Larry Sabato is like a fisherman when the fish aren't biting--the futility of the act doesn't mitigate the urge to do it.

Literally anything could happen between now and the 2008 election cycle.

Let me instead point out some signposts that might determine who would be a viable candidate in the next presidential election.

1. Do Republicans pick up Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota's governor's races this year? The reason this is important is because if as expected, Republicans start out with an electoral vote advantage, I think the primaries become correspondingly more important and so do the issues of the primary voters. John Kerry's victory in the primaries underscores this paradigm as many, many voters explained their votes for him by saying that they though "others (meaning Republicans and conservative Democrats) would vote for him. The perception that the general election will be easy or tough changes what people will value in a candidate. I would say that McCain and the perceived more-liberal Republican candidates will do better if 2006 is a bust for the party, and worse if the electoral math favors a generic Republican win.

2. What will be the security situation of the U.S. in 2007 and 2008? Insecurity and war favor the Republicans, peace favors the Democrats. This isn't a binary choice. Insecurity is relative. If we still have troops in Iraq and sporadic but declining violence, I think that counts as "peace", but if the situation in Iran continues to escalate, people are going to feel queasy, and the oil factor in a conflict with Iran is also a major issue. A severe crisis rolls over all the pet conservative issues, as the war did "small government". McCain has the biggest advantage here and Guiliani could do well. As we move towards the other side of the security continuum, the more classically acceptable conservative candidates rise to the surface.

3. Who will appeal to the activist base? Ultimately, in a free-for-all, the guy with the best organization is going to win the day. Should we come out somewhere in the middle on the above two criteria, organization is going to be the key to victory. This is particularly difficult to predict at this point, especially since so few of the probably candidates have their own highly-motivated constituency at this point, yet prospectively at least, Mitt Romney could do very well here. Not only is Romney an exceptional organizer, he also has an in with a low-key, but extremely influential and dynamic constitency--the Mormons. Some have estimated that 25% of all Republican volunteers in 2004 were Mormon. This was one of the very early advantages of the George W. Bush campaign--he had the similarly dynamic and motivated Evangelicals on his side and willing to work for his election.

After its all said and done, the person who looks best on paper at this point, who could reasonably perform well under a variety of conditions, is Condoleezza Rice. She has the security credentials and tremendous appeal across a broad swath of American constituencies, including some not traditionally under the Republican tent. Even with that being the case, she is subject to the same fortunes of fate as everyone else.

It normal to change you mind. People do it when they get new information that contradicts their old perceptions. Emotionally and intellectually mature people learn to reserve judgment when the collective weight of "oops" overbalances the reflexive tendancy to form an instant opinion.

Its a different dynamic for politicians, particular Democrat politicians.

New information isn't the trigger for a position change, whatever opportunity to criticize the Bush administration is the trigger for a position change.

I just about spit out my corn flakes when I heard that Hillary, unsuccessful in making the body armor issue stick to Bush, has changed tactics and now decries the administration's "outsourcing" the diplomatic initative with Iran to the French, Germans and British.

"I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations," Ms. Clinton said, according to a transcript of the speech published by The Daily Princetonian. "I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines."

I can't help but believe that the word "outsourcing" was very deliberate--a triggering of an emotional reaction within a certain constituency that will hopefully distract them for the glaring flip-flop Ms. Clinton is foisting on the public.

Macsmind quotes Newsmax, which favors us with a fairly recent interview of the good Senator that underscores how silly this whole "decisive leadership" act is with her.

"Asked point-blank if she agreed it wasn't wise to rule out the military option, Clinton bobbed, dodged and weaved through her first answer:

"Well, I think, first of all, we do have to get engaged. I believe that the United States should be at the table and not just outsource this important negotiation to the Europeans."

The top Democrat proceeded to meander through several related topics, hoping host Tim Russert wouldn't notice she was avoiding his question. It didn't work.

"But you would not rule out a military option?" he coaxed, trying to push her in the right direction.

Despite Russert's best efforts to help, Clinton stammered her way through a nonsense answer that made it plain that the use of military force wouldn't be in her playbook.

Now that could be the rather typical behavior of a politician who doesn't want to be committed to one course of action or another, but that's the point isn't it--hedge, hedge, hedge. This is politics not statesmanship, pure and simple. Contrast Hillary's interview to almost anything John McCain has to say on Meet the Press. McCain, for all the differences I have with him on policy, doesn't try to be all things to all people--he tells you what his position is and why.

So why would Hillary say it? She's not stupid, she knows that the talking points of the DNC for the past three years have been "UN, UN. UN", "alliances, alliances, alliances", "inspections, inspections, inspections". I have said this before, but it seems that the Democrats still believe that the elite media can protect them from the past--they rely heavily on the memory hole; an anachronism in the age of the internet and blogs.

She probably figured, or got advice that criticizing Bush for "outsourcing" diplomacy would endear her to the Bush-haters in her party and give her the aura of decisive leadership (to recall and mangle a catchphrase by Fernando, its not how you lead, but how you look, and dahling, you look mahvelous...). Instead she looks like an idiot--for the second time in as many weeks.

