Obama's experience was right for Lincoln; and some advantages that the next President will have.

I will be leaving on vacation for a couple of weeks, so I'd like to bring up two (somewhat related topics) that I've been mulling over today.

The first is that McCain has said he wants to contrast his experience with Obama's relative inexperience. OK, ask Hillary Clinton how well that worked. However, one point that has been overlooked-- Obama's experience (lawyer, community activist, Illinois state legislator, four years in Washington) bears an uncanny resemblance to the experience that America's greatest President had, when he held the reigns of power during America's worst crisis. So to automatically assume that Obama is too inexperienced to be President is rebutted by historical fact.

I wrote a letter on the subject to the USA Today. Since I've had three letters published in that publication (the most recent was last year) my guess is that it won't be published. So I have no problem posting it here.

Dear Editor,

Barack Obama is running for President of the United States. He was a lawyer, active in his community, was in the Illinois state legislature for a few years and spent four years in Congress.

Which is exactly the same governmental experience as Abraham Lincoln had when he ran for President in 1860.

The real experience question is why anyone would think that the best way to solve problems that have been created in Washington is to elect someone who has spent decades in Washington, as John McCain has.

Eli Blake

The second is the observation that the next President will have a tremendous amount of political capital when he takes office. I predict this for three reasons:

1. The American people are tired of hyperpartisanship, which is why they nominated two candidates who talk about 'bringing people together' rather than some of the candidates who might have been more polarizing, such as Hillary Clinton or Mike Huckabee. That will not be lost on the next Congress.

2. The next President will be a sitting Senator (something that has not happened since 1960.) When governors are elected, a lot of times (in fact most of the time) they've made the mistake of talking down to Congress the way they are used to talking down to their state legislature, and Congress is always ready to deliver a reminder to the President of how limited his power is, especially if one or both houses of Congress are controlled by the opposition party. But these two candidates as members of the world's 'most exclusive club' know about how to package legislation and make deals, and certainly in the case of the Senate will already have the familiarity with individual Senators to be able to sit down and work something out in a way that former Governors have always had trouble with.

3. The next President being a Senator also means that the Senate will be unlikely to block whatever he wants in terms of legislation, treaty ratification or confirmation of appointments (including judicial appointments.) There is an old joke that a Presidential primary debate is the same thing as a Senate subcommittee hearing. That actually isn't too far off-- for some reason 'President-itis' seems especially to afflict members of the senior body. Just among today's 100 sitting Senators, I count fourteen who I've read at least one report of in the past few years as forming an exploratory committee or otherwise feeling out the prospect of running for President

(Bayh, Biden, Brownback, Clinton, Dodd, Feingold, Hagel, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lieberman, Lugar, McCain and Obama).

Obviously some have been more serious and/or successful at it than others.

This however is one out of seven members of the U.S. Senate. That's a significant number, and there are probably more who also have had visions of themselves sitting behind the President's desk, they just to date haven't voiced it out loud. These other would-be Presidents realize that this is the first time since 1960 that the voters are poised to send one of their number to the White House, so they have a vested interest in the President at least being somewhat successful, so as not to return the voters to the old mindset that Governors are better Presidential material.

For this reason this election is all the more important. We can expect that the next President will have some clear advantages in dealing with Congress that past Presidents have not had.

Michigan proves it can be done. Except in Florida.

Michigan and Florida began on the same footing, both being stripped of their delegates to the Democratic convention, and both having held meaningless primaries which were nominally won by Hillary Clinton in the absence of a campaign.

Recently both of them have been discussing what to do about conducting a fair vote.

Michigan, however, is on the verge of having a plan in place which will allow a do-over primary. It does depend on Democrats raising funds to pay for it, but that is a reasonable expectation if the plan is otherwise put into place.

Florida in contrast seems to be completely clueless as to how to put something together. But it's not like a fair election couldn't be held, because Michigan will likely be holding one. Florida only has a long list of 'can't do its', even if the money were provided from outside.

