New Hampshire Predictions: Obama Blowout; Romney Rallying - HUMAN EVENTS: "Democratic
1. The third-place finish in Iowa by Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) had a negative impact in New Hampshire, where she had been slipping against Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) even before her loss in Iowa. It is beginning to look like a double-digit loss for Clinton.
2. She was supposed to come out swinging against Obama in New Hampshire, but her boring, pedantic campaign style had not really changed from Iowa. At one rally where we were present, Clinton never mentioned Obama by name and criticized him only once (on healthcare) as 'one of my opponents.' Former President Bill Clinton, campaigning separately, is sprightlier but no more effective.
3. In contrast, 'Obamamania' reigns supreme -- generating enthusiasm not seen since the 1968 campaign of Robert F. Kennedy. He attracts new voters and generates support across ideological and party lines. In truth, he worries Republicans sick, but for now, he threatens the long, slowly built Clinton campaign.
4. Former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), who dwells on finishing ahead of Clinton in Iowa, looks like the odd man out in New Hampshire, with very little interest in him.
5. Clinton will not drop out after New Hampshire, as has been reported, and she can still stop Obama in the big states. But it will not b"
Here is the beginning of my post. And here is the rest of it.
Republicans for Obama: "RepublicansforObama.org is an organization founded by proud party members who all share one important trait— we are Americans first and Republicans second. (Even if it is a close second.) Collectively, we have campaigned, worked for, and voted Republican all our lives, but recognize that our Country needs a new kind of leader at this time. While there will always be important issues on which thoughtful Americans will disagree, there are others that cannot be up for debate— our economic prosperity and our standing in the world."
from the NATION
COLIN POWELL PRAISES OBAMA ON EVE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY...
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell praised Barack Obama on the eve of the New Hampshire primary, crediting the Illinois Senator for breaking barriers while running as "an American man" who can represent the entire nation. In an interview with PBS host Tavis Smiley, Powell said he was "taking joy" in Obama's rise and he said citizens across the country can "enjoy this moment where a person like Barack Obama can knock down all of these old barriers that people thought existed with respect to the opportunities that are available to African Americans."Powell, the first black person to serve as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, National Security Advisor, and Secretary of State, also firmly rebutted the idea that reporters or voters should assess whether a candidate is white or black "enough."
This argument about him not being black enough, that's just absolute nonsense. He is putting himself forward not as a black man but as an American man who wants to be president of the United States of America. We should see Barack as a candidate for president who happens to be black, and not a black candidate for president.
For more on Powell, Obama and breaking barriers in our "segregated power structure," check out this new Nation essay, Obama, Race and the Presidency.
President Mike Huckabee?
MANCHESTER, N.H.
Thank you, Senator Obama. You’ve defeated Senator Clinton in Iowa. It looks as if you’re about to beat her in New Hampshire. There will be no Clinton Restoration. A nation turns its grateful eyes to you.
But gratitude for sparing us a third Clinton term only goes so far. Who, inquiring minds want to know, is going to spare us a first Obama term? After all, for all his ability and charm, Barack Obama is still a liberal Democrat. Some of us would much prefer a non-liberal and non-Democratic administration. We don’t want to increase the scope of the nanny state, we don’t want to undo the good done by the appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, and we really don’t want to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory in Iraq.
For me, therefore, the most interesting moment in Saturday night’s Republican debate at St. Anselm College was when the candidates were asked what arguments they would make if they found themselves running against Obama in the general election.
The best answer came, not surprisingly, from the best Republican campaigner so far — Mike Huckabee. He began by calmly mentioning his and Obama’s contrasting views on issues from guns to life to same-sex marriage. This served to remind Republicans that these contrasts have been central to G.O.P. success over the last quarter-century, and to suggest that Huckabee could credibly and comfortably make the socially conservative case in an electorally advantageous way.