If Hillary is serious about running for President, she has got to dump the pre-internet neaderthals that are advising her.

John Kerry is now a blog brother. Well, maybe a blog 2nd cousin once removed.

We've seen considerable evidence that we can no longer make the distinction between the blogosphere and the MSM. Bloggers get invited to Washington to schmooze with Senators and get all three House leadership candidates to teleconference with them. Now Kerry gets his own Kos diary. That is about as mainstream as it gets, which is why I've been substituting "elite" media for MSM lately.

Kerry is courting Kos readers for the same reason the RNC is schmoozing Powerline etal...the audience isn't huge, but its dynamic. Its the same reason Kerry will go on Meet the Press at the drop of a hat--hardly anyone watches the program, but those who do are a very desirable demographic for a politician.

Speaking of Powerline, I see that Hinderaker has posted on the topic, although I don't necessarily agree with his conclusion.

John Kerry is posting on the Daily Kos. Keep that in mind next time someone tells you that the Kos Kidz are just a bunch of unemployed teenagers, and not the heart and soul of the Democratic Party.

Not heart and soul, but certainly a major constituency among primary voters--ask Howard Dean.

This of course, it was this is all about. Kerry's first go around was fairly smooth--he was a decorated Vietnam vet who looked like Abe Lincoln. He got himself lionized in a book and the package was an easy sell to the Crat contributor base. He could afford to look down his nose at Howard Dean the outsider. Now of course, he's damaged goods to say the least, and the Howard Dean route is about the only way to stay in the game. Yet the comments on his post (Bush hasn't captured bin Laden, blah-blah-blah) are mixed.

Kerry has to walk a very fine line on Kos--his post was pretty much boilerplate Cratslam on Bush which any mainstream politician could get away with, but it will not be enough to endear him to the Kossacks. Several commenters were dubious that it was Kerry--probably a staffer. The comment stream devolves in to moaning about the stolen election and counting the votes in Ohio (nevermind Pennsylvania and Wisconsin...). I take two lessons from this--to really make it work wth the far left in the party, Kerry is going to have to get personal. Authorizing a staffer to post boilerplate in his name is not going to do the trick. He is also going to have to honestly address issues like "stolen election" or whatever other conspiracy theories the left is on about. I think he has to realize that he is competing with Al Gore for moonbat credentials, so he'll have to be at least as nuts as Al is.

Failing that, the entire exercise is wasted, and probably hurts more than it helps.

John Hawkins has been scoffing at Hillary's chances in 2008 for a while now and quotes a recent poll as vindication of that view.

By a margin of three to one, Americans say they would "definitely" vote against Hillary Clinton for president, a CNN/Gallup poll released Tuesday has found.

While just 16 percent say they had made up their minds to back Clinton when she seeks the presidency in 2008, 51 percent say there's no way they want to see the former first lady back in the White House.

Men are the most vehement when it comes to the prospect of another Clinton presidency, with 60 percent telling Gallup they would vote against Hillary for sure.

Reporting on the Gallup survey in today's edition, the New York Post notes that women are slightly less repulsed by the notion of Mrs. Clinton running the country, with just 43 percent saying they definitely don't want to see her in the Oval Office.

Even Mrs. Clinton's liberal base isn't solidly behind her, with a full one-third of self described liberals telling Gallup/CNN they have no intention of supporting her in 2008.

Hawkins considers this devastating considering how well known she is at this point.

He may be right, but I can't come down squarely on his side of the argument. I concluded from the 2004 race that the political polarization in this country is so great, that the candidate has virtually no room to create a personal impact. As yourself if John Kerry was a significantly better candidate than Michael Dukakis? No? I don't think so either, yet Kerry by virtue of winning the nomination, had already locked up the vote of a major portion of the country. What was far more important in 2004 was organization and lets recall a startling fact--Karl Rove, the boy genius and architect of the Bush victory, picked up his strategy from the Hillary Clinton New York Senate campaign.

If there are no persuadable voters during the general, the primary becomes the real battlefield and suddenly your poll that suggests that large numbers of Americans would never vote for Hillary is meaningless. Hillary only has to do well among a group where she is in fact quite competitive. Within that microclimate, Hillary has the money and the organization to come out on top and frankly, I don't think it will matter that 2/3rds of the country says she stinks--since when do Democrats know anything about Jesusland? They will assume that their arguments are persuasive and that all they need to do is "get the message out".

They will assume that, but Hillary won't.

I personally don't think any Democrat can win all things being equal, but I think Hillary has a better than average chance of becoming the nominee.

Having lately read some good stuff at Powerline, I have been visiting more frequently. Today John Hinderaker's comments on John McCain caught my eye

Yesterday, I heard John McCain on Michael Medved's radio show. It was a reminder of how good McCain can be. And how conservative: the first caller said that McCain is regarded as a moderate Republican, and asked, what is the difference between a moderate Republican and a moderate Democrat? McCain responded, "Well, first of all, I'm a conservative. I have a lifetime rating of 82% from the American Conservative Union, and the only reason it isn't higher is because a lot of conservatives disagree with me on campaign finance reform. So, I'm a proud conservative."

