Thune, Cantor, Palin, Sanford. All make some sense. I think it will be Thune, Romney, Pawlenty or Palin, in that order.

It should be said

2008-07-01T14:36:00.001-04:00

Our political system seems incapable of producing long-range answers to big problems or big opportunities

That's Tom Friedman a couple days ago. I couldn't agree more.

McCain's Tax Plan: AWFUL!

2008-06-20T12:17:00.004-04:00

Now that the Democratic Party infighting is over, Paul Krugman is back to doing what he does best - sensible issue analysis (or at least, citing of sensible issue analysis).

This piece is on the Tax Policy Center's non-partisan analysis of McCain and Obama's tax plans. (which makes for a good skim).

CONCLUSION: McCain is just doing the Bush cuts for the rich all over again. Under his plan the top 1% earners get an avg 2.4% tax rate cut (avg. $45,361) while the lowest quintile get an avg 0.2% cut (avg. $19. yes that's right. $19). And for the top 0.1%? Avg cut of $269,364. Plus McCain wants to increase the deficit by $250bn.

Obama's plan isn't perfect (some strange features), but at least he gets the distribution right. 6% tax increase for the top 1%, 5% decrease for the lowest quintile. And Obama will reduce the deficit by $700bn.

Krugman is also right that the Republicans have basically won the tax fight. Every candidate, Dem and Rep, now has to propose a big tax cut to be viable, and trying to dial-back the ridiculous Bush tax cuts is politically tricky.

Sensible Friedman

2008-04-30T18:05:00.001-04:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/opinion/30friedman.html?em&ex=1209700800&en=5e50edff9f212b25&ei=5087%0A

The $2 trillion (or $3 trillion) war

2008-03-04T14:15:00.003-05:00

This is like when you buy something expensive and then later really regret it and realize what a total waste it was, only this involves people's lives.

ps. I think Hill might win both Ohio and Texas (popular vote) today, and therefore easily justify fighting on to PA and beyond.

Am I the only one...

2008-02-25T12:52:00.003-05:00

... who does NOT think spending $1,200 at Dunkin Donuts in one month is ridiculous for a national presidential campaign? That's only $40 a day, and for how many people???

The real ridiculous expenditure is Mark Penn collecting millions of dollars in fees for a terribly run campaign that is always 3 or 4 moves behind their "less experienced" competition.

Peggy Noonan says it best

2008-02-08T13:16:00.001-05:00

It's not often that I give a shoutout to a Republican pundit writing in the Wall Street Journal, but Peggy Noonan gets it exactly right on Hillary versus Obama.

It's the last paragraph that really makes me worried that we might screw this up:

The Democrats continue not to recognize what they have in this guy. Believe me, Republican professionals know. They can tell.

The full section:

He is the brilliant young black man as American dream. No consultant, no matter how opportunistic and hungry, will think it easy--or professionally desirable--to take him down in a low manner. If anything, they've learned from the Clintons in South Carolina what that gets you. (I add that yes, there are always freelance mental cases, who exist on both sides and are empowered by modern technology. They'll make their YouTubes. But the mad are ever with us, and this year their work will likely stay subterranean.)

With Mr. Obama the campaign will be about issues. "He'll raise your taxes." He will, and I suspect Americans may vote for him anyway. But the race won't go low.

Mrs. Clinton would be easier for Republicans. With her cavalcade of scandals, they'd be delighted to go at her. They'd get medals for it. Consultants would get rich on it.

The Democrats have it exactly wrong. Hillary is the easier candidate, Mr. Obama the tougher. Hillary brings negative; it's fair to hit her back with negative. Mr. Obama brings hope, and speaks of a better way. He's not Bambi, he's bulletproof.

The biggest problem for the Republicans will be that no matter what they say that is not issue oriented--"He's too young, he's never run anything, he's not fully baked"--the mainstream media will tag them as dealing in racial overtones, or undertones. You can bet on this. Go to the bank on it.

The Democrats continue not to recognize what they have in this guy. Believe me, Republican professionals know. They can tell.

Debate Review

2008-02-01T08:00:00.000-05:00

Here are my takeaways from last night's Clinton-Obama debate:

1. It was great for the Party. Watching a Democratic debate so soon after a Republican debate, it is so striking to me that the Democrats are the adults in the political landscape, talking about the real issues facing the country, and having substantive arguments on policy and vision, rather than sniping about people's records, etc. Last night both candidates showed they can talk smartly about policy. And gave the GOP nothing that can be used against them in the general.

2. I went in thinking Obama needed to do really well, and hope for some Clintonian ugliness, to really capture the momentum going into Tuesday. I think he did quite well - perhaps just slightly missing a few opportunities to be really likeable and Presidential - and Hillary was also good, not giving Obama many openings. So all in all it probably doesn't change much, but I think Obama should be helped by this performance.

3. I actually thought Obama won the argument on a number of issues: on healthcare, i think he hammered home a couple times that Clinton hasn't said (and still didn't say) how she would punish those who don't buy coverage. I think he very clearly won the Iraq issue, saying he would be "right from Day One", and Wolf helped him out by pressing Clinton to admit her vote was a mistake. And I thoguht he did excellently with the Obama/Clinton Clinton/Obama question.

4. Obama may suffer from the way he frames issues. He tends to not resort to the old talking points, instead framing things in a new way and putting a different spin on issues. That may be effective for the very educated and well-read Democrats, but those who don't spend as much time following the race may react better to the traditional party talking points that Hillary is much more likely to espouse.

5. Obama seems to me to already be articulating very good general election arguments against McCain. So not only does it seem to me that Obama's record and personality stack up much better against McCain, but he also seems to have already very adeptly crafted the message. The Straight Talk Express has lost some wheels remark was great. This shows he's no political novice.

6. I think there's a chance some people will vote for Clinton in hopes that she puts Obama on her ticket.

Going into Super Tuedsay, as I see it right now Hillary is ahead. But it seems clear that it's not going to be decided on Tuesday. Obama should hope to get 45-50% delegates to her 50-55%, and have that be spun as a major win having come from so far behind in many of the states.

Fiscal Stimpidity

2008-01-31T10:26:00.000-05:00

Michael Kinsley gets it exactly right on the last page of last Friday's issue of TIME on how stupid the fiscal stimulus package is. Read the article.

The stimulus plan agreed upon by Bush and the House Democrats is all wrong for the economy. Kinsley likens the plan to curing a hangover by having another drink: we've been borrowing from foreigners to finance out of control consumption, and now because the economy is softening we should borrow even more to keep domestic consumption up? If we do this we just kick the problem down the road.

The ultimate problem that we must face - now or later, and the later we let it slip the worse the recession will be - is that we are operating with an unsustainable budget deficit combined with runaway consumer spending.

My solution: We need to raise taxes on many people but especially the wealthy; raise and impose taxes (and reduce tax breaks) on adverse behaviors like carbon pollution, driving, oil refining; shift the tax structure from taxing labor to taxing consumption (adding a small progressively-structured VAT would work wonders); and have government invest in infrastructure (Mike Huckabee is right on this point). These things will get us on the path to solving the twin problems - reduce our borrowing from foreign governments and individuals, and reign in consumer spending - while relying on good old government spending to create new jobs in infrastructure and green technology.

Comparing the Endorsement Lists

2008-01-28T10:48:00.001-05:00

For each candidate, here's a list of the people I respect that have endorsed, or are working for, that candidate. I've excluded those with obvious biases (like the NY congressional delegation for Hillary, and Illinois's for Obama)

Obama
Ted Kennedy
John Kerry
Tom Daschle
Deval Patrick
Patrick Leahy
Tim Kaine
Kathleen Sebelius
Toni Morrison
Paul Volcker *new*

Hillary Clinton
Diane Feinstein
Daniel Inouye
Evan Bayh
Jennifer Granholm
Debbie Stabenow

Pres Odds Update

2008-01-24T12:16:00.001-05:00

I guess the first quarter is over and we're in the middle of the 2nd quarter in the nominating contests. So here's my take at this point on the likely outcomes:

Democrats:
Clinton 2:1
Obama 3:1
Edwards 15:1

Republicans:
McCain 5:2
Romney 3:1
Giuliani 8:1
Huckabee 8:1

Bill Clinton: "Screw It, I'm Running for President"

2008-01-24T12:12:00.000-05:00

The Onion. Brilliant.

