The Price Of Forgetting A Presidency

The achievements of President Johnson are overshadowed by his failure to get our military out of Vietnam. But on the 100th anniversary of Johnson's birthday, Joe Califano, Johnson's special assistant for domestic affairs, reminds Democrats of Johnson's greatest achievements and urges them to learn from them. Johnson's shrewd political sense, extensive knowledge of parliamentary procedure, compassion and courage helped him achieve what Kennedy had started. Democrats would be wise to not only acknowledge his successes but also learn from his failure. All the candidates have vowed to get us out of Iraq, a challenge that undoubtedly parallels the crisis Johnson faced in Vietnam.

Johnson's "we shall overcome" speech was one of the best ever given to Congress.

John Edwards made reducing poverty a centerpiece of his presidential campaign. Yet he never mentioned Lyndon Johnson, the first -- and only -- president to declare war on poverty and sharply reduce it.

Recounting the achievements of Democratic presidents, Barack Obama cites Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John Kennedy -- but not LBJ, the president responsible for the laws that gave him (and millions of others) the opportunity to develop and display their talents and gave this nation the opportunity to benefit from them.

When Hillary Clinton noted that "it took a president" to translate Martin Luther King's moral protests into laws, she broke the taboo and mentioned Johnson, only to be rebuked. Lyndon Johnson is the invisible president of the 20th century. The tragedy of Vietnam created a cloud that still obscures Johnson's achievements.

Our nation -- particularly Democrats -- pays a high price for indulging in this amnesia. If we make Johnson's presidency invisible, we break the chain of this nation's progressive tradition and deny people an understanding of its achievements and resilience from the time of Theodore Roosevelt. Worse, we lose key lessons for our democracy: that courage counts and that government can work to benefit the least among us in ways that enhance all of us.

Americans under 40 have seen in Washington only administrations that were anti-government, mired in scandal, inept, gridlocked, driven by polls, or tilted toward the rich and powerful. For decades Americans have endured political micromanagement in which passage of one bill -- welfare reform, No Child Left Behind -- over an entire Congress or presidential term is considered an accomplishment.

President Johnson submitted and Congress enacted more than 100 major proposals in each of the 89th and 90th Congresses. His initiatives included establishing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and endowments for the arts and humanities as well as environmental and consumer protections. But his heart was in the War on Poverty. When Johnson took office, 22.2 percent of Americans lived in poverty. When he left, only 13 percent were living below the poverty line -- the greatest one-time poverty reduction in U.S. history. Johnson proposed and convinced Congress to enact Medicare, which today covers 43 million older Americans; Medicaid, which covers 63 million needy individuals; the loan, grant and work-study programs that more than 60 percent of college students use; aid to elementary and secondary education in poor areas; Head Start; food stamps, which help feed 27 million men, women and children; increases in the minimum Social Security benefit, which keep 10 million seniors out of poverty; and an array of programs designed to empower the poor at the grass roots.

No president since Johnson has been able to effect any significant reduction in poverty. In 2006, the poverty level stood at 12.3 percent; today is it almost certainly higher. He also threw himself into the fight against racial discrimination. In 1964 there were 300 black elected officials in America. By 2001, there were some 10,000 elected black officials across the nation, more than 6,000 of them in the South. In 1965, there were six black members of the House; today there are 42; the only black member of the Senate is headed for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Behind these achievements are important lessons for future presidents. LBJ was a revolutionary whose conviction that poverty and racial discrimination were moral issues helped shape the nation's response. He knew that the political capital from the sympathy generated by John Kennedy's assassination and the huge margin of his own election in 1964 was a dwindling asset. He saw himself in a race against time as he fought to remedy the damage that slavery and generations of prejudice had inflicted on black Americans. In his War on Poverty, he sized up the limited patience of Congress and affluent Americans.

Johnson had extraordinary courage and fought for racial equality even when it hurt him and his party. After signing the Civil Rights Act in 1964, Johnson was defeated in five Southern states, four of which Democrats had not lost for 80 years. In 1965, he drove the Voting Rights Act through Congress, and in 1966, he proposed legislation to end discrimination in housing.

In the 1966 midterm elections, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate. Border-state and Southern Democratic governors and members of Congress demanded that Johnson withdraw his housing proposal and curb his efforts to desegregate schools. Undeterred, in 1968, he pushed the Fair Housing Act through Congress.

Those who seek to change the ways of Washington should remember, too, that Johnson knew how to reach across the aisle. He assiduously courted Republican members of Congress to support his Great Society proposals, not only because he needed Republican votes to pass the initiatives but because he saw bipartisan support as an essential foundation on which to build lasting commitment among Americans. He knew that the endurance of his legislative achievements and their acceptance by state and local governments, private interests, and citizens required bipartisan support.