Later, a caller asked McCain whether he was critical of President Bush's telephoning the anti-abortion demonstrators in Washington. McCain said not at all; this was a tradition that goes back to President Reagan. McCain said that he has a 27-year pro-life voting record. He was unapologetic and unequivocal.

McCain's age is an issue, but not an insurmountable one if he comes across as mentally and physically vigorous in three years, as I'm pretty sure he will. We and other conservatives have parted company with McCain on several important issues, most notably taxes and regulation of political speech. But he will be a powerhouse Presidential candidate, and it may not take too much to win over conservative Republicans like me. Especially if the choice comes down to McCain or a Democrat like Hillary Clinton, whom I'm pretty sure McCain would trounce.

McCain's record is incidental with me, although its good to know that he is more conservative than his press has made him out ot be. What McCain has going for him is that disarming frankness. He doesn't equivocate, back-track of change the subject--he answers questions head on. I am loathe to attribute my personal reactions as generalized throughout the electorate, but I think McCain's "straight-talk-express" is perceived favorably by most people.

That demeanor would be a huge advantage in 2008 because it would highlight the Democrat's biggest disadvantage--the fact that they can't be honest about their positions. The left is a delicate alliance of dramatically disparate special interest groups whose agendas have very little to do with the national interest. Consequently, the Crat skill set is focused on getting through the rhetorical minefield intact. This dynamic is largely responsible for Kerry statements like "I voted for the funding before I voted against it".

Absent any really objectionable policies, that quality alone in a McCain candidacy makes him worth supporting.

I would be concerned about his age though--at 72 in 2008, McCain would be older than Ronald Reagan was when he took office. Now plenty of men are sharp at 72, but the presidency takes a toll--George Bush has aged dramatically in only five years. If he served two terms, he could be 80 at the end of his administration. It will be vitally important to pick a solid vice presidential candidate.

John Kerry is going to filibuster

The Crats have already considered the possibility and rejected it as untenable and politically damaging.

Some senior Democrats told CNN they are worried that the move could backfire.

Republicans would need 60 votes to overturn a filibuster -- a procedural move that extends Senate debate indefinitely, effectively blocking a vote. Senior White House officials said the move would make the Democrats look bad, and that Republicans believe they have enough votes to overcome any filibuster attempt.

There is only one reason for Kerry to charge the windmill on this--it'll play with the moonbats.

The other day I posted on Kerry's foray into the moon bat cave--Daily Kos. The evidence is emerging to fit the theory that Kerry, a pariah among the traditional powerbrokers in the Democrat party, is trying to tap into Howard Dean's constituency. Now moonbats are emotional people and the left-wing mantra on Iraq is religion not reason, but aside from that, they aren't really stupid. They understand that supporting a politician is a faustian deal--he or she cares only about achieving power and you (Mr. and Ms Moonbat) only care about your agenda. Kerry must find a way to look sincere and because he is John F. Kerry, he figures if he can fake that, he has it made.

The filibuster gambit is a demonstration without any real commitment, since it can't possibly succeed (three Democrat Senators have already said they would vote for Alito and six more have stated that they will oppose a filibuster). He won't hurt the party and he can't damage his own political aspirations anymore than he already has.

The Conservative Outpost

Villainous Company

Balloon Juice

Politics in the Zero, a liberal blog, doesn't feel the love from Senator Kerry

Compass Points

The Moderate Voice

IMAO

Sister Toldjah

Hillary says she takes a backseat to no one when it comes to fighting terror and homeland security, its just that there really is no war on terror.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday accused Republicans of "playing the fear card" of terrorism to win elections and said Democrats cannot keep quiet if they want to win in November.

The New York Democrat, facing re-election this year and considered a potential White House candidate in 2008, said Republicans won the past two elections on the issue of national security and "they're doing it to us again."

Actually Rove is playing the "clueless" card again--Democrats continue to demonstrate with crystal clear clarity that they have a 9/10 mindset. During the Gonzales hearing, Joe Biden asked how many prosecutions had resulted from the NSA wiretap program. For the Crats, this is a war on crime.

In an address to UAW members, Hillary claimed Democrats could save their jobs--obviously not by removing onerous union obstacles to production efficiency, but by making sure Americans have to pay a lot more for good cars from Japanese manufacturers--to "even the playing field". Vote for Hillary and pay $2,000.00 more per vehicle so she can protect her union constituency.

Not only is Hillary likely to sfay in backseat, but she may not even get the window.

Evan Bayh was a guest on Fox News Sunday this morning and did something really unusual for a Democrat.

He made sense.

When asked about the Cheney debacle, he simply acknowledged that the Vice President's office could have handled it better, but that Democrats lose credibility when they make a mountain out of a mole hill. There are plenty of substantive issues that could benefit from public discussion.

Bayh is preparing for a presidential campaign, having raised 10 million dollars so far and visited 22 states in the past 12 months. Yet while he is what the party needs, he is not what the party wants. The most recent polls have him down at 3% support. That could change, but it seems unlikely, which is too bad, because there are a lot of people who are nominally Republican who could vote for a guy like Bayh.