"My fellow Americans, I am sick and tired of not being president," said Clinton, introducing his wife at a "Hillary '08" rally. "For seven agonizing years, I have sat idly by as others experienced the joys of campaigning, debating, and interacting with the people of this great nation, and I simply cannot take it anymore. I have to be president again. I have to."
...
"From signing healthcare reform legislation, to working with politicians
from across the aisle, to brokering international peace treaties with foreign
dignitaries, I goddamn love being president," Clinton said. "For too long has
this nation been deprived of a Bill Clinton presidency, and for too long have I
been deprived of being president. Now I get to experience all these wonderful
things again myself."

Ugh... the Clintons

2008-01-22T23:18:00.000-05:00

I like Hillary Clinton - think she's extremely smart and capable, a terrific senator who'd probably make a good President. And I liked Bill Clinton in office, and like even more what he's been doing out of office.

But lately, these two seem to be demonstrating exactly what it is that I, and I think others, can't stand about them. They - particularly Bill - seem to have an unshakeable sense of entitlement to Hillary becoming President, or at least the Democratic nominee. Mainly in their on-the-trail press conferences and one-on-one interviews - the kind you see on Hardball w/ Matthews and Countdown w/ Olbermann - they just seem to be dripping with content over Obama's supposed arrogance.

Bill especially seems to have no qualms with dragging down the discourse and levelling personal attacks - something that is unattractive in any political spouse but especially so in a former President. But Hillary too, in the South Carolina debate referring to Obama's relationship with a "slum-lord in inner city Chicago", demonstrated a willingness to engage in whatever kind of personal attack is necessary to win. Obama's no saint, but he doesn't take things to this level.

Hillary could lose the general election by doing this same thing against McCain. Let's avoid that scenario.

Matt Bai is funny!

2008-01-18T11:53:00.000-05:00

He riffs on the imaginary world's most ignorant debate moderator:

Senator Edwards, have you or any members of your family ever worked in a factory or other kind of manufacturing facility? Parent? Grandparent? If so, can you please tell us whether this had any effect on your political philosophy? You have 30 seconds.

Mayor Giuliani, can you think of any single event in your professional life, perhaps during your tenure as mayor, that demonstrated your leadership or shaped your worldview? Also, do any of the policy challenges we now face remind you at all of Word War II? If so, how?

Governor Romney, a two-parter. First, is there any political figure—a former president maybe—whom you believe embodied the principles of conservatism? If so, do you share any similarities? Second, do you have any misgivings about the state of government in Washington? Would you describe it as very functional, reasonably functional, or something else?

Senator Obama, do you happen to know how many of the candidates on stage opposed the invasion of Iraq? What were your own feelings at the time, if you can remember? Also, is there any one word—faith or optimism or something like that—that you feel captures the spirit of your campaign? Take a moment, if you need to.

Senator Clinton, is there any one thing that you feel might be missing from Barack Obama’s resume as a presidential candidate, any particular weakness that you might have detected in his qualifications for the job? Also, can you tell us on which day, after assuming the presidency, that you might actually be ready to lead? Day three? Day four? Please be specific.

Governor Huckabee, without prying into your personal beliefs, is there any particular creed or faith that guides your decision-making? And are there any books, historical texts or parchment scrolls that have been particularly relevant to your life? Please be brief.

This is a question for all the Democrats on the panel: Many voters feel that President Bush has enhanced the country’s reputation and been a force for good in the world. Do you agree or disagree? How would you rate him compared to, say, Franklin Roosevelt or Harry Truman?

Senator McCain, one of the concerns people often express about Washington is that it’s awash in campaign money. Have you noticed this problem, and, as a senator, have you taken any steps at all to address it? Also, can you please clarify, once and for all, your position on Iraq? Would you have any objection to withdrawing some troops before the mission is complete?

Finally, I’d pose this question to all the candidates:
Do you or do you not support our troops? Please explain.

Some interesting poll numbers

2008-01-17T10:49:00.001-05:00

For those of you (including the one I live with) still on the fence between Hillary and Barack, consider this (with all the disclaimers about how polls aren't perfect).

According to RealClearPolitics (average of all the head-to-head polls):
Clinton 51, Romney 41 (Clinton +10)
Obama 55, Romney 35 (Obama +20)

Clinton 44, McCain 48 (Clinton -4)
Obama 44, McCain 45 (Obama -1)

Clinton 49, Giuliani 44 (Clinton +5)
Obama 51, Giuliani 39 (Obama +12)

So Obama is viewed as substantially better as a general election candidate right now, getting between 3 and 10% more of the vote against the Republican nominee.

What is Karl Rove up to?

2008-01-10T13:03:00.000-05:00

In today's WSJ, he writes a long article explaining why Hillary won New Hampshire, and making a not-so-subtle argument for her candidacy over Obama's.

I don't think Rove has an honest/fair bone in his body, so I'm viewing this totally cynically... that he is trying to influence the race because he relishes the general election fight against Hillary, and he's scared of same against Obama.

It's now clear to me

2008-01-04T13:32:00.000-05:00

After last night, which feels to me like the culmination of what started in the summer of 2003, all the hope we put into Howard Dean and the ability of America to be rational and progressive, and with a new candidate, whose upbringing and demographics - international, young, mixed race - exemplify the future of America, and who has now shown at least twice his ability to deliver a transformational speech, and demonstrated that the movement is finally ripe and being executed upon (not evaporating for fear of losing in 2004), it is now clear to me.

Barack Obama is what we need in a President.

His shortcomings don't matter... they can be made up for with advisors. He has what a President must: presence, leadership, honesty, judgment, trustworthiness, an inspiring voice. All the things that Bush lacks that makes us reviled around the world.

So, John Edwards should run a poverty non-profit, or maybe be secretary of Labor.
Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd should stay in the Senate and be kickass legislators.
Bill Richardson should be a governor.
Joe Biden, I think, should be Vice President.

But Barack Obama should be President.

Caucus Revision

2008-01-02T14:14:00.000-05:00

Happy New Year!

I'm starting to think my McCain tying Huckabee in Iowa call is just a little too aggressive... I think I'll redistribute 3 points from McCain to Huckabee, so now my GOP prediction looks like this. Still, I think the stories will be Romney's dominance, Huckabee's fade, and McCain's surprise. Then McCain will get some momentum coming out of New Hampshire. Ultimately, however, I still think Romney will win.
Republican:
Romney 32
Huckabee 23
McCain 17
Thompson 11
Paul 9
Giuliani 8

I still like my Democrat picks.

4 days to caucus night

2007-12-31T12:45:00.001-05:00

Things are getting crazy out there. Not that I'm out there. I'm here.

The outcome of the Iowa caucuses is really unpredictable right now. Which is why I'll try to predict it. Here is my Monday guess for how the caucuses will turn out. I may change this once or twice or as many times as I like (nice to be a blogger) between now and Thursday.

Democrat:
Obama 30
Edwards 28
Clinton 26
Biden 12
Richardson 4

Republican:
Romney 32
Huckabee 20
McCain 20
Thompson 11
Paul 9
Giuliani 8

The big question for me on the Republican side is: in light of the Huckabee collapse, which I think we are in the midst of, where does his support go back to? I assert that it will fragment between Romney, McCain, and Thompson (almost none to Rudy). The key for McCain is to try to lock up as much of the Huckabee, anti-mormon, religious conservative vote as possible.

Self-Made

2007-12-18T13:44:00.000-05:00

Reading this article about how Mitt Romney is basically running for President to in some way atone for his father's loss in a 1968 Presidential run, made me think about this: isn't is much more impressive when someone catapults themselves to a Presidential run without the benefit of a family member who paved their way?

There are obvious examples of this on both sides. Romney's dad was corporate executive, then governor of Michigan, then a legit Presidential candidate. I'd argue that this made Mitt Romney's path to where he is today much easier. Similarly, Hillary Clinton is obviously a brilliant academic and lawyer, but she probably wouldn't be running for President if she hadn't married Bill Clinton. And even John McCain benefitted - his grandfather and father were very senior Navy Admirals, so McCain's ascension isn't incredibly surprising.