Proving that Florida still doesn't know how to conduct an election, eight years after the 2000 election debacle, six years after the 2002 gubernatorial primary that was riddled with SNAFUS, and two years after a close congressional race in which hundreds of votes appeared to have been not counted but with no paper trail for backup.

Florida: Incompetent, inept, and inconsistent.

White men as swing voters?

After an earlier story run before the South Carolina primary on CNN backfired on the network, in which they asked black women whether they supported Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, with the obvious subtext that the election was about race vs. gender, the networks seem beside themselves in discovering that the new 'swing voters' are white men in the Democratic party. The theory goes, apparently, that since black voters are voting heavily for Obama and white women are mostly voting for Clinton, Obama's recent success is courtesy of white men choosing Obama over Clinton.

The subtext to this one is that the white men are more sexist than they are racist, which is why we (I am a white male Democrat) are supporting Obama.

Which is utter and complete bologna, and I reject their analysis.

To begin with, let's consider who white male Democrats are. As we know, the preferred party of white men in general is the Republican party. And white men who are either racist or sexist are much more likely to feel at home in an anti-abortion party that opposes affirmative action, child care and anti-poverty programs than they are in today's Democratic party. Very likely they've already left.

The white men who are left, such as myself, are therefore likely to be the most liberal of white men, those who reject the essense of the Republican party.

And the truth is, Hillary Clinton has not been getting the votes of these men because she is the more conservative candidate. The Iraq war vote in 2002 was huge, but that isn't all. Her reluctance to question the wisdom of that vote and renounce it (a la John Edwards) spoke volumes. But she also voted for NCLB, Patriot I, Patriot II, the bankrupcty bill, and just to show that she still hadn't learned anything, the Iran vote last year. So the reason I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton isn't because she was a woman, the reason I didn't vote for her is because her hawkish foreign policy reminded me of Joe Lieberman (I didn't vote for him either when he ran for President in 2004.)

A friend of mine feels the same way, but he told me about how he had been roundly excoriated by some female friends of his who believe that he based his vote on gender. This is of course ridiculous. In fact, the last time when there was a serious competition between a white woman and a black man within the Democratic party, Nancy Pelosi in 2005 defeated former congressman Harold Ford of Tennessee to become minority leader (and then accede to speaker after the 2006 elections.) Most Democratic men I know, if they had a strong opinion of the race, felt that it was better that Pelosi won because she better represents the traditional views of the Democratic party. I agree with that assessment.

But the idea that white male Democrats decide who to vote for based on gender (or race for that matter) is insulting at the deepest level to many of us who have spent a great deal of time and effort supporting the candidate who we believe is better.

My daughter gives a great zinger.

Yesterday Barack Obama gave a rousing speech in Beaumont, Texas. I was watching it on MSN just now, and part of it went like this, when he started talking about the need for parents to be more involved with their children:

"Am I right? So turn off the TV set. Put the video game away. Buy a little desk. Or put that child at the kitchen table. Watch them do their homework. If they don’t know how to do it, give ‘em help. If you don’t know how to do it, call the teacher. Make ‘em go to bed at a reasonable time! Keep ‘em off the streets! Give ‘em some breakfast!"

One of my sixth grade daughters (who also loves Obama) came out of the computer room just as he got to the line, "Make 'em go to bed at a reasonable time!" So I gaver her a nudge on the back and said, "See?"

She quickly turned around and joked back at me, "Can I change to Hillary Clinton?"

If that Clinton commercial about her working late at night comes on, I'm changing the channel.

Well, she's eleven, but she keeps asking me when she will be able to run for precinct committeeperson. I'm sure she'll be a good one, but for right now I still get to tell her when it's time to turn the light off.

Obama literature appears fair on health care but not on NAFTA; I think he should get rid of it anyway.

I was a bit distressed today to see a story out about campaign literature sent by the Obama campaign in Ohio, which Hillary Clinton is calling 'shameful' and comparing to Karl Rove type-tactics, saying bluntly that the literature falsifies her positions on NAFTA and health care. The Obama campaign has responded that the literature is correct.