Dick Morris has been milking the nomination sweepstakes for fun and profit over the past year or so, touting a Hillary-Rice contest every chance he gets. Apparently that has run its course and now he is wondering aloud at Al Gore's chances.

...Gore has three things going for him: A perception that he was robbed of the White House and Hillary’s possible stubbornness in continuing to back the war.

The third thing? The weather. As the evidence of global climate change impresses everyone who doesn’t work at the White House, Gore looks more and more like a man whose time may have come.

Morris cites Andrew Jackson and Grover Cleveland as popular vote winners and electoral vote losers who avenged their losses later on, but the value of 19th century precedents in this respect would appear to be very limited.

The bass line in Morris' argument is that Iraq will go badly and that the global warming will become the central issue of 2008 politics.

I doubt even Morris believes that. Whatever the situation in Iraq in two or three years, security is still a very good bet to be a defining issue and a lot of Democrats think so as well. Of course, as recent history demonstrates so well, Democrats can turn on a dime when it comes to Iraq. Just claim to have been deceived by Bush-Satan.

The environment? Its always been such a theoretical issue and voters go with what's real in their lives. Security became definitive after 9/11 because average Americans felt personally threatened.

The real problem for any Democrat candidate is that they can have the nomination or the presidency, but not both.

Zogby has teased out a rather nasty bit of reality for Democrats:

The survey also contained troubling news for Democrats. While high-profile Democrats in Washington, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and U.S. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, spar with GOP adversaries, 58% of self-described Democrats said they think their leaders should “accept their lower position in Congress and work together with Republicans to craft the best legislation possible.”

Only 6% said the top goal for Democrats should be to defeat Republican legislation.

In another sign that Democrats, after spending 11 years in the minority in the U.S. House and most of those years holding minority status in the Senate, are now accepting their lower position, nearly one-quarter of Democrats – 23% – said they think Republicans do a better job running Congress.

That's a pretty good snap shot of how small the moonbat wing of the party really is--when Harry Reid shuts down the Senate, he has 6% of Democrats pumping their fists. Granted they are an important 6%--monied, motivated and malovalent.

Yet it suggests a demoralization that bodes ill for any candidate, much less one that sparkles the eyes of the far-left. A candidate who can't appeal to the broad center is doomed, but such a candidate gets no love in primaries heavily tilted to the left.

Democrats need a Bill Clinton, and neither Al or Hillary fits the bill.

My TiVo tries to anticipate my viewing choices by recording programs it thinks I'll like based on previous viewing habits, so this evening I find "Road to White House 2008" recorded from C-SPAN waiting for me. I fast forwarded through George Pataki's Iowa trip but stopped at Evan Bayh who went into considerable depth about how Democrats have to pick up the gauntlet that Karl Rove has thrown down on national security while addressing a small group of Democrats at the Linn Phoenix Club Reception in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Bayh wants to be taken serious on security issues, he wants to be tough--just as tough as George W. Bush.

Now that's no surprise and not particularly engaging, but what happened next cracked me up. Bayh opened the floor to questions and a older woman was declaiming on disability for the handicapped:

...I have a handicapped son and the budget is just killing the least among us and we are spending all this money on a war that doesn't matter...of course it matters because people are being killed. How can the Democrats frame their argument, establish the position...

It was a priceless moment, a Freudian slip--even while Bayh was emphasizing how strong Democrats are on defense, his audience couldn't keep the talking points straight. What? We're not saying the Iraq war is "useless" anymore? Damn! I'm an old woman--how am I suppose to keep it all straight?

Now I know that Crats will argue that you can still be strong on defense and disagree with the decision to go to war in Iraq, but let's be honest and furthermore let's take them at their word--the war is useless not because it doesn't serve any strategic purpose, but because it derails the liberal-left's agenda.

What it amounts to is that the characterization of the Iraq war as useless is a shibboleth, a code phrase among the left that has no meaning outside the group. The only argument that attends this conclusion is the internal one--the Iraq war helps Republicans and not us--therefore it is useless.

Bayh is going to have a lot of trouble selling the "strong on defense" line because ultimately, Democrats don't really consider that there is a national security issue. Offline, Greg has taken to referring to the "war formerly known as terror"--about as clear a statement on how the left views this as I've seen.

Like every other prospective Democrat presidential candidate, he has to get nominated by folks who are so far out of the mainstream, they are a different body of water, then he has to turn around and appeal to the broader electoral. As the good woman at the Phoenix reception demonstrated, its going to be hard to keep the talking points straight.

Line please...

Hillary Clinton is a shoe-in to be re-elected as Senator from New York, but while the Empire state loves her as Senator, only about half of them would actually vote for her in a Presidential campaign. That includes 3 of every 10 Democrats.

Contrast that with Orrin Hatch, a candidate in the 2000 election, who while always a long-shot, could have reasonably expected to win Utah handily had he been nominated.

I strongly suspect that this has more to do with the difference between Republicans and Democrats than it does with Senator Clinton herself.

Republicans vote for a set of principles rather than a candidate. Democrats vote for stars.