On the other hand, there are a number of candidates that are more or less self-made, and these folks are more impressive to me. Barack Obama, John Edwards, Mike Huckabee, and (hate to say it) Rudy Giuliani, should get credit for largely steering their own courses to the top of their respective primaries.

Of course it's not the most important factor. But it should not go unrecognized.

Presidential Odds Update

2007-12-17T12:47:00.000-05:00

So in light of the Huckabee boom (which I called a year and a half ago), I'm pulling a non-common-sense change in the Presidential Odds on the Republican side.

Here's how it goes: Caucus Night in Iowa. It's cold, and you've got to sit for 3 hours in a drafty gymnasium. People stand up and give their pitches for candidates, and then the argument ensues. This is where I see Huckabee unraveling. Because he's less vetted, people won't have appropriate comebacks when Huckabee opponents raise all of his negatives - lack of foreign policy, evangelical musings like saying he's getting direction from God (which doesn't fly much anymore after Bush), etc. etc. Same goes more or less for Romney and Giuliani. There are lots of great arguments to be made against them (for Romney: try mormonism being founded by a con man) (for Giuliani: try terrible relationship with his son and two former wives).

So the top three candidates are looking weak. Where to turn? Not Fred Thompson. But John McCain. People know him. People trust him. Yeah, he's old and a bit wild, and he's dissed Iowa a few times, but he's tough and he's honest, and when it comes down to it you have to pick a President.

So my guess right now is that John McCain has a surprisingly good showing in Iowa. Probably won't win, but I wouldn't be shocked by a close second. That propels him to win New Hampshire, and then off we go.

Reserve the right to change my mind in the next few weeks.

Romney: steady at 3:1
McCain: up from 6:1 to 4:1
Huckabee: up from 5:1 to 9:2
Giuliani: down from 3:1 to 5:1
Paul: up from 18:1 to 12:1 (that money is coming from somewhere)
Thompson: down from 11:1 to 13:1

By the way, on the Democratic side, I think John Edwards could be the beneficiary of the same effect, to a lesser degree. (And maybe Joe Biden)

Obama: up from 3:1 to 5:2
Clinton: down from 2:1 to 3:1 (Des Moines Register helps, but not sure)
Edwards: up from 5:1 to 4:1
Richardson: steady at 13:1
Biden: up from 35:1 to 15:1
Dodd: down from 25:1 to 30:1
Gore: down from 17:1 to 50:1
Kucinich: steady at 100:1

NJ Bans Death Penalty

2007-12-17T12:42:00.001-05:00

This is great news. Well done to the legislature and Corzine.

At least the national sentiment is marching in the right direction on one issue.

Iowa's getting interesting

2007-11-26T14:57:00.000-05:00

I'm watching intently Mike Huckabee's rise in Iowa. Back in May '06 I said: "I think Huckabee could be the dark horse of this race, at least to make a long run." It took awhile, but he's now emerging as the guy who could unite the far-right, which is interesting, since he's an affable, marathon-running, weight-losing guy (who also happens to be a fairly ultra-conservative preacher who calls abortion a "holocaust").

And I'm not sure I believe the one poll that has Obama in front in Iowa (within the margin of error), but it's clear that Hillary's not going to coast through the first two states. Obama's chances are looking better than ever.

I'm back on his bandwagon since early October or so, after spending July through September thinking that Hillary was probably the right choice, because she's so damn smart. I now believe that her talents aren't suited to the presidency... she should be Chief of Staff, or, better yet, Senate Majority Leader, but the President is basically a vessel for our hopes and dreams, and needs to be a communicator that can reflect the national mood... Barack beats her on these metrics.

Odds Changes

2007-11-26T14:48:00.000-05:00

Clinton from 3:2 to 2:1.
Obama from 7:2 to 3:1.
Edwards from 4:1 to 5:1.
Gore from 15:1 to 17:1.
Dodd from 20:1 to 25:1.
Biden from 25:1 to 25:1.
Kucinich from 200:1 to 100:1.

Romney and Giuliani steady at 3:1.
Huckabee from 7:1 to 5:1.
McCain steady at 6:1.
Thompson from 9:1 to 11:1.
Gingrigh from 13:1 to 25:1.
Ron Paul at 18:1.

Pres Odds Update

2007-11-09T12:19:00.000-05:00

Republicans:
I'm flip-flopping Thompson and Huckabee. Huckabee's on the up, Thompson's going down fast.

I still think this race is a toss-up between Romney and Giuliani, leaning slightly to Romney.

Democrats:
I'll tip Richardson slightly ahead of Gore (if he's not joining this month, he's never), but this is still Hillary's to lose. She could do just that, but it will take a Dean-like meltdown in Iowa.

Iraq GI Bill

2007-11-09T12:02:00.000-05:00

A lot of the Iraq war related conversations I've been having with people lately have been in regards to the long-term effects on society, such as the large amount of veterans (many of them physically and psychologically wounded) we will have to help for decades to come. We've seen how tough a time many Vietnam vets had re-establishing a regular life. It's going to be in some ways a harder challenge for Iraq vets, many of whom survive with injuries that in past wars they would have died from.

So I totally agree with Senators Webb and Hagel that we need a new GI Bill for Iraq war vets.

Many of the "vets" are going to be in their 20s, reeling from a pyschologically difficult war that many of us never supported - that is tough on the soldiers. We need to help them establish their lives, after taking them out of the regular career track in arguably their most important and formative career-development years. Send them to college, help them find jobs... it's all going to be important.

Where is President Bush on this? He thinks it's more supportive to troops to not criticize the war than to give them aid at having productive lives? Give me a break.

Fred Thompson worse than George W. Bush?

2007-10-04T14:15:00.000-04:00

Hard to imagine, I know, but I think it's possible that Fred Thompson would be an even worse president than George Bush.

Lucky for us, his candidacy was dead on arrival as this NYTimes piece shows.

Abuse in Burma

2007-10-03T09:46:00.000-04:00

This the kind of stuff is extremely troubling. Don't we have peacekeepers we can send in? Oh, right.

Yangon residents say helicopters fly over the city throughout the night as military trucks patrol the streets with loudspeakers broadcasting intimidating messages.

Shari Villarosa, the highest ranking U.S. diplomat in Myanmar, said the message, broadcast in Burmese, was roughly this: “We have your pictures. We’re going to come and get you.”

Tom Freidman gets it right

2007-09-30T13:38:00.000-04:00

Read his latest: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/opinion/30friedman.html?em&ex=1191297600&en=9b57e4776ffd004f&ei=5087%0A

We can’t afford to keep being this stupid! We have got to get our groove back. We need a president who will unite us around a common purpose, not a common enemy. Al Qaeda is about 9/11. We are about 9/12, we are about the Fourth of July — which is why I hope that anyone who runs on the 9/11 platform gets trounced.

My favorite charity right now

2007-09-24T16:27:00.000-04:00

is Keep a Child Alive. They run facilities and programs in Africa focused on caring for HIV/AIDS-inflicted children, many of them orphans. Consider becoming a monthly donor.

www.keepachildalive.org

Updated Presidential Odds!

2007-09-06T13:59:00.001-04:00

Now that Fred Thompson's in the race (prediction: anyone remember what happened to Wes Clark?), it looks like the field is set for the moment (prediction: Gingrich will run, Gore will not, Bloomberg will not, Hagel will probably run as an independent), so it's time (overdue) to update the odds.

My current prediction: Clinton/Obama defeats Romney/Graham.