Now, I've been clear in my support for Obama, for whom I voted. And I still believe he is the best nominee for our party and would make the best President in the general. But that doesn't mean that I support a sudden shift towards negative campaigning, if that is what this is. Obama will win the nomination if he continues doing what he has been, and if he does then he will need a united party and needlessly antagonizing supporters of Hillary (many of whom are very passionate in their support) would be a serious mistake. At the same time if the literature is accurate and points out a matter of record then she should respond on the issue and not complain about the fact that he is sending it out.

On NAFTA, she takes issue with a line in the literature that says that she was a champion of NAFTA when it was signed but now wants to make adjustments in it. This I believe is an unfair attack. For one thing, when NAFTA was signed she was the first lady and her husband was signing it, and it would be very difficult to gauge what her true feelings were on the subject from public statements she made at the time. First ladies don't undermine their husbands in public, and I wouldn't expect that she would do so even if she didn't agree with it-- she might tell him behind closed doors but neither I nor anyone from the Obama campaign would know whether she did or not. So that line should not be included in the literature.

On healthcare, the charge is that her plan would force people to buy health insurance even if they could not afford it (as opposed to Obama's plan which still gives people the right to not buy health insurance.)

So I decided to test his charge by downloading her plan from her website here it is and I find that he may well be justified in his concern.

On page 4 she states that

• Individuals: will be responsible for getting and keeping insurance in a system where insurance is affordable and accessible. (which she reiterates on page 8).

Of course we knew that already, that she proposes mandates while Obama does not. Further down on page four she indicates that

• Government: will ensure that health insurance is always affordable and never a crushing burden on any family and will implement reforms to improve quality and lower cost.

I'd feel a lot more sanguine about this if it was defined somewhere what a 'crushing burden' is. Many people live paycheck to paycheck and therefore any additional cost at all would be such a burden.

She then goes on to explain how she will do this:

• Provide Tax Relief to Ensure Affordability: Working families will receive a refundable tax credit to help them afford high-quality health coverage.

Something similar is in John McCain's plan as a matter of fact, and he spells out the amount ($5000 per family.) She does not, but given that the cost right now of premiums for an average family exceed $12,000 it is clear that she would need to more than double McCain's proposal (which is disastrously low) to match the cost of premiums. Of course even if this were the case, there are some problems here. Tax refunds (including refundable tax credits) come once per year, and even if the tax credit were given the year before initially, there would be some people who would be unable to pay their premiums because it would be more than the tax credit for them (for example if they are cancer surivors or have a chronic illness or otherwise have much higher premiums.) Also, many people's tax refunds (and presumably refundable tax credits) are tied up in collections, bankruptcy proceedings, old IRS debt, child support and a whole host of other issues. If a family is barely making ends meet but one of the spouses owes child support to a previous spouse (or to the state for payments made to a previous spouse), or has a judgement against them from a creditor or bankruptcy court, then that is where any kind of tax refunds go, and suddenly the family (which may also have children) is stuck being mandated to pay for insurance without having any additional money with which to pay for it. You can rail against so-called 'deadbeat parents' or 'bankruptcy bums' if you want to, but it is a fact that there are millions of people, including current family members of people with a judgement against them who may have nothing to do with the reason for the tax garnishments, but who could be stuck in a situation where this plan would require them to spend money they don't have while the money that is supposed to help them pay for it would be directed by the government and the courts to go to someone else.

Further in the Clinton plan it says

Limit Premium Payments to a Percentage of Income: The refundable tax credit will be designed to prevent premiums from exceeding a percentage of family income, while maintaining consumer price consciousness in choosing health plans.