Obviously this is a generalization, but When Bill Clinton won the White House, it was in large measure because George H.W. Bush simply wasn't Republican enough for many in his party. In Utah, were Bush 43's popularity continually defies gravity. his father's was put at serious risk by a strong move to Ross Perot (who won 27.34% of the popular vote--beating Clinton's 24.65%).

Even now, Democrat unity largely consists of opposition to Bush rather than any coherent ideology as attested to by the difficulty Congressional Democrats are having coming up with an election agenda..

Its an interesting circumstance--Hillary gets elected in New York (and will likely win reelection) because she's a star (former first lady of Bill the beloved), but she won't get the votes from New Yorkers in a presidential campaign because she isn't enough of a star.

Hillary probably understands Ted Kennedy's predicament better than anyone alive.

I like John McCain. Of course, what I like is a public image not necessarily an accurate reflection of the man himself, but he strikes me as straight-forward, principled, loyal and strong.

Yet he makes me nervous.

I like principled obviously, but in McCain's case--what are the principles and should I be worried about them? In many ways he seems like a Bush clone--strong on defense, too liberal on just about everything else. I hate the fact that he voted against the tax cuts. Not good, not good.

Lots of buzz about McCain asking supporters to vote for Bush in the straw poll. Some seem upset that he isn't taking it more seriously, but how seriously should we take a straw poll in which Senator Frisk is widely expected to win? Gimme a break.

Some intriguing news came out of the Southern Republican Leadership Conference this weekend.

No, it wasn't the fact that Bill Frist one--he was supposed to win, and he spent a 100K busing in supporters to make sure he wasn't embarrassed in his own state.

No, it wasn't that McCain tried to distort the poll by asking supporters to vote for Bush.

In my view, the real story is that Mitt Romney, previously characterized as a kind of dwarf candidate with a single digit following, came in second with 14,4%, beating the McCain/Bush ticket and outshining the miniscule followings of Huckabee, Brownback, Pataki, etal. George Allen showed some muscle by coming in third with a little over 10% of the vote.

Romney also got 12% of the second choice vote.

Predictably, the losers dismissed the poll as irrelevant, but relevancy is well...relevant. Certainly no one is going to drop out of the race because they did badly in an early straw poll, but it is a good indication of where candidates are in the perceptions of likely southern primary voters.

For Romney in particular, the elephant in the room has always been whether conservative Evangelicals would vote for a Mormon (we prefer Latter-day Saint, or LDS). Romney's performance, in spite of leaving after his speech for Iowa, went a long ways in dispelling that fear.

Small wonder too.

Romney looks better in his late fifties that you and I ever did on the best day of our lives. He's tall, athletic, classically handsome with a full head of hair slightly grayed at the temples. Physical presence is a significant asset for Romney, and I strongly suspect that just getting up and standing at the podium got him some votes that day.

He is also very articulate--a relative rarity in Republican presidential politics before and after Reagan. He has a broadcaster's voice and a measured almost too perfect delivery absent the "uhs", "ums" and other vocal ticks that affect most people.

If he was a Democrat candidate, he'd be a shoo-in, but I have long thought that Romney's physical and vocal perfection might actually hurt him among Republicans who might find it hard to relate to him. As much as George W. Bush gets mocked for his silly grin, Texas strut and mangled language, its probably a political asset with the Republican base who pretty much walk and talk the way George does to one extent or another.

I think the straw poll has disabused me of that concern. Mitt impresses, even in the South.

Clearly he still has a long way to go against compelling rivals, but he's definitely in the running and the results of the straw poll can only help his fund-raising efforts.

Romney's main challenge are his social conservative bona fides, particularly on issues like abortion. Its little-known outside the "Mormon corridor" (a vertical line between southern Alberta and northern Mexico running straight through the Rockies...), but the LDS church position on abortion is comparatively moderate. The church opposes abortion with exceptions--when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest and when the life of the mother is endangered. Perhaps surprisingly to some people, there would be little difference between Mormon politicians of either party on the issue. You probably couldn't put a playing card between Harry Reid and Orrin Hatch on the issue. Now, there are Mormons whose views have more in common with the most extreme Evangelical positions, but they form a distinct minority.

Of course, no Republican candidate is really going to want to compete for the extreme right lane on the abortion issue, but Romney is going to have to talk about it and make hmself crystal clear, whereas we can simply make assumptions about George Allen's views.

If you haven't guessed, I'm deeply impressed by Mitt Romney, not because he is a co-religionist (so is Harry Reid, and if you read this blog, I am on his back like white on rice...), but because of the skill he demonstrated during the run-up to the 2002 Winter Olympics here in Salt Lake. Most people don't realize how close we came to blowing it completely (like Denver did). Mired in scandal, the whole process of preparing for the games was falling apart. Mitt Romney, although living in Massachussetts most of his adult life, has strong ties to the state where his father, former Michigan Governor George W. Romney, grew up, and where his cousin-once-removed served in the highest councils of the Mormon church. His personal qualities of leadership and organizational skill were well-known and he was asked to rescue SLOC (Salt Lake Organizing Committee) from the swamp it found itself in. He had very little time to do it, but managed the process brilliantly, making the Salt Lake games one of the most successful in modern times. Romney was the total package--able to bring sorely needed organizational and management skills to bear and complimenting them with extraordinary persuasive and political skills. He simply didn't put a foot wrong in an extraordinarily complex process of bringing off the games.