Too many lessons of Lyndon Johnson's presidency have been lost, because the Democratic Party, the academic elite, political analysts and the media have made him the invisible president. It's time to take off the Vietnam blinders and see his entire presidency.

Battle of the Blogs

In the most recent issue of Vanity Fair, James Wolcott explores “the vicious Clinton-versus-Obama rupture” in the liberal blogosphere, which has only widened the split amongst Democrats and, to this point, given John McCain a free pass. An excerpt:

After two terms of George W. Bush, which only seemed like a scarred eternity, American voters (so the scenario went) would be pining for Democratic recapture of the White House and a return to competency as a novel change of pace. Let the reclamation begin. In January 2009, the former president would pack his saddlebags and head back to his Texas ranch, secure in the knowledge of having wrecked pretty much everything there was to wreck (Iraq, the dollar, the national debt, America’s prestige abroad, the rebuilding of New Orleans, the Endangered Species Act).

The president’s impromptu tap dance at the White House as he killed time waiting for a tardy Senator John McCain to arrive for his official endorsement as the Republican nominee was the perfect vaudeville symbol for the breezy, wanton disconnect of this administration from the consequences of its actions, the unsinkable cheer of its sunshine superman. Despite his dapper moves, Bush’s dragging approval numbers were proof that his old white magic had lost its spell, that his was not an aura in which it was healthy to bask. He shrivelled everything he touched. (So far 29 House Republicans have announced their retirement this cycle, one sure sign of blight.) In the electoral battle to succeed Bush, the positivity seemed lopsided: the Democrats had cornered the market on good vibrations and Pepsodent smiles, while the Republicans—apart from Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee—majored in grim tidings and sour dispositions. Poll after poll showed that Democrats were happy with their top candidates—Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama—while Republicans kept scanning the horizon for a hunk of salvation, measuring Fred Thompson for Ronald Reagan’s raiment until he went logy on them and had to be put out to graze. Even the second tier of Democratic contenders, from happy warrior Joe Biden to Dennis Kucinich, with his red-tressed, tongue-pierced, statuesque wife, seemed like a Happy Meal compared with furrowed Republican also-rans such as Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo. One by one the camera fodder dropped out of the race as the winnowing process culled the weak, the fanged, and the superfluous, the Republican field reduced until John McCain became the winner by default, the last bowling pin standing.

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews is fond of repeating the political maxim “Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line,” and a halfhearted queue formed behind McCain’s candidacy despite the cranky impetuosities of a highly crafted nonconformity that grated on the Rush Limbaugh dittoheads, the Club for Growth tax-cut fanatics, and the nativists who wanted to Berlin Wall the border with Mexico to keep out the intruders causing Lou Dobbs such gastritis. Democrats had fallen in love with Obama, in heavy like with Hillary and Edwards. A born-again populist, Edwards functioned as a lubricant, a slick lining separating—and dampening the friction between—two competing iconographic surge forces (the first black presidential nominee versus the first female nominee) and drawing enough support on Daily Kos and other liberal-Dem Web sites to diffuse the animosity, competitive zeal, and gender-generational differences between the two camps.

Once Edwards dropped out of the race, however, the buffer zone was removed, direct contact replaced triangulation, and the Obama and Hillary supporters faced off like the Jets and the Sharks. The rancor was disproportionate in intensity and extravagant in invective, a fervor worthy of ancestral foes. Months-old grievances seethed and erupted as if they had been bubbling for centuries in a lake of bad blood. On the most egoistic plane, it seemed like a clash of entitlements, the messianics versus the menopausals. The Obama-ites exuded the confidence of those who feel that they embody the future and are the seed bearers of energies and new modalities too long smothered under the thick haunches of the tired, old, entrenched way of doing things.

The Hillarions felt a different imperative knocking at the gate of history, the long overdue prospect of the first woman taking the presidential oath of office. For them, Hillary’s time had come, she had paid her dues, she had been thoroughly vetted, she had survived hairdos that would have sunk lesser mortals, and she didn’t let a little thing like being loathed by nearly half of the country bum her out and clog her transmission. Not since Nixon had there been such a show of grinding perseverance in the teeth of adversity, and Nixon in a pantsuit was never going to be an easy sell contrasted with the powerful embroidery of Obama’s eloquence—his very emergence on the political scene seemed like a feat of levitation.

Hillary’s candidacy promised to make things better; Obama’s to make us better: outward improvement versus inward transformation. With Hillary, you would earn your merit badges; with Obama, your wings. Hillary’s candidacy was warmed-over meat loaf—comfort food for those too old or fearful to Dream.

Veepstakes

In today's Fix, Chris Cillizza provides an interesting run-down of potential nominees for vice-president.