Here goes:
Democrats
Hillary Clinton. Up from 3:1 to 3:2. She's the odd's on favorite following a summer in which Obama didn't gain enough traction in the polls.
Barack Obama. Down from 3:1 to 7:2. Despite amazing fundraising, he hasn't done what many experts were projecting, namely turn the corner in the opinion polls. Needs something substantial to happen.
John Edwards. Up from 5:1 to 4:1. His lead in Iowa, plus lots of Union endorsements, plus the fact that a woman or black man have never been nominated, helps move him up a bit.
Al Gore. Down from 8:1 to 10:1. I really think he's too happy to run.
Bill Richardson. Down from 12:1 to 15:1. Unimpressive.
Wes Clark. Removed from the list.
Chris Dodd: Up from 22:1 to 20:1. He's a legitimate guy... too bad no one takes him seriously.
Joe Biden: Steady at 25:1. Don't see how.
Dennis Kucinich: Down from 30:1 to 50:1. I like the guy.

Republicans
Mitt Romney. Up from 7:2 to 3:1. Still hard to predict how it will go for this guy. If Presbyterian or Methodist, he's the outright frontrunner.
Rudy Giuliani. Up from 4:1 to 3:1. He hasn't crashed and burned, but boy would he be a terrible president. I think voters may realize it, but not yet.
Fred Thompson. Steady at 6:1. I think he's a hack who's gotten this far because he hasn't been in the race. Now he's going to be exposed for the lightweight he is. This is an issues election more than a personality election.
John McCain. Down from 5:1 to 6:1. Campaign isn't going anywhere, but he could resurrect it because people trust him.
Mike Huckabee. Up from 15:1 to 10:1. I think he'll get some conservative endorsements that will help him.
Newt Gingrich. Down from 11:1 to 13:1. I still think he'll enter, but probably too late. Ideal time is this month.
Sam Brownback. Down from 14:1 to 15:1. Nowhere.
Chuck Hagel. Down from 17:1 to 40:1. Not likely to enter the GOP race.
Removing Condi Rice, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, and Tommy Thompson.

Soldiers on the war

2007-08-21T13:14:00.000-04:00

These are the pieces about the war I value most - those written by soldiers. They always just seems so much more relevant than any other war stories in newspapers or magazines.

And I think this is a good one, not only because I agree with it, but it's also very thoughtful and well-written.

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.

Still out there, kind readers?

2007-07-10T14:45:00.003-04:00

I'm still suffering from a deficit of time to devote to The Jaker, but this story, and particularly one quote, are too good to pass up.

This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible. Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling. Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there -- with God and them.

- David Vitter, Republican senator from Louisiana

So nice of God to let him know he forgave him. I can just picture it... "God... I'm sorry. If you forgive me, please do not send a lightning bolt through me right now." [Pause] "Phew."

Here's the story

Noooooooooooooo!

2007-06-05T20:50:00.001-04:00

Americans have "a tax system that literally steps on their head".
- Gov. Mike Huckabee

Bush's Iraq will be a decade long threat to the world

2007-05-28T12:04:00.001-04:00

It seems increasingly clear to me, especially after reading this article, that the main accomplishment we will remember of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld is the establishment of an anarchic home base for worldwide terror that will last for probably a decade or more.

We've given them a most comfortable home. There's no stable government with policing power, and was certainly never a chance for a stable DEMOCRATIC government. So now we are left with having given them a haven, whether we stay there or not - but probably more so if not - to export destruction.

And so I am increasingly in awe of the people who are willing to accept Bush's mistake and agree to put themselves in danger over there so we aren't in more danger over here. It's amazing when you think about it. We've now had more killed in Iraq than on 9/11, and many of them volunteered to be at risk. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld should live the rest of their lives praying for the forgiveness of these volunteers' families.

Ron Paul

2007-05-26T10:25:00.001-04:00

Okay everyone, I will accede to your request and add Ron Paul to the rankings. The unfortunate fact about American politics is that people with thoughtful, nuanced opinions on the state of America's position in the world don't have a forum to lay them out comprehensively. So Ron Paul is given 90 seconds in a debate and comes off as a whacko, and Giuliani gets a home-run soundbite that the base eats up (despite the fact that Paul's point was totally legitimate).

So I'll add Ron Paul to the odds with a 36:1 position, while wishing we had a process in which someone like him could be much much higher.

Our political system sucks.

Presidential Odds Update!

2007-05-17T10:28:00.000-04:00

I haven't updated my odds in forever, and my opinion has changed significantly over the last month or two. Here's my updated odds:

Democrats
Hillary Clinton 3:1. I still think she's the frontrunner, as long as articles like the recent Joe Klein in TIME (summary: Hillary's the most capable candidate, especially when it comes to foreign/military policy).
Barack Obama 3:1.. Has the momentum slowed just a tad? Obama needs to come out with some innovative plans soon to back up the hype that he's going to lead us in a new direction.
John Edwards 5:1 . I continue to love the role Edwards is playing in this race - focusing on global warming, healthcare, widening income disparities... all in a very frank manner. Unfortunately his time at Fortress isn't helping his credibility, and he remains something of a lightweight.
Al Gore 8:1 . I rate the likelihood of Gore entering lower today than I did a few months ago, hence I'm dropping him from 7:1 to 8:1. Nothing the other three have done have led to a mass draft Gore movement.
Bill Richardson 12:1 Despite the qualifications, he is not good on the stump, and he's playing too many games. He's not the right guy for the moment. Dropping from 9:1 to 12:1
Wes Clark 20:1 This isn't happening. 18:1 to 20:1
Chris Dodd 22:1 From 30:1 to 22:1. The theory: he may get credit 6 months from now for being the first candidate to support a carbon tax, which is a very sensible policy that I think a mass movement might get behind very soon.
Joe Biden 25:1 Not going anywhere.
Dennis Kucinich 30:1

Republicans
Mitt Romney 7:2 Moving Mitt up from 4:1 to 7:2. He's doing well in debates, and is raising tons. I still think the Mormon thing is a problem - see Jacob Weissberg's article about how he thinks it's a legitimate question when a candidate follows a religion instituted by a "fraud".
Rudy Giuliani 4:1 My view has changed most stronly on Giuliani. I'm moving him from 7:1 to 4:1. He's is kicking ass in debates, and may just be able to pull off the amazing feat of convincing enough Republicans that abortion isn't the most important issue facing the U.S. He still faces other problems related to personality, but he's very tactical.
John McCain 5:1 I'm dropping McCain from 4:1 to 5:1. I feel like he's floundering. I'm not sure how he resurrects it. Only if the mormon issue and abortion issues become the main thing people care about.
Fred Thompson 6:1. I don't think this goes far. I think he's the Wes Clark of 2008. But I may be wrong.
Newt Gingrich 11:1
Sam Brownback 14:1
Mike Huckabee 15:1. Doesn't believe in evolution? I don't think that helps, even in the Republican primary.
Chuck Hagel 17:1 . More likely as independent, but who knows.
Condoleezza Rice 25:1
Tommy Thompson 35:1
Duncan Hunter 100:1

Watch Charlie Crist

2007-05-11T11:33:00.000-04:00

The new governor of Florida is blazing a Schwarzennegger-like trail through populist issues. Schwarzenneger can never be President, but I wouldn't be surprised if Charlie Crist is some day.

Sorry!

2007-04-30T14:54:00.000-04:00

If you're still reading, you either have a blog reader (good for you), or you're hardcore and I should buy you a beer. Thanks! I apologize for the 6 week hiatus (by far the longest since I started this blog 2.5 years ago). I've been extremely busy at work. I'll try to update 2-3 times a week going forward.

Lots I want to write about, including the Presidential race, what Virginia Tech tells us about the problems of American culture, the triple-threat global energy problem (about which Tom Freidman is writing very articulately lately), etc.

For now, I'll just start with a repost of Nicholas Kristof's Sunday op/ed, which depresses me even further about the administration we've elected 1.5 times to run the country.

April 29, 2007
Diplomacy at Its Worst
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

In May 2003, Iran sent a secret proposal to the U.S. for settling our mutual disputes in a “grand bargain.”

It is an astonishing document, for it tries to address a range of U.S. concerns about nuclear weapons, terrorism and Iraq. I’ve placed it and related documents (including multiple drafts of it) on my blog, www.nytimes.com/ontheground.

Hard-liners in the Bush administration killed discussions of a deal, and interviews with key players suggest that was an appalling mistake. There was a real hope for peace; now there is a real danger of war.