Huckabee went on to pay tribute to Obama for his ability “to touch at the core of something Americans want” in seeming to move beyond partisanship. And, he added, Senator Obama is “a likable person who has excited people about wanting to vote who have not voted in the past.” Huckabee was of course aware that in praising Obama he was recommending himself
I was watching the debate at the home of a savvy, moderately conservative New Hampshire Republican. It was at this moment that he turned to me and said: “You know, I’ve been a huge skeptic about Huckabee. I’m still not voting for him Tuesday. But I’ve got to say — I like him. And I wonder — could he be our strongest nominee?”
He could be. After the last two elections, featuring the well-born George Bush and Al Gore and John Kerry, Americans — even Republicans! — are ready for a likable regular guy. Huckabee seems to be that. He came up from modest origins. He served as governor of Arkansas for more than a decade. He fought a successful battle against being overweight. These may not be utterly compelling qualifications for the presidency. I’m certainly not ready to sign up.
Still, as the conservative writer Michael Medved put it, “For the work-hard-to-get-ahead strivers who represent the heart and soul of the G.O.P., there are obvious, powerful points of identification.” And they speak to younger voters who are not yet committed to the G.O.P. In Iowa, Huckabee did something like what Obama did on the Democratic side, albeit on a smaller scale. He drew new voters to the caucuses. And he defeated Mitt Romney by almost two to one, and John McCain by better than four to one, among voters under 45.
Now it’s true that many conservatives have serious doubts about Huckabee’s positions, especially on foreign policy, and his record, particularly on taxes. The conservative establishment is strikingly hostile to Huckabee — for both good and bad reasons. But voters seem to be enjoying making up their own minds this year. And Huckabee is a talented politician.
His campaigning in New Hampshire has been impressive. At a Friday night event at New England College in Henniker, he played bass with a local rock band, Mama Kicks. One secular New Hampshire Republican’s reaction: “Gee, he’s not some kind of crazy Christian. He’s an ordinary American.”
In general, here in New Hampshire he’s emphasized social issues far less than in Iowa (though he doesn’t waffle when asked about them). Instead he’s stressed conservative economic themes, seamlessly (if somewhat inconsistently) weaving together a pitch for limited government with a message that government needs to do more to address the concerns of the struggling middle class. This latter point seems to be resonating, as headlines in local papers announce an increase in the national unemployment rate amid speculation about a coming recession.
Some Democrats are licking their chops at the prospect of a Huckabee nomination. They shouldn’t be. For one thing, Michael Bloomberg would be tempted to run in the event of an Obama-Huckabee race — and he would most likely take votes primarily from Obama. But whatever Bloomberg does, the fact is that the Republican establishment spent 2007 underestimating Mike Huckabee. If Huckabee does win the nomination, it would be amusing if Democrats made the same mistake in 2008.
Is this a seminal moment?
There is something worrisome here. America's seminal elections have almost all come about because of the circumstances NOT the new leadership. Roosevelt was elected by a public made desperate by the depression. Roosevelt changes America but America was ready to change. In contrast Kennedy made it largely because of ennui with the comfortable Ike years (and that day old beard Nixon wore). And, Kennedy was a disappointingly small change from his predecessor .. fond as we may all still be about Camelot the real achievements came under LBJ.
So where does BHO fit in? He reminds me of Kennedy .. the same assurance, intelligence, and good will. Unlike Kennedy, if BHO is elected, he will succeed a government in failure, albeit not as bad failure as Hoover's regime. Is the US poised for Roosevelt era changes based on our current situation? Is BHO enough of a leader to effect those changes?
Some of this is easy. BHO .. or an almost inconceivable Reprican, should fix or temporize
1. Social Security
2. war in Iraq
3. healthcare
4.immigration,
Now these things are neither chump change nor are they the stuff great Presidents are made from. There are other, harder issue BHO MIGHT be able to tackle:
long term amity with the PRC
improved opportunity for all Americans
restore US world leadership
rebuild US education
redecorate the White House
No comments:
Post a Comment