What percentage? Right now the $12,000 I referred to above is about a quarter of the average family income in the United States. Is 25% the figure that will be used? Will it apply to everyone (i.e. would someone earning $100,000 have to pay $25,000 in premiums so that a family earning $8,000 per year would only be charged $2,000?) There are no numbers here, which causes me to wonder. Obama's plan is similarly short on numbers (there are some) but since there is no mandate that is less of a concern (if you don't like his numbers then you still have the right to decline the option to purchase the insurance.) This is sometimes compared to mandatory auto insurance but the differences are that 1. some people don't have a car (which is a choice for some of them at least, though not all) and 2. the price of auto insurance, especially if you drive a car that is only designed to get you around with no frills is far, far less than what health insurance costs.

So having looked at this, I have to conclude that the Obama campaign's claim is right on target-- clearly there will be some people who would be mandated to buy health insurance by Clinton's plan but who won't be able afford it.

But I still think he should consider pulling the literature and keep on running the positive, uplifting campaign that has made many in the country, including myself consider him the better candidate. She hasn't found a way to beat Obama yet when he does.

Meet Mr. McCain-- part I (the conservative Republican)

The media likes to harp on John McCain as some kind of a 'moderate' (not a conservative). And recently he has been only reluctantly accepted by many conservatives while others have continued to whine about his getting the nomination. They claim that because of his support and authorship of a few specific bills that McCain is 'not a true conservative.'

Well, they don't need to worry. He is. And trust me, by the time the election rolls around all or virtually all of the conservatives will be back on board. President Bush already is, and has been lavish in his praise of the man who gave his former rival, Bush, the notorious 'Hug' at the 2004 GOP convention:



Don't ever forget that hug, because it makes it clear like nothing else ever could who McCain's master is, and where his loyalty lies. The trick will be to get people tho believe that McCain is some kind of a 'moderate' to realize that he isn't.

Start with the fact that McCain has a lifetime 82% rationg from the American Conservative Union. This puts him much more in line with most Senate Republicans than it does with 'moderates.' McCain has a 100% anti-choice voting record in the Senate and uniformly supports any kind of a bill that opposes abortion. Of course hardcore conservatives like to harp on the fact that he hasn't supported amending the Constitution to make abortion illegal, but part of the reason is because McCain is smart enough to realize that such an amendment (just like an anti-gay marriage amendment) is a pipe dream that would never be ratified by the legislatures in 3/4 of the states, as required by law. So he instead pushes legislation to make it as restrictive as possible.

Further, when asked about Supreme Court nominees, McCain recently asserted his support of the Bush nominees on the Supreme Court, especially Chief Justice John Roberts. He disparaged Justice Antonin Scalia for 'wearing his conservatism on his sleeve.' This upset some talk show hosts but the truth of the matter is that if McCain appoints judges like John Roberts-- quiet conservatives who keep their conservatism hidden deep down in their vest pockets-- the result will be the same as if he appointed a loudmouth like Scalia. So look at what happens: John McCain is portrayed as a moderate, but the result if he is elected is that we will get more consevative judges.

John McCain has long opposed what he sees as 'pork' spending. Of course most so-called 'pork' is money that is invested in projects, especially in rural areas, which help people and communities but might not be affordable without the federal support. Recently though he has in fact redoubled his attacks and suggested that he will if he is President simply veto bills that have 'pork' in them, regardless of whether they are worthwhile projects or not.

Now granted, one could ask the 'anti-pork' crusader whether President Bush should have vetoed his own bill that directed $10 million to create the William H. Rehnquist Center here in Arizona (memorializing another arch-conservative Supreme Court justice who McCain admires a great deal.) But certainly his promise to blanket veto spending on such projects is hardly 'moderate.' It could be justified as hard-nosed fiscal responsibility though, if it weren't for his stance on the Bush tax cuts. Though McCain, still angry over his 2000 loss to Bush opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2001, he now supports making them permanent. And of course that will cost the government far more in revenue that the relative trifle he plans to save with his vetoes.

Health care? Well, just read what John McCain's own website says about it (if you dig deep enough and scroll down to near the bottom.)