Scattered reports of the Iranian proposal have emerged previously, but if you read the full documentary record you’ll see that what the hard-liners killed wasn’t just one faxed Iranian proposal but an entire peace process. The record indicates that officials from the repressive, duplicitous government of Iran pursued peace more energetically and diplomatically than senior Bush administration officials — which makes me ache for my country.

The process began with Afghanistan in 2001-2. Iran and the U.S., both opponents of the Taliban, cooperated closely in stabilizing Afghanistan and providing aid, and unofficial “track two” processes grew to explore opportunities for improved relations.

On the U.S. side, track two involved well-connected former U.S. ambassadors, including Thomas Pickering, Frank Wisner and Nicholas Platt. The Iranian ambassador to the U.N., Javad Zarif, was a central player, as was an Iranian-American professor at Rutgers, Hooshang Amirahmadi, who heads a friendship group called the American Iranian Council.

At a dinner the council sponsored for its board at Ambassador Zarif’s home in September 2002, the group met Iran’s foreign minister, Kamal Kharrazi. According to the notes of Professor Amirahmadi, the foreign minister told the group, “Yes, we are ready to normalize relations,” provided the U.S. made the first move.

This was shaping into a historic opportunity to heal U.S.-Iranian relations, and the track two participants discussed further steps, including joint U.S.-Iranian cooperation against Saddam Hussein. The State Department and National Security Council were fully briefed, and in 2003 Ambassador Zarif met with two U.S. officials, Ryan Crocker and Zalmay Khalilzad, in a series of meetings in Paris and Geneva.

Encouraged, Iran transmitted its “grand bargain” proposals to the U.S. One version was apparently a paraphrase by the Swiss ambassador in Tehran; that was published this year in The Washington Post.

But Iran also sent its own master text of the proposal to the State Department and, through an intermediary, to the White House. I’ve also posted that document, which Iran regards as the definitive one.

In the master document, Iran talks about ensuring “full transparency” and other measures to assure the U.S. that it will not develop nuclear weapons. Iran offers “active Iranian support for Iraqi stabilization.” Iran also contemplates an end to “any material support to Palestinian opposition groups” while pressuring Hamas “to stop violent actions against civilians within” Israel (though not the occupied territories). Iran would support the transition of Hezbollah to be a “mere political organization within Lebanon” and endorse the Saudi initiative calling for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Iran also demanded a lot, including “mutual respect,” abolition of sanctions, access to peaceful nuclear technology and a U.S. statement that Iran did not belong in the “axis of evil.” Many crucial issues, including verification of Iran’s nuclear program, needed to be hammered out. It’s not clear to me that a grand bargain was reachable, but it was definitely worth pursuing — and still is today.

Instead, Bush administration hard-liners aborted the process. Another round of talks had been scheduled for Geneva, and Ambassador Zarif showed up — but not the U.S. side. That undermined Iranian moderates.

A U.S.-Iranian rapprochement could have saved lives in Iraq, isolated Palestinian terrorists and encouraged civil society groups in Iran. But instead the U.S. hard-liners chose to hammer plowshares into swords.

An example of why I don't really like Hillary

2007-03-14T18:46:00.000-04:00

She was unwilling today to say that she disagreed with the statement (of Gen. Pace) that homosexuality is immoral.

"General Pace has clarified his remarks, but let's not lose sight of the fact that 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell' is not working," she said. "We are being deprived of thousands of patriotic men and women who want to serve their country who are bringing skills into the armed services that we desparately need, like translation skills. And one can argue whether it was a good idea when it was first implemented, but we know have evidence as to the fact that we are in a time of war -- when we really need as many people as we can to recruit and retain in an all-volunteer army -- we are turning people away or discharging them not because of what they've done but because of who they are."

But is it immoral?

"Well I'm going to leave that to others to conclude," she said. "I'm very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want make sure they can."

More upside for Bloomberg over Giuliani?

2007-03-14T12:07:00.000-04:00

From Political Wire:

In New York City, a new Quinnipiac poll shows Mayor Michael Bloomberg with a near record 73% approval rating.

Key finding: By a 46% to 16% margin, New Yorkers say that Bloomberg is a better mayor than his predecessor, Rudy Giuliani, with 34% who say both are the same. And by 46% to 31%, they feel Bloomberg would make a better president.

Hagel postpones, and I think I know why

2007-03-12T14:02:00.000-04:00

Chuck Hagel announced today that he is postponing a decision on whether to run for the Republican presidential nomination. He cited wanting to focus on his efforts in the Senate.

I think the real reason is because he wants to see how the race shapes up for a potential 3rd party candidate, and whether anyone else (Bloomberg) gains traction for that spot. The Unite '08 movement that I've written about a lot will field a candidate, and I think today's decision sets Hagel up nicely to potentially be that person.

In other news, Fred Thompson (of Law & Order, and, I guess, the senate) looks like he might step into the race. My opinion of the Repulican side is that it's wide open for a new traditional conservative entrant - be that Newt Gingrich (who recently admitted an affair), Mark Sanford (who carries pigs to the SC statehouse), or someone like Thompson. Brownback and Huckabee haven't seemed to catch on with that crowd.

And another from Slate

2007-03-08T15:08:00.000-05:00

I really liked this piece by Timothy Noah: Would You Privatize Defense?.

Talks about what the military would be like if it was run like our health system is today.

Again, more fun than instructive.

Edwards's DVD

2007-03-08T15:05:00.000-05:00

Check this out from John Dickerson, regarding John Edwards's DVD that he sent to Iowa. The campaign cut some lines together about healthcare, when he was really talking about Iraq. It's interesting. Not particularly egregious.

http://www.slate.com/id/2161381/fr/rss/

I like the role Edwards has in this race - honest, present good plans, etc. But I'll likely vote for someone else.

Hagel interested in Unity '08

2007-02-26T10:39:00.000-05:00

He really is emerging as the most likely 3rd party candidate.

From Political Wire:

"He said that if he ran he would seek the Republican nomination. Yet he's also talking up Unity08. That's a plan by a bipartisan group of political operatives to draft a bipartisan presidential ticket on the Internet and offer voters an alternative to the Democratic and Republican candidates next year."

I discussed the possible Unity '08 candidates here previously.

Visack is out... what does it mean?

2007-02-23T15:00:00.000-05:00

This was very quick. Vilsack was a candidate for less than 3 months. That's all it took for him to realize he couldn't raise enough money.

Obviously this means the heavyweights - Clinton, Obama, and less-so Edwards - are getting all the attention, and the $. It can't be a good sign for someone like Bill Richardson... he must be facing the same challenging environment (though undoubtedly he's got more going for him than Vilsack). Same goes for Joe Biden and Chris Dodd (however they do not have much going for them).

This could be a 3 or 4 person race sooner than we expected.

Bush's Buddies

2007-02-21T00:28:00.000-05:00

This article in the NYTimes disturbs me. The basic point is that a bunch of people who have known George W. Bush for decades are in very important jobs today.

One of the major shortcomings of Bush is that he places way too much emphasis on loyalty, and not enough on competence. Some of these people even admit in the article that their positions are based on "loyalty and friendship". So Bush's former personal assistant is Assistant Secretary of Commerce. A high school buddy heads the OMB. And his former personal attorney gets nominated for the Supreme Court!

While not great, this fact alone wouldn't get me up in arms. But combine that with Bush's demonstrated lack of ability to choose capable Republican establishment types for the other positions (I'm thinking super-hawk Dick Cheney, uber-incompetent Don Rumsfeld, even questionable-diplomat Condi Rice) and you've got a recipe for a disastrous administration.

Here's the list of high-level people in Bush II that I think are competent:
Josh Bolten
Hank Paulsen

And both of those have been in their positions less than a year.

Congratulations to the Bush administration

2007-02-13T12:32:00.000-05:00

Yes, you read that headline correctly. I think they finally got one right. The treaty negotiated with North Korea is a winner. Economic aid for a truly impoverished country in return for shutting down their nuclear weapons program. Next step is to improve the humanitarian crisis in that country, and I hope the administration will pursue that in its bilateral talks.

I don't think (as John Bolton does) that this precedent is bad at all. In fact, this is a clear sign to Iran... this is what the carrot looks like, and you've seen the stick up-close.