He's come a long way in a short time during this preliminary phase of the presidential primaries and I would guess that he will be in "medal contention" right up until the end. Frankly, the thought of the smooth, cerebral but warm Mitt Romney facing off against the shrill and awkward Hillary Clinton sounds like a lot of fun,

Real Clear Politics live-blogged the SRLC and had this to say about Romney:

The star attraction of the morning session yesterday was Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. The first thing that jumps out at you about Romney is his physical appearance: tall, svelt, classically handsome. He just looks presidential. Standing up on stage at the podium with the line of flags behind him, Romney cut a picture straight out of central casting from a Hollywood movie studio.

Polipundit

The Moderate Voice

RedState: The big story has to be Mitt Romney's 2nd place finish. A slight disappointment for Allen, losing to "Yankee Governor, Southern Values."

GOP Bloggers

Captain's Quarters

The ports issue was a no-brainer according to just about everyone. Even people like me who thought NOT doing the deal was more problematic than killing it, had to acknowledge that the politics were irresistable.

There is another issue with similarly lop-sided politics--gay marriage. This makes it particularly tricky for Hillary, who needs to be "moderate" to win the presidency, but "liberal" to get the nomination.

A leaked memo from the Empire State Pride Agenda has revealed the level of dissatisfaction among gays with Clinton's public positions on gay marriage.

“Supporting an LGBT fundraiser for Hillary Clinton will actually hurt our community,” Van Capelle stated in a February 10 e-mail message sent confidentially to ESPA’s two-dozen board members. In the same message, first reported on the New York Observer’s Web site on Tuesday, Van Capelle said that he would not “lend my name and sell tickets” to a March 10 gay fundraiser planned for Diane von Furstenberg’s Studio on West 12th Street.

Many prominent leaders in the community, including newly-elected City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, are part of the event’s host committee.

...

“This year, Eliot Spitzer, David Paterson, Alan Hevesi, Andrew Cuomo, Mark Green, Sean Maloney, and others are running for statewide office and are in favor of marriage equality for gays and lesbians,” Van Capelle wrote, referring to half a dozen Democratic hopefuls for various offices. “When our struggle is over, they will be recorded as having been on the right side of history and as of now Hillary Clinton will not be with them.”

In explaining why donating money to Clinton’s 2006 Senate re-election campaign, widely seen as a precursor to a presidential bid in 2008, would “actually hurt our community,” Van Capelle, who said she deserved another term, wrote, “It will send a message to other elected officials that you can be working against us during this critical time and not suffer a negative pushback from the gay community. We have become a community that throws money at politicians and we demand nothing in return. And that’s what we get—nothing. It’s the wrong message to send.”

Its an extraordinary complaint in view of the political sophistication of gays and lesbians, who are effectively working both parties for a single goal--the legitimatization of gay marriage. The level of frustration this represents is substantial, as confirmed by Andrew Sullivan.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has a reputation as a principled liberal - at least that's what her base and her enemies seem to think. In practice, of course, she has always been a Clinton - a waffler, prevaricator, straddler. So it's no surprise to hear her complete non-answer on the question of same-sex marriage. Here's a transcript of a June 18 interview with Senator Clinton on the Brian Lehrer WNYC show in New York City:

Lehrer: The lead story in the New York Times today is about Canada's decision to fully legalize gay marriage. do you think the United States should do that?

Clinton: Well, obviously in our system it is unlikely ever to be a national decision. It is a state-by-state decision because of the way our federal system operates, where states define what the conditions for marriage, or domestic partnership, or civil union might be, so I don't think that we will ever face it. In fact there is a law on the books, passed before I was in the congress, the Defense of Marriage Act, which goes so far as to say that even if one state does it, other states under our full faith and credit clause of the constitution don't have to recognize it.

Lehrer: But is Canada setting a good example, on that you'd like to see spread through the states here?

Clinton: Well, I have long advocated domestic partnership laws and civil unions, to me...

Lehrer: That's different from marriage.

Clinton: Well, marriage means something different. you know, marriage has a meaning that I... I think should be kept as it historically has been, but I see no reason whatsoever why people in committed relationships can't have, you know, many of the same rights and the same, you know, respect for their unions that they are seeking and I would like to see that be more accepted than it is.

Lehrer: But not with the context of marriage.

Clinton: Yeah, I, I think that is, you know... First of all, I think that it is unlikely, if not impossible, to be something nationally accepted in our country, but I also think that we can realize the same results for may committed couples by urging that states and localities adopt civil union and domestic partnership laws.

So there you have it. The Senator from New York State is opposed to equal rights for gays and lesbians. And that's one thing both the right and left will be reluctant to broadcast.

Some might argue that Van Capelle is being naive and impatient, but his anger is a lot easier to understand in light of Bill Clinton's betrayal of gays when he implemented the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The Clinton position is "whatever is good for the Clintons" and supporters can be thrown overboard any time they become an inconvenience.