Reform the tax code to eliminate the bias toward employer-sponsored health insurance, and provide all individuals with a $2,500 tax credit ($5,000 for families)

Now, the average family insurance policy now costs in excess of $12,000. So in other words, McCain plans to discourage your employer from continuing to offer you insurance, and replace it with a tax credit for less than half of what the premium is now (so if your employer pays half your premium now, then you will be $1,000 in the hole.) And of course if you or a family member has health issues like being a cancer survivor or having a chronic illness or disability then your premium will go much, much higher (if you can buy insurance at all once your employer quits covering you) but Mr. McCain's partial tax subsidy won't rise to cover it. So the bottom line is that the McCain plan will create more uninsured than there are now. Yup, that's what conservatives do too.

Above all, McCain is a strong conservative on foreign policy, especially the Iraq war. McCain is the chairman of the Board of Directors for the International Republican Insitute (IRI). The IRI is a para-governmental organization which was originally founded by Jeanne Kirkpatrick and other conservatives during the Reagan administration to provide a counter to Jimmy Carter's work certifying foreign elections. It found a new lease on life during the Bush administration. Because it is not a governmental agency, the IRI can conduct foreign policy (including setting up elections and educating foreign voters and perhaps less laudible goals than that-- including spreading American-style conservatism) where direct involvement by the State Department could violate U.S. or foreign laws. A quick glance at the full membership of the Board of Directors shows that in addition to McCain, it includes Paul Bremer (the first U.S. ambassador to Iraq during the war), Bush I-era cronies Brent Scowcroft and Lawrence Eagleburger, former GOP chairman Frank Fahrenkopf and three other sitting or former Congressmen or Senators (all Republicans) and various members of the military-industrial complex.

McCain voted enthusiastically for the AUMF in October 2002 and was a supporter of the 'surge' from its opening days. He has spared no expense, supporting close to a trillion dollars in new Iraq spending (all while grousing about a few million in 'pork'; well, McCain recently admitted that he didn't understand economics.) McCain recently said that he is willing to stay in Iraq for a hundred years (Yikes!) So it is obvious that on the Iraq war, a McCain administration would be another four years of the Bush administration.

Part of the appeal that John McCain has to independents and moderates is that they don't see him as being as 'bad' as other Republicans.

Well, he is every bit as bad. Maybe he can see the benefits of working with Democrats on a handful of issues that will get him a lot of press, but on the issues that count, he's still just as conservative. And like his 'huggy buddy' McCain gets stuck on an issue, and he is a stubborn jackass who won't change his mind even when everyone can see that he is wrong.

So don't be fooled by John McCain. He's a conservative. He's just a smart enough conservative that he knows how to play the media game and once in a while keep up appearances. But his supporters in Virginia who the other night when he finally won the primary broke into chants of, 'four more years,' know better. They are Bush backers, and this year McCain is their man.

According to GOP talking heads, that guy was unqualified.

Tonight, Feb. 12 the talking heads, at least those who are talking from the GOP side, seem to enjoy discussing the role of Commander in Chief and suggesting that maybe Barack Obama is not qualified for the job.

They picked a bad night to do it.

Tonight is the 199th birthday of that other guy who was a little known lawyer from Illinois before serving four years in Federal office (Congress) before being elected President.

Maybe they would have preferred a second James Buchanan term instead?

More than a fund source.

I recently received a call (in fact, several, based on the phone numbers of calls I had missed but which showed up on my caller ID so they really wanted to get hold of me) from an outfit which had evidently been hired by one of the leading Democratic campaigns (I will decline at this point to identify the campaign, other than to say it is one of the candidates presently ahead of Bill Richardson, who I support and who is presently running fourth). They got right to the quick of things and asked if I wanted to donate money to that campaign.

I told them I support Bill Richardson, so they thanked me and presumably will call again if their candidate ends up being the nominee.

Now, forget for a moment the fact that I'm not in any position to donate money, since I have kids who will be starting college in a few years, or that I am making two mortgage payments (my daughter and son in law rent from me and pay part, but not all, of what I would need to offset that mortgage payment). To be honest, whether I was in a position to donate money or not, I give what used to be considered much more useful than money.