I hope the administration gives them every possible chance to choose the carrot.

My current thinking

2007-02-08T16:22:00.000-05:00

I'm still trying to figure out who to support for President. My personal current ranking is as follows, but is still subject to some change:

Gore -> just seems to me to be the right combination for this time.
Obama -> he's definitely smart enough.
Clinton -> i think she'd be a good President, but there are unignorable likeability issues.
Richardson -> like his experience, but how could he possibly beat all 4 of these others?
Edwards -> i actually was very impressed by his Meet the Press appearance. he's definitely decided to be straightforward and honest ("yes that means new taxes") this time around, which i admire.

Richardson's Foreign Policy Platform

2007-02-08T16:20:00.000-05:00

in its early stages (per the NYTimes). i agree with much of this.

Today, before an audience at the Center of International and Strategic Studies in Washington, Mr. Richardson outlined his seven-point plan for foreign policy, which was heavily grounded in diplomacy and the exercise of soft power.
“We must work with our friends, our enemies and everyone in between,” he said.
Here’s the plan:

1. “…repair our alliances.”

2. “…renew our commitment to international law and multilateral cooperation.”
This includes U.N. reform, debt relief, and joining the International Criminal Court, he said.

3. “… reduce greenhouse gas emissions”
Mr. Richardson called for a “man on the moon effort” to improve fuel efficiency.

4. “We need to stop treating diplomatic engagement like a reward for good behavior.”
He criticized the Bush administration’s tactic of refusing to engage with some countries until they make major concessions, and he called for talks with North Korea and Iran.

5. “…focus on the real security threats…”
Those ‘real threats’ include global terrorism and the nuclear arms trade.
“If we want Muslims to open up to us then we need to close down Guantanamo,” he said.

6. Pay more attention to the Americas
The son of a Mexican immigrant who grew up in Mexico City called for comprehensive immigration legislation and for a doubling of the border patrol instead of a fence on the Mexican border.

7. “America needs to lead the global fight against poverty.”

Much overdue odds update

2007-02-01T11:42:00.000-05:00

Democrats
Hillary Clinton 3:1
Barack Obama 3:1
John Edwards 5:1. Moving him up slightly, from 6 to 5, since he polls well in Iowa. Personally, I don't favor JE this time around, but he'll stick around for awhile.
Al Gore 7:1
Bill Richardson 9:1
John Kerry 14:1
Wes Clark 14:1
Joe Biden 18:1. Dropping him from 16 to 18 because of his Obama comment.
Tom Vilsack 18:1
Chris Dodd 20:1

Also, as of today I'm removing the following candidates, who haven't made any move toward running since I added them a couple years ago. Sayonara Bill, Brian, Bill, Howard, and Janet... see you in 2012 (or hopefully 2016).
Bill Bradley 48:1
Brian Schweitzer 60:1
Bill Nelson 65:1
Howard Dean 85:1
Janet Napolitano 100:1

Republicans
John McCain 4:1. Dropping from 3 to 4. See comment below.
Mitt Romney 5:1. Moving Romney up from 6 to 5. A lot of the smart, well-connected NYC and DC GOP'ers I know are joining Romney's camp. They'll try to position him as the best balance of conservative values, stability, and electability.
Rudy Giuliani 8:1. I'm still not a believer.
Newt Gingrich 11:1
Sam Brownback 14:1. Upping from 17 to 14. Announced.
Mike Huckabee 14:1. Upping from 20 to 14. Announced.
Chuck Hagel 17:1
Condoleezza Rice 25:1. Dropping to 25. She's not going to run.
Tommy Thompson 35:1. Dropping from 30 to 35.
George Pataki 40:1. Lowering from 20 to 40. Probably not running.
Jeb Bush 50:1. Dropping from 24 to 50. Probably not running
Duncan Hunter 100:1

I'm removing the following:
Mark Sanford 30:1
George Allen 30:1
Colin Powell 35:1
Tom Ridge 35:1
Frank Keating 36:1
Bill Owens 40:1
Haley Barbour 40:1
Dick Cheney 125:1
Christie Todd Whitman 150:1

Independent Candidates in 2008?

2007-01-26T11:30:00.000-05:00

For awhile now I've had a fairly strong and growing belief that a 3rd party candidate will make a big difference in the Presidential Race of 2008. Not Ralph Nader scale... something closer to Ross Perot scale (10-20% of the popular vote).

And I think it's mostly because the core of the Republican Party seems to be substantially farther to the right than the mainstream public. Much farther right of center than the Democratic Party is left of center.

So I think it's likely that the 3rd party candidate will be a Republican in name who's frustrated with how far right his party is.

I'm thinking of starting a new category in my odds on the right. In advance of doing that, here's who I view as most likely at the moment:

Rudy Giuliani
Chuck Hagel
Michael Bloomberg
John McCain
Joe Lieberman

One main reason I think this is possible: http://www.unity08.com/. One of the biggest challenges for 3rd party candidates is ballot access. This group aims to get ballot access in all 50 states before they have a nominee, and then choose who they will give their ballot line to after the Dems and GOP have chosen their nominees.

A word about ads

2007-01-25T12:45:00.000-05:00

I don't choose the ads that run on my site. I don't have any influence whatsoever. Google administers them. So a McCain (or Hillary or anyone for that matter) ad that runs on The Jaker should not be seen as an indication of any kind of support.

Whites like Obama more than Blacks do

2007-01-25T12:43:00.000-05:00

Check this out from the Washington Post.

Black Democrats prefer Clinton 3 to 1 over Obama, and four out of five of black Democrats view her favorably, much higher than the 54 percent who have a favorable view of Obama, according to combined findings from two Washington Post-ABC polls taken in December and January.

Is this just a familiarity thing, or will this stand up?

What should I have said?

2007-01-17T22:50:00.000-05:00

I'm in DC for business, and earlier this evening I walked past Ken Mehlman, who was waiting outside my hotel (there's some kind of RNC conference going on here, and I guess KM is passing the torch to Mel Martinez). He was all alone, so I could have struck up a convo, but I couldn't immediately think of a sensible topic for us that would result in me being honest without resorting to insulting... because I think Mehlman specifically epitomizes the Republican "I'm right and you're wrong and you're just not enlightened enough to know it" attitude that I loathe. Any time I saw him talking on TV I wound up yelling at the screen.

I should have asked who he likes for '08 on the GOP side.

How's the view from the top, Barack?

2007-01-17T22:37:00.000-05:00

I've said it a number of times before, and today I make do. Barack Obama is in the race, so I'm making him co-favorite with Hillary Clinton. A bunch of people might think this is too much buying into the early-race hype. That's a legitimate argument. But I actually think Obama is the real deal. An editor of the Harvard Law Review, with a demonstrated ability to frame issues in new ways and drive public consensus - one of the largest challenges of slow-moving democracies - is a very plausible Presidential candidate.

So today Obama jumps up to 3:1, and I drop Hillary down to 3:1 to match. Next up - an announcement by Bill Richardson will move him up my odds, probably ahead of Al Gore. To me, those are the three contenders (I'm not an Edwards fan this time around) - Clinton, Obama, Richardson.

Does a governor have the most 2008 foreign policy experience?

2007-01-11T09:59:00.000-05:00

The answer is yes. The (potential) candidate with the most foreign policy experience, on either side, in my opinion, is Bill Richardson.

The latest: Richardson has brokered a temporary truce in Darfur. Read the NYTimes article.

Richardson also has govt contacts in North Korea. This guy is good.

Atteahks in Baghdeahd?

2007-01-11T00:13:00.000-05:00

Did anyone else watching Bush's address tonight think that he had changed accents all of a sudden? I kept hearing a serious Minnesota / North Dakota thing going on.

ps. My confidence is low, but for all our sakes, US and Iraqi, let's hope the surge works.

Don't dis Democracy Bonds

2007-01-08T20:02:00.000-05:00

SmartMoney.com has an article criticizing Democracy Bonds, a recurring-donation program of the DNC (to which I am a subscriber, or "bondholder"). Jonathan Hoenig calls this program decieving, because the "bond" doesn't actually return your principal at the end of some period like a normal bond investment.