The argument that if gays can support Republican candidates they should also be able to support Hillary, misses an important point--one supports Democrats who openly embrace them to advance the gay agenda. One supports Republicans to insure that they don't oppose it. Hillary just doesn't fit into either category.

Over the weekend, I like a lot of other bloggers, mused over Mitt Romney's surprising 2nd place finish.

An article in the Tennessean pointed out that this wasn't entirely spontaneous. A very well organized (albeit on short notice) effort by Tennesseans for Mitt managed to get a sizeable contingent to the SRLC and put Romney in a solid second place position.

Romney's supporters got a late start.

"We started putting this together about three weeks ago," said David French, 37, a lawyer in Columbia, Tenn., who with his wife, Nancy, created www.tnformitt.com.

Their supporters had ballcaps, T-shirts, stickers and other paraphernalia that said "Romney" with the "o" filled in with the Tennessee flag's three stars.

Nearly all of Romney's votes came from their group, who picture him as the alternative to McCain for evangelical Christians, French said. Romney supporters in Tennessee helped pay the way for more than 50 college students, said Dawn Meling of Pennsylvania, a recent college graduate and Romney supporter.

"Frist is a good man, a good senator, but Gov. Romney is a better leader to be the president of the United States," French said.

Redstate notes the article and inferred that Romney was pulling a fast one.

Ah, ha! So it seems the surprise Romney showing wasn't as spontaneous as it seemed. Bad, Mitt, Bad!

It was concerted on MY part. I am not Mormon and am not associated with Romney in any way. I just noticed him in 1994 when he ran against Kennedy and almost won. He's amazing. This was a total grassroots effort, and I was totally unprepared by his placement as second.

I take two things away from the French's effort:

What the Frenchs did wasn't "netroots" or anything high-tech. It was person-to-person persuasion and pen-and-paper organizing. Word of mouth is still the best way to sell just about anything.

The knock on Romney was always his religion. Pundits everywhere wondered whether Evangelicals and Mormons would place nice. Nancy tells me that her group was a mix of Church of Christ, Pentacostals and Mormons. Nancy isn't Mormon herself.

Mormons had no trouble voting for an Evangelical in the form of George W. Bush, and it appears that Evangelicals are not going to have any trouble voting for a Mormon if he otherwise floats their political boat.

I have long felt this was the case, but like everyone else, I had no empirical proof. Now we do. It shouldn't be surprising, since despite doctrinal differences, there is not a whole lot of difference in values between Mormons, Catholics and Evangelicals.

If Romney is smart (and boy is he ever...), he'll move quickly to appropriate the church channels--a social network with no parallel in this country. Romney has a great advantage here--as a prominent faithful Mormon, his religious bona fides are, like Bush before him, already in place. Its that authenticity thing I keep talking about. He has a natural credibility among the faithful. Romney should be talking to pastors all over the country and spend Sundays in whatever local (LDS) ward comes handy.

What's worse than proposing to censure the president on the Senate floor?

For Democrats--actually voting on such a resolution.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, moments ago, made a unanimous consent motion that the Senate vote on the resolution tonight. Maryland Democrat Paul Sarbanes rose to object to the motion. Frist then motioned to vote on the resolution again tomorrow. Sarbanes objected, saying no vote should take place on the resolution until Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid had cleared the timing.

In other words, Democrats know this is a political stunt, without a chance of passage, but want to time it politically for maximum impact.

Later, Harry Reid took the floor to say he was offended that Frist would go to the floor and motion for unanimous consent on such an "important issue" without talking to him first.

What a weasel! Reid of course is notorious for breaking all Senate precedent and invoking Senate rule XXI, shutting down the Senate and of course not breathing a word of it to Bill Frist.

GOP Bloggers has its own straw poll up.

IWhat it made me realize is how little I know about many of the candidates. Sounds like a project to me.

Sometimes a posting can break a mental dam for you.

Bull Moose did just that with a "look over here" post on Al Gore's prospects for 2008.

Al Gore? Isn't he political toast?

I don't think so, in fact as I've been reflecting, I have come to believe Gore could not only win the nomination, but win the presidency in 2008.

Moose point out a New York Times piece on the travails of Mark Warner--a successful Democratic Southern Governor who just can't seem to make a dent in the psyche of his own party.

"Warner may have glimpsed a piece of his future when he attended a dinner of wealthy Democrats last summer at the Bay Area home of Mark Buell and his wife, Susie Tompkins Buell, well-connected contributors and close friends of the Clintons. Warner made some introductory comments about "the Virginia story," but the first several questions were not about taxes or schools or health care, but about gay marriage (which he's against), the death penalty (which he's for) and abortion (he's in favor of parental notification but vetoed a bill banning all late-term abortions). Warner thought his liberal guests would be interested in his policies to improve Virginia schools and raise the standard of living in rural areas; instead, it seemed to him, they thought that they understood poverty and race in an intellectual way that he, as a red-state governor, could not. Like a lot of politicians, Warner can be snappish when he feels he isn't being heard, and the dialogue quickly grew testy.