BARACK OBAMA

* John Edwards: The former North Carolina senator's endorsement remains the biggest "get" in the ongoing battle between Obama and Clinton. On one level, he seems like a natural fit as Obama's No. 2; the two were passionate voices for change in the race and both put a refusal to accept money from special interests at the core of their campaigns. Edwards is also still a relatively young man and would help Obama make a generational argument against McCain. Why wouldn't Edwards be the pick? His six years in the Senate don't help Obama address voter concerns about experience.

* Tim Kaine: Kaine, the governor of Virginia, has long been The Fix's dark horse pick to be Obama's running mate. Not only was he among the first major elected officials to back Obama, he hails from a potential swing state. Also, Kaine's deep faith (and willingness to speak about it on the campaign trail) could help the party's outreach to moderate and independent voters. Like Edwards, Kaine has very limited experience in foreign affairs, however.

* Kathleen Sebelius: Sebelius is the hot name right now among Democratic insiders buzzing about an Obama pick. Sebelius is currently in her second term as the governor of Kansas - one of the most Republican states in the country. While the idea of the Democratic ticket carrying Kansas is somewhat far fetched (Lyndon Johnson was the last Democrat to do so way back in 1964), picking Sebelius would add to the historic nature of the Democratic ticket and draw huge amounts of media attention. Plus, Sebelius may have an intangible going for her: Obama's mother is a native Kansan.

* Jim Webb: Webb is a beloved figure among the liberal left who all but drafted him into his 2006 upset victory over Sen. George Allen (R). And he has the military credential few can match as a decorated Marine during Vietnam. His biggest asset and potential liability seems to lie in his unorthodox approach to politics. Webb is blunt to the point of awkwardness. Voters often love it, but such straight shooting may not make an ideal veep pick.

* Tony Zinni: Zinni is not only a high ranking military officer(he served as a Marine for nearly four decades and was the head of U.S. Central Command), but he also is a longtime opponent of the war in Iraq. His foreign policy chops are tough to question and his opposition to the war jibes nicely with Obama's own position. Given the likelihood of McCain as the Republican nominee, Obama might well opt for Zinni (or some other military man) to blunt charges that he is naive when it comes to foreign policy and national security.

JOHN McCAIN

* Charlie Crist: Less than two years after winning election as the governor of Florida, Crist is already being talked up in Republican circles as a potential VP. (The St. Petersburg Times even has a Charlie Crist veep-o-meter measuring his chances. In retrospect, McCain's win in Florida was the tipping point in his bid for the nomination, and that victory was fueled in no small part by a last-minute endorsement from Crist. One strike against Crist is that he isn't regarded by movement conservatives as one of them.

* Jon Huntsman Jr.: Huntsman, the governor of Utah, is the dark horse pick of this list. His original endorsement was seen a major coup for McCain - Huntsman is Mormon, thus his support was seen as a slap at Mitt Romney. Huntsman also has significant chops among the Reagan/Bush crowd; he served in both Bush administrations and was a staff assistant in the Reagan White House in the early 1980s. Did we mention he is the son of the wealthiest man in Utah?

* Tim Pawlenty: The two-term Minnesota governor has to be considered the frontrunner at the moment to be McCain's pick. He hails from the electorally important Midwest, is young enough to balance concerns about McCain's age, and he stuck by the Arizona senator in the darkest days of the campaign. The criticism that Pawlenty is an unknown on the national stage may, in fact, be an argument in his favor - voters won't bring any preconceived notions about him to the ticket. Never forget that one of the guiding principles in picking a VP is to find someone who is comfortable being seen but not heard. Want more about the man they call "Tpaw"?

* Mark Sanford: If Tpaw is the top choice these days, Sanford isn't far behind. Term-limited out of office in 2010, Sanford is young (47) and the rare Republican who can bridge the chasm between social and economic conservatives. Sanford was an early endorser of McCain during the latter's 2000 presidential candidacy and, even though he stayed neutral this year, retains a good relationship with McCain. Fiscal conservatives -- led by the Club For Growth -- LOVE Sanford and have already begun lobbying on his behalf.

* John Thune: A rising star in the party, Thune is a hero to conservatives for defeating Sen. Tom Daschle (S.D.) in 2004. He also hails from the Plains -- a potentially competitive area with Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota and Wisconsin up for grabs. Thune, like Sanford and Pawlenty, is in his 40s, helping McCain offset
any concerns about his age.

The Experience Question

As the topic of experience comes to the forefront of the Democratic presidential primary, pundits are scrambling to interpret what it means for each candidate. Among the various prognostications, a common thought is that, in trying to distinguish herself from Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton is relying way too heavily on the notion that she is the candidate of experience. While polls show that it may be working in the short-term, it's clear that such a strategy could not be sustained through the general election, especially if her opponent is John McCain.