To that I say: has anyone actually be decieved into thinking that this is an investment, not a donation? I would argue no, and challenge Hoenig to produce such a person. His article doesn't mention anyone. I would imagine (or hope) he tried to find one but couldn't.

I think Democracy Bonds is a great program. It's hard to stomach making a $100 donation all at once, but I'm absolutely willing to give them $10 out of my salary every month to help them build the infrastructure to keep Democrats in government. And I encourage everyone else to do so too.

Personal Note: posting will remain intermittent. I'm quite busy.

Line item veto

2007-01-03T18:48:00.000-05:00

I'll kick off 2006 by linking to the op/ed in today's WSJ (free link) credited to George W. Bush (we can't think he really wrote it, can we?).

My favorite line is when Bush helpfully informs us of the "fact" that tax cuts have fueled robust economic growth. Thanks George. Without you, I'd never be able to know what is and isn't fact.

We hung Saddam: Don't we all feel great?

2006-12-30T09:45:00.000-05:00

I challenge anyone who believes in capital punishment to explain to me why the execution of Saddam Hussein is morally correct or helpful to the country.

And I don't buy the argument that we get to "move on" now. End the trials and stick him in a jail where he'll never be on television again, and you can move on equally well.

What a modern society we do live in, where we punish the murderer by murdering him.

We're in societal kindergarten.

2006-12-28T17:22:00.000-05:00

First: Happy Holidays everyone.

As you can see two posts below, I was skeptical about John Edwards's choice for announcement venue. I didn't like the backward, rub-it-in-their-face again attitude it seemed to possess.

After reading the platform and seeing the coverage, I'm softening to it a little bit... the fact that Edwards is going back to his Two Americas theme makes New Orleans a somewhat sensible choice. And the style was appropriate - we've all got to pitch in and help, like me in my jeans and workshirt - rather than an out of touch politician who think everything can be solved from Washington.

So I still like John Edwards, and I'm glad he's in the race. I'm not sure he'd be the best President, though, so I remain more likely to support Hillary, Gore, Obama or Richardson.

ps. Even writing that last sentence makes me extremely confident that we have a much better menu of choices for Pres and VP than do the Republicans.

Dems take the lead in 2008

2006-12-20T15:21:00.000-05:00

Interesting results in the latest CNN poll of potential 2008 matchups. Gore and Clinton basically match up evenly with McCain, whereas a few months ago both would have been trailing by 10 or so points. Obama is still slightly too unknown for his numbers to matter much.

Key matchups:
Clinton 47%, McCain 47%
Clinton 48%, Giuliani 46%
Clinton 57%, Romney 34%
McCain 47%, Obama 43%
Giuliani 49%, Obama 42%
Obama 51%, Romney 35%
Gore 47%, McCain 46%
Gore 46%, Giuliani 46%
Gore 53%, Romney 37%

Also notable that 52% of respondents said they would definitely/leaning vote Democratic, versus 32% who said the same for Republican.

Edwards to Announce in New Orleans, as I Roll My Eyes

2006-12-18T11:26:00.000-05:00

Political Wire says that John Edwards will announce his Presidential run in the next few weeks, "from the New Orleans neighborhood hit hardest by Hurricane Katrina".

I like John Edwards a lot. I campaigned a bit (one day) for him in 2004 when it came down to him or Kerry (I was for Dean until Iowa).

But the fact that he is announcing from New Orleans basically typifies the problems I have with Edwards as a politician. To me, he's just too much of an opportunist... too calculated. Edwards is not from New Orleans, or even Louisiana. Okay, he's Southern, and I guess that's the point of distinction he's trying to make. But I just hate the backward focus of this move.

Obama says he wants to get away from this bullshit, and to me, that's way more exciting than one more politician noting that Republicans screwed up New Orleans and we should continue to make them pay for it.

Our President: The Punk Kid

2006-12-18T10:51:00.000-05:00

This is funny (from Daily Kos)

And what's that in our President's hand during the family Christmas card photo?

This is starting to get weird

2006-12-17T00:03:00.000-05:00

First Warner. Then Feingold. Then First. Now Bayh.

I am increasingly surprised by the continuous stream of legitimate second-tier Presidential candidates (remember Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Howard Dean) who have decided not to run.

What's going on?

Is the stress too much? Is the media cycle too instense? The press too scrutinizing?

Anyway, in terms of odds, Bayh's departure helps Richardson a bit, and Vilsack a bit (one ex-Gov leaves the race), but doesn't change a whole lot.

Obama worried about safety

2006-12-15T10:24:00.000-05:00

The Chicago Sun-Times provides a little glimpse into Obama's decision-making process. His wife is apparently very worried about Barack's safety.

Indeed, someone (I think it was TIME's Joe Klein) made the parallel earlier this year between Bobby Kennedy and Obama... the way the crowds felt/feel palpably different about each of them, the way expectations are so high that they could unite the country in a difficult time.

I speculated earlier that the main reason Obama might not run is family (though admittedly the time commitment was more on my mind than the safety issue). I think this actually has a legitimate chance of convincing him not to run. He could spent a year in a half in the Senate, and then have an excellent chance at the VP spot on the ticket.

In other 2008 news, Bill Richardson continues to burnish his (very real, and very beneficial) foreign policy credentials, meeting next week with North Korean officials in Beijing, at their request. Hope the good people of New Mexico don't mind lending their gov to a little world-fixin'.

Kucinich is Running... Again

2006-12-11T18:45:00.000-05:00

From Cleveland:

Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio says he plans to seek the presidency again.

Because his entrance annoys me, I'm not even going to put him into the odds. The Republicans probably will convince Tom Tancredo, their nut-job, not to run (see this earlier post, or at least find a way to keep him out of debates. Likewise, the same should happen with Kucinich, who mostly wastes time talking about the Department of the Peace.

As I did with Tancredo, I'm not putting Kucinich in the odds. The Presidency should work like the Hall of Fame... below 15% (let's make it 4%) and you can't run again.

For now, Obama seems to be in this

2006-12-08T10:56:00.000-05:00

I have speculated previously that if Obama doesn't run, it will probably be for family reasons (his wife doesn't seem to be into it, and he has two young daughters).

But lately he really seems to be taking this seriously - meeting top New York donors like George Soros, traveling to New Hampshire to meet the right folks - all the moves you'd expect of someone not just determining whether he wants to do it personally, but someone who really wants to see if he has a serious shot. Which he does.

Today I'd put the probability of him running at something like 55%, whereas a month ago I would have said 40%. Given that, I'm bumping up his odds from 5:1 to 4:1. If he declares, he'd probably be co-favs with Hill.

Kos's take on 2008 Democrats

2006-12-08T10:51:00.000-05:00

He puts them in this order:
Barack Obama
John Edwards
Hillary Clinton

Wes Clark

Bill Richardson
John Kerry

Evan Bayh
Joe Biden
Tom Vilsack
Chris Dodd
Mike Gravel

I like the analysis. I think he's overrating Wes Clark, as he and Jerome Armstrong did in 2004, and underrating Hillary's skill as a politician.

Read the article.

My Contrarian Plan for Iraq

2006-12-06T12:21:00.000-05:00

Conventional wisdom, or at least the mainstream view in the Senate, is that we need to withdraw our troops from Iraq in phases at some point in the near future, without giving an explicit timetable for that withdrawl.

I think we should do almost the exact opposite.

I think we should set a timetable, or at least announce our intention to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq to meet approximate percentage milestones at approximate dates, but then not actually do it. Or let those deadlines slip a little; not quite meet them as quickly as we'd like. And leave substanital numbers of our troops there for awhile.

The conventional view is that we need to withdraw, but save face. I think we need to purposefully lose face, but not withdraw.

Why do I think this? We have totally screwed up Iraq, and we can't just leave the country to demolish itself and its innocent citizens. That's not a novel view. Even more worrying to me, however, is that rather than establish a democracy in Iraq that will over time spread the ideals of democracy throughout the Middle East, I think we've done the opposite - set up a situation in which Saudi-backed Sunnis are ferociously fighting Iran-backed Shi'ites, with the potential to create an enormous Middle East war between extremely dangerous countries.