I give time, effort and energy. I have taken the time to be elected as a precinct committeeman, and I work hard for the candidates who I work for. I also stay in with them until the end, whether that is a good end or a bad end. Several years ago I agreed to support a candidate who was running for Congress. It turned out that he was running his campaign pretty much alone out of the back room of his house; his (homemade) campaign literature listed 'campaign accomplishments' in lieu of any real accomplishments and talked about where he had gone to visit-- and in the end he got 1.8% of the vote to finish last in a field of unknowns in our oversized congressional district (the largest city in the district is about 50,000 people and it covers an area the size of the state of Illinois.) But I worked my tail off for him anyway, put in the time and the miles, and on the day of the primary although he didn't win, he did get votes in our county that I'm sure he (not having been here) would not have gotten, and at least in my precinct he did get more votes than the person who actually won the primary district-wide. So if I don't have money to give, I believe I have a lot to give that is not money.

However, by not asking whether I would be willing to volunteer first, I believe that the campaign of that candidate is missing a step (even though in my case, my answer would be identical, that I am committed to working for Governor Richardson.)

Paul Tsongas once said while running for President in 1992 but scraping by for funds, "Money is the mother's milk of politics." And in fact, that year I felt inspired to give $20 to Tsongas, and later it turned out that many of his contributions were embezzled by a campaign worker. That disillusioned me on giving any campaign donations at all for a long time, at least a decade (well, I worked hard for that twenty bucks, and I gave it to Paul Tsongas so he could get his message out, not to buy some crook a Mercedes.)

Nobody wants to be thought of as nothing more than a source of free cash, and that is the message I got from the call. Further, if they asked if the people they contacted wanted to volunteer first, they could still ask for cash later in the call (either, 'Great! Thank you for agreeing to volunteer! Would you like to also make a donation today?' or, 'I'm sorry you're too busy, would you be able to show your support with a monetary donation instead?') Doing it that way would get you a local volunteer list, still give you a chance to ask everyone who isn't otherwise committed for money, and make people feel like you want them to do more than just write a check to your campaign.

I am also volunteering for another candidate who is running for another office. Recently I asked about whether that candidate had some literature available for an event I was working at. When I called, the phone representative answered that they didn't have any literature yet, or really any well developed campaign, because at this point in the campaign, they were focusing on raising money. Well, I'm glad they are raising money, but was it really worth missing a chance to get your name and information out to hundreds or even thousands of potential voters? The whole point of a campaign organization is that you can have some people raising money while other people are out there organizing, canvassing and talking to voters-- it is possible to do both at the same time.

One guy I will mention that I worked for (and for that matter gave a few dollars to) is Paul Babbitt, in 2004. He raised $2 million, and never really got his message out (but at the end of the campaign, there were boxes and boxes of unopened Babbitt literature). So he got thumped by 22 points. He could just as easily have done that with no money, and frankly if the focus had been on getting him out there more, Rick Renzi's misleading attack ads might not have been as effective.

Republicans have for a long time held a significant edge in fundraising (they after all have a lot more wealthy donors, who can simply write a check for the max, and then go get the same from all of their friends.) One of their problems during the past few years is that Democrats have become more effective at raising funds, and the GOP was so addicted to simply getting a bigger megaphone by spending more on ads than Democrats that they didn't know as well how to campaign when they were behind in the cash totals. Now, that can be a good thing for Democrats, but only if we make sure we don't fall into the same trap as Republicans did. We can't disconnect with our own base and volunteer network simply for the blind pursuit of funds.

Why I will vote Democratic for President regardless

Rarely do I get spurred to write something by a comment by an anonymous commenter, but I will respond to one I got on my last post, in which I questioned whether Hillary Clinton (who is presently leading in the polls) by taking a hawkish position on both Iraq and Iran was in tune with the majority of the voters.