At the end of the evening, according to people who were there, as some of the guests walked Warner to his car, one woman vowed to educate him on abortion rights. That was all he could take. "This is why America hates Democrats," a frustrated Warner blurted out before driving away. (Still piqued a month later, Warner, speaking to The Los Angeles Times, summarized the attitude of the assembled guests about their plans to save the country: "You little Virginia Democrat, how can you understand the great opportunities we have?")"

Warner is cast in the mold of previous successful Democrat contenders, but he is hitting a brick wall with the moonbat and donor class in the party. They are looking for a classic liberal lefty, someone who "gets it" on race, abortion, social programs and the environment--someone like Al Gore

This is why, with almost two years to go before the first votes are cast, some insiders who question Clinton's electability dream of finding yet another candidate who has the national profile and who could generate enough excitement among the base to match her. The question is, Who? "This sounds absolutely strange coming from me, because I never in life thought I would utter these words again," Brazile says, "but Al Gore." It's true that Gore has been a fiery critic of Bush in recent months, but former advisers who still talk to him say he seems genuinely uninterested. Meanwhile, Barack Obama's keynote address to the Florida Democratic Party convention in December was interrupted by delegates who stood up and shouted for him to run in 2008. Obama, a first-term senator, has ruled it out — at least for now.

Gore has been patiently establishing his left-wing bona fides since 2003, publicly supporting Howard Dean when people thought it was crazy to do so--crazy like a fox. While John Kerry, Joe Biden and now Russ Feingold are engineering symbolic offerings to the left, Gore split political blood for the moonbats. They look askance at Kerry and hold their noses on Hillary, but Al--Al they love.

Add to this the Gore mythology of being "robbed" in 2000. You and I might not believe it, but even outwardly sophisticated Democrats routinely betray buy-in to the pantheon of Democrat myths. It takes a lot of self-delusion to have fallen so far. This works for Gore at some level.

Shouldn't that mean that Gore is unelectable? I don't think so--unlike so many other politicians, Gore can plausibly present himself as a moderate. He has the advantage of a massive asymmetry between his moonbat antics of late and the public's perception of him as a boring, cerebral wonk. Notably, he doesn't have to play the "I'm-crazier-that-you" game in the primaries because as I pointed out--he's already established his bona fides with the left.

Finally, Gore has one big advantage that absolutely no one else running in 2008 has--he's done this before. He won't be making the mistakes he did the first time around and he won't have to rely on Bob Shrum to manage the campaign.

Don't confuse this reality-check with support, but not only do I think Al can win the nomination, I think he has a very good shot at winning the presidency if he gets a tail-wind.

Even at this early date, the frontrunner for the Republican nomination gets special scrutiny, and of course, special criticism. John Hawkins provides nine reasons NOT to vote for John McCain.

Some of the objections are practical--McCain is no spring chicken and at 72, would be the oldest man to take office in the history of the country. I'm not sure this one has merit--this week, Mike Wallace went into retirement--at 88 year old. I watched a program this weekend hosted by William Shatner who is probably working more now than at any other time in his life--he's 75 this month. Here in Utah, the Mormon church is ably run by a 96 year old man who just had colon surgery, rested a few weeks and just got back from Chile where he dedicated a temple. His wife, the departed Marjorie Hinckley is famous for declaring (while in her nineties), "oh to be 70 again!"

Old age isn't what it used to be.

The question of electability is really what the primaries are designed to answer--Hawkins is concerned that the media who fawn over him now, will turn on him during the campaign. Does this mean that some other Republican candidate could be expected to get a pony ride from the media? The simple fact is that John McCain is popular with the media because he handles the media very well and that is a net asset.

McCain's relationship with Democrats could be seen as both an asset and a liability. Being able to get something done that you otherwise couldn't because of a good relationship is an advantage. I think much of that is due not to McCain's "liberal" proclivities, but his character. In a two-faced world, he is a man of his word. Its the same reason he gets along so well with the media--he takes people seriously and so they take him seriously.

On the downside, McCain actually is a maverick. He did vote against the tax cuts. He is responsible for McCain-Feingold. Democrats love this--conservatives hate it. Its probably the reason McCain won't be the nominee.

I guess what I object to is simply applying a generic litmus test to a candidate. For or against abortion. For or against taxes, etc... Any candidate can simply say the "right thing", but it is much more informative to examine the nuances of their position.

Hawkins asks how anyone can be pro-life and not want to repeal Roe v. Wade. Its not as if repealing Roe v. Wade actually eliminates abortion for all time, and even people of faith consider that there are some circumstances where abortion is justified. Roe v. Wade is simply one element in a larger policy that has to be addressed in a more sophisticated way that simply "for or against abortion".

I am not a John McCain supporter, but I do think he has some interesting qualities as a candidate that need to be discussed and weighed with a little more diligence than a simple litmus test.

For all McCain's weakness, real and perceived, for me he has one overriding advantage--a spine.

There is little doubt that whoever becomes president in 2008 is going to be a war president and that requires a Churchill not a Chamberlain. At the end of the day, nobody can say that John McCain lacks the character to shoulder that burden.