We can't just pull out. For a good argument why not, read Bobby Ghosh's latest TIME commentary (Ghosh has been reporting candidly from Iraq for >3 years) [click for full post].

But what I want to see is what happens when we announce our intention to leave. How will citizens react? How will the Iraqi government react? How will Iran and Saudi Arabia react? I don't think we can pull all our troops home without those data points, because if we do, and things go badly, I think we'll feel the need to go back.

On another note, I think it's fascinating what we're saying to military members and family members today the more we continue with George Bush's strategy... which has led to 3,000 soldier deaths. We're basically saying some U.S. citizens will die from terrorism. Better that we volunteer servicepeople, who have already accepted some level of mortal risk in their lives, to die away from home, than allow the uncertainty of something happening to unsuspecting citizens in the U.S.

What We Would Leave Behind
If the U.S. goes, the Iraqis won't stop shooting. They'll still have each other
By APARISIM GHOSH

What would happen to Iraq if Washington follows the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group? The group's underlying assumption is that Iraqi forces will be ready to take over from the U.S. military by early 2008. To test that thesis, it is instructive to look at parts of southern Iraq from which coalition forces have already been withdrawn. There Shi'ite militias backed by Iran have taken control, intimidating government forces into submission and terrorizing Sunnis. On several occasions Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shi'ite, has had to plead with radical Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to restrain his fighters from killing soldiers and police--with limited results.

If the Iraqi government can't stop sectarian killing today when it is able to call on the world's most powerful military, it can hardly be expected to do so once the Americans have left. The more likely outcome is an escalation of the civil war, with elements of the security forces taking sides. The Shi'ite militias will enjoy numerical superiority and the continued surreptitious backing of Shi'ite Iran. But what the Sunni insurgents lack in numbers, they make up for in greater killing experience. Their suicide bombers, fighters and improvised explosive devices are responsible for the overwhelming majority of the 2,800-plus U.S. deaths in Iraq. And the Sunnis have friends. The U.S. has long accused Syria of harboring both Iraqi Baathists and jihadis of various nationalities who infiltrate Iraq to make mischief. And Iraqi officials routinely claim that the insurgency receives money and men from extremist organizations in neighboring Sunni-majority countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan.

Those countries can't afford to be seen as openly supporting groups responsible for killing Americans. But if the Americans depart, the dynamic changes. Nawaf Obaid, a security adviser to the government of Saudi Arabia, warned last week that if the U.S. withdraws from Iraq, Riyadh will intervene to protect the Sunnis from the Shi'ites. In an Op-Ed in the Washington Post, he said the Saudis would probably supply the Sunni insurgency with money, arms and logistical support. Quiet intervention is always an option: Iraq's porous borders are ideal for smuggling cash, weapons and jihadis.

As talk of withdrawal has gathered momentum in recent weeks, some Sunni groups dedicated to fighting U.S. troops have already begun to recalibrate their gunsights. One of the largest Sunni insurgent groups, Islamic Army, dramatically changed course last week and called on its followers to wage a "battle of destiny" against Shi'ites for control of Baghdad. Only a year ago, the studiously nationalistic and nonsectarian group vehemently opposed al-Qaeda leader Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi's call for a holy war against Iraqi Shi'ites.

With the U.S. gone, the intensified fighting would probably be internecine as well as sectarian. Shi'ite militias in the south have shown a propensity to fight one another, as have Sunni groups in the volatile Anbar province. Iraq could look very much like Afghanistan after the 1989 withdrawal of Soviet troops--sectarian or ethnic warlords battling for territory, with the backing of sponsors from neighboring countries. An Afghanistan-style civil war would provide international terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and Hizballah with fertile ground in which to recruit, train and battle-test a new generation of global jihadis.

One set of Iraqis would be targeted by all sides: the tens of thousands who have worked closely with the Americans--as translators, fixers, drivers, cooks, clerks, cleaners and managers. Both Sunni and Shi'ite extremists have repeatedly warned Iraqis that collaborating with the occupiers is punishable by execution, and many have already been killed merely because they were suspected of working with the Americans.

Can America save Iraq from itself? Yes, but it would require giving up the illusion that the Iraqis can fix their own problems. They can't. The Americans created this mess; it's their responsibility to fix it. They'd need 30,000 more coalition soldiers and a real willingness to thrash the Shi'ite militias, something they've avoided so far. Having foolishly dismantled the existing Iraqi army, the U.S. has the duty to create a genuinely proficient new one, instead of rushing recruits through Boy Scout lessons just to satisfy predetermined quotas. It may take five more years. But if the U.S. leaves sooner, Iraq will devolve into an even bigger mess. If the Americans insist on pulling out, they ought to park their hardware nearby, because like it or not, they'll be back.

Yet another change to the odds

2006-12-04T22:19:00.000-05:00

Today I remove Tom Daschle from the Democratic 2008 presidential field... he said he's not running. He was always a long-shot, last seen at 22:1, after losing to Thune in 2004, but did have that red-state Dem thing going for him. His exit doesn't really move anyone else in the race.

Presidential Odds Update

2006-11-30T15:28:00.000-05:00

Democrats
Hillary Clinton 5:2. There is speculation floating around that Hillary isn't doing what she needs to in Iowa, and further speculation that maybe she won't run if Obama gets in. Not sure I believe it - I think she's very driven, and would consider him an ideal VP partner - but I have to reflect it nonetheless. So I'm taking her down from 5:3 to 5:2.
Barack Obama 5:1
John Edwards 6:1.
Al Gore 7:1. Jimmy Carter wants Al to run and would support him.
Evan Bayh 10:1
Bill Richardson 10:1
John Kerry 14:1.
Wes Clark 14:1.
Joe Biden 16:1.
Tom Vilsack 18:1. Did this on Thursday.
Chris Dodd 20:1. He's been talking about it very seriously - it seems like he's running, so I'll take him up from 35:1 to 20:1. But I can't really envision the scenario right now that sees this happen.
Tom Daschle 22:1.
Bill Bradley 48:1
Brian Schweitzer 60:1
Bill Nelson 65:1
Howard Dean 85:1
Janet Napolitano 100:1

Republicans
John McCain 3:1.
Mitt Romney 6:1.
Rudy Giuliani 8:1..
Newt Gingrich 11:1
Condoleezza Rice 16:1.
Chuck Hagel 17:1.
Sam Brownback 17:1.
Mike Huckabee 20:1
George Pataki 22:1
Jeb Bush 24:1
George Allen 30:1
Mark Sanford 30:1
Colin Powell 35:1
Tom Ridge 35:1
Duncan Hunter 38:1.
Bill Owens 40:1
Haley Barbour 40:1
Dick Cheney 125:1
Christie Todd Whitman 150:1

Vilsack is in

2006-11-30T14:01:00.000-05:00

Tom Vilsack became the first Democrat to officially announce his candidacy today (Biden, Daschle, and Richardson have more or less declared, but not officially).

You can read his announcement speech here. It's fine... nothing too exciting.

Vilsack is a long shot. He faces serious challenges in name recognition and financing against the likes of Clinton, Obama, Gore and Edwards. He's even less well known than the other 2nd tier candidates. So his only real chance is to do something creative online and carve out a different message that happens to strike a chord (anyone having a 2004 tingle?).

I'm upping him to 18:1 from 20:1, since he's confirmed. But he's really running for VP, most likely.

My kind of senator

2006-11-29T18:13:00.000-05:00

I have an expanded love for new VA Senator James Webb. From the Washington Post:

At a recent White House reception for freshman members of Congress, Virginia's newest senator tried to avoid President Bush. Democrat James Webb declined to stand in a presidential receiving line or to have his picture taken with the man he had often criticized on the stump this fall. But it wasn't long before Bush found him.

"How's your boy?" Bush asked, referring to Webb's son, a Marine serving in Iraq.

"I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President," Webb responded, echoing a campaign theme.

"That's not what I asked you," Bush said. "How's your boy?"

"That's between me and my boy, Mr. President," Webb said coldly, ending the conversation on the State Floor of the East Wing of the White House.