In the post I wrote,

"As a partisan Democrat I will support the nominee no matter who it is,"

to which the commenter responded,

Would you support Newt Gingrich if he switched parties and ran under a Democratic banner? Would you have supported George Wallace because he was a Democrat? Would you support Charles Manson if he ran for office as a Democrat?

Of course not.

But let's limit the discussion to reality here. Newt Gingrich would never get a Democratic nomination because his views are so diametrically opposed to what almost all Democrats stand for. George Wallace (I assume 'anonymous' means the old Wallace, the segregationist) tried to get a nomination and failed, and that was when there were still some Democrats who agreed with segregation in the party. And that was decades ago. Charles Manson? Where did that come from?

Of the candidates who are running for the nomination, Hillary Clinton is probably my last choice, for reasons I described in the last post. However, let me say why I said what I did.

To begin with, look at the obvious. While I discussed the potential opening for a third party candidate her positions could create, history shows us that the next President will in the end almost certainly be a Democrat or a Republican. If I think that Hillary is too hawkish, how would having any of the leading Republicans, all of whom sound just like George W. Bush on Iraq in pledging to remain and fight it out, be better? In fact, it would be worse. Not only has Hillary at least talked about withdrawing some troops from Iraq and been critical at times of the war, but if Congress were to pass a bill like they did this year (and which she voted for) detailing withdrawal plans, she might sign it. She might not either, but I will take 'might' over the certainty that a President Giuliani, Thompson, McCain or Romney would veto it.

There are certainly those who claim that she is a 'Republican lite,' and at times I've agreed with them. But then we've had six years of a real Republican, and look where that has taken us. Besides, many people said the same about Al Gore in 2000, and many progressives either stayed home, did not cast a vote for President, or voted for Ralph Nader. And then it turned out later that Gore in reality was a progressive, but like many politicians he ran to the center in order to get elected. Who knew? Those who had read his first book, 'Earth in the Balance.' And Hillary's earlier books do show a progressive mindset, especially in terms of community and social structures, education and issues affecting women and kids. Her new healthcare proposals, while not as far reaching as the first set she offered in 1993, are certainly an improvement over what we have now. It could be that she could be a pleasant surprise, and certainly in some areas at least she would be.

There are those who would be attracted to an anti-war third party candidacy, as I mentioned in the last post. However, if we assume for the moment that it was a Bloomberg/Hagel ticket, keep in mind that Bloomberg is certainly not a guy who either understands or is likely to support anything that would involve making life easier for ordinary people, and Chuck Hagel, while he has done a fabulous job of speaking out in favor of leaving Iraq, has been a standard issue conservative Republican for most of his career in the Senate.

Further, even if it were a progressive anti-war ticket that ran on a third party platform what we have seen is that unlike in a parliamentary system, where a group of parties form a governing coalition, and a vote for a particular small party may strengthen that party and move the needle of the coalition closer to the positions of that party, in the American two-party system, third parties exert a negative influence, often electing the party that least agrees with them by siphoning votes from the candidate who more closely matches their position. We saw that in the 2000 Presidential race, and in fact a dirty little secret about Democrats' control of the present Senate is that our margin was made possible by a Libertarian candidate in Montana siphoning 10,000 mostly fiscally conservative (and likely Republican) votes in a race that John Tester won by 2000 votes.

Beyond that, I haven't always been such a partisan Democrat as I am today. During the Clinton era, I even flirted with voting for Republicans. However, the excesses of George W. Bush helped me realize why I am a Democrat, and I haven't voted for a Republican in almost a decade. For that matter, when I did vote for Republicans I almost always lived to regret that vote (if you live in Arizona, you will understand what I mean when I tell you that the last Republican I voted for was Calamity Jane-- and believe me, it didn't take long before I regretted it.)

It may be that voting for Hillary Clinton is like settling for Meat Loaf when you wanted a steak. But that's better than a soup line, which is about the equivalent of what the GOP is offering.

Does Hillary understand that this is a nation sick of war?

Yesterday at a campaign event in North Hampton, Iowa, Hillary Clinton had a testy exchange with an anti-war member of the crowd.

Referring to her recent vote in the Senate supporting the Bush administration in its attempts to get us into a military confrontation with Iran, as well as her 2002 vote in favor of going to war in Iraq and her continued refusal to admit being wrong about that vote, the attendee, Randall Rolph asked,

"Why should I support your candidacy, if it appears that you haven't learned from your past mistakes?"

Sen. Clinton's response was particularly concerning to me as a Democratic voter:

After defending the vote, Clinton finished by saying about the question, "somebody obviously sent it to you."

Rolph responded, "I take exception. This is my own research. Nobody sent it to me. I am offended that you would suggest that."

"Let me finish," Clinton answered, "I apologize. I just have been asked the very same question in three other places."

OK, I'm glad she realized right away that she had stepped over the line in making the accusation and apologized. But on a larger level, she just doesn't seem to get it.

There is a reason why she has been asked the question frequently. It's the same reason why Democrats, especially anti-war Democrats did very well in elections last year. The reason is that most people are sick and tired of the Iraq war, most people are sick and tired of the apparently reflexive reaction by the Bush administration and its supporters in Congress (which has included, unfortunately, Hillary Clinton) to take a hardline hawkish view towards everyone who disagrees with us, and most people are sick of the administration's unwillingness to consider alternative courses of action.

Further, in poll after poll after poll we have seen that most Americans want the U.S. out of Iraq, on a timetable if not immediately. Clinton may well be able to win the Democratic nomination, largely because those of us who want the U.S. out of Iraq are split between Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Biden and Kucinich, but to be honest, while I support Richardson myself (among other reasons, because he is the highest candidate in the polls who has promised to get every American all the way out of Iraq and is also the most qualified to be able to deliver on that promise), if it were a two person battle between Clinton and any of the above, I would support any of the above for the nomination. So she is lucky that the majority of the Democratic party is split so many different ways, but still is likely the last choice of most Democrats, and specifically so for one and one reason only-- Iraq.

But Iraq will be the central issue in next year's election, just as it was in last year's. And it is not only most Democrats who want us out of Iraq, but most voters. And that is where Hillary is definitely on the wrong side of things.

She may be gambling that in a race against a Republican, who certainly will sound like, if not embrace, George W. Bush on Iraq, saying we have to stay there until the cows come home, she can afford to take a hawkish stance and win the votes of liberals by talking about health care, education, etc.

But if so then it is not a wise gamble. I've blogged before about the dangers of the frontloaded primary system, in which we will have the nominees for November chosen by just forty-eight hours after the Super Bowl.

One huge problem with this is that it presents an enormous window of opportunity for a well-funded independent or third party candidate to jump in during the late spring or early or even mid summer, especially if the presumptive Democratic and Republican nominees have just spent all spring attacking each other until most people don't want either of them. And in fact, this is not a theoretical scenario-- current NY mayor Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire who would not need to raise a dime, has dropped hints about running, possibly with Chuck Hagel, a retiring Republican Senator from Nebraska who is a Vietnam veteran and has come out strongly in favor of withdrawing from Iraq.

Such a scenario could result in a hawkish Hillary Clinton being in a very difficult position. Strong war hawks would likely continue to support the Republican nominee-- she might be lucky to pull off a handful but not enough to make much difference. On the other hand, Bloomberg or some other third party candidate would have the advantage of being able to triangulate an Iraq stance that favored getting out of Iraq-- hence agreeing with 2/3 of the electorate on the number one issue of the campaign while Hillary and the Republican were left to fight over the other one third.

As a partisan Democrat I will support the nominee no matter who it is, but I have to admit that I have a lot of reservations about whether Hillary Clinton either understands just how angry and frustrated most Americans are about Iraq, or frankly gives a hoot. Her response to Mr. Rolph's very appropriate question, ranging from flippant to arrogant, makes me thinks that she does not.