Nicholas Kristof: The point is not that experience is pointless but that it needn’t be in politics to be useful. John McCain’s years as a P.O.W. gave him an understanding of torture and a moral authority to discuss it that no amount of Senate hearings ever could have conferred. In the same way, Mr. Obama’s years as an antipoverty organizer give him insights into one of our greatest challenges: how to end cycles of poverty...

In politics, Mr. Obama’s preparation is indeed thin, though it’s more than Hillary Rodham Clinton acknowledges... Mrs. Clinton’s strength is her mastery of the details of domestic and foreign policy, unrivaled among the candidates; she speaks fluently about what to do in Pakistan, Iraq, Darfur. Mr. Obama’s strength is his vision and charisma and the possibility that his election would heal divisions at home and around the world. John Edwards’s strength is his common touch and his leadership among the candidates in establishing detailed positions on health care, poverty and foreign aid.

Those are the meaningful distinctions in the Democratic field, not Mrs. Clinton’s spurious claim to “35 years of experience.” The Democrats with the greatest Washington expertise — Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson — have already been driven from the race. And the presidential candidate left standing with the greatest experience by far is Mr. McCain; if Mrs. Clinton believes that’s the criterion for selecting the next president, she might consider backing him. To put it another way, think which politician is most experienced today in the classic sense, and thus — according to the “experience” camp — best qualified to become the next president. That’s Dick Cheney. And I rest my case.

Timothy Noah: Let's be clear. If you're a Democrat, experience isn't on this year's menu. The most experienced among the major candidates seeking the Democratic nomination were Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware and Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut. They have now dropped out. The remaining major candidates—Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC - all lack lengthy records in government.

Edwards served a single term in the Senate. Obama served eight years in the Illinois state Senate and is halfway through his first term in the U.S. Senate. Clinton is about to begin her eighth year in the U.S. Senate. Going by years spent as an elective official, Obama's 11 years exceeds Clinton's seven, which in turn exceeds Edwards' six. But it's a silly calculus.

He goes on to scrutinize Hillary's claim to be "uniquely qualified at this moment in our history" because of her "deep experience over the last 35 years" and her "firsthand knowledge of what goes on inside a White House."

Oh, please. Thirty-five years takes you back to 1973, half of which Hillary spent in law school, for crying out loud. I don't mean to denigrate her professional experience... But in government, Clinton's chief role over the years has been that of kibitzer. An important kibitzer, to be sure—what spouse isn't?—but not a direct participant.

Clinton emphasizes in particular her profound experience in foreign policy... But a Dec. 26 New York Times story revealed that during her husband's two terms in office, Hillary Clinton did not hold a security clearance, did not attend meetings of the National Security Council, and was not given a copy of the president's daily intelligence briefing. During trips to Bosnia and Kosovo, she "acted as a spokeswoman for American interests rather than as a negotiator." On military affairs, most of her experience derives not from her White House years but from serving on the Senate armed services committee.

Clinton's claim to superior experience isn't merely dishonest. It's also potentially dangerous should she become the nominee. If Clinton continues to build her campaign on the dubious foundation of government experience, it shouldn't be very difficult for her GOP opponent to pull that edifice down. That's especially true if a certain white-haired senator now serving his 25th year in Congress (four in the House and 21 in the Senate) wins the nomination.

If Clinton doesn't find a new theme soon, she won't just be cutting Obama's throat. She'll also be cutting her own...

"Iowa's Histrionic Hucksters"

George Will, the Washington Post's conservative sage, wrote a scathing column about the populist rhetoric used by Edwards and Huckabee. Will's best shot was at Huckabee's and Edwards' policy solution to battling the "special interests" that have a stranglehold on our Democracy --

"Although Huckabee and Edwards profess to loathe and vow to change Washington's culture, each would aggravate its toxicity... The way to achieve Edwards' and Huckabee's populist goal of reducing the role of "special interests," meaning money, in government is to reduce the role of government in distributing money. But populists want to sharply increase that role by expanding the regulatory state's reach and enlarging its agenda of determining the distribution of wealth. Populists, who are slow learners, cannot comprehend this iron law: Concentrate power in Washington, and you increase the power of interests whose representatives are concentrated there."

There are other comments worthy of praise. Read it here.

New Hampshire Debates

If you missed the New Hampshire debates, WMUR provides a great compilation of video highlights. Nothing Earth-shattering, but it's interesting how the two approaches in the Democratic field are solidifying (Obama and Edwards preaching change and Richardson and Clinton preaching experience), and it's interesting how much each of the Republican candidates enjoy taking pot-shots at Mitt Romney (article and video).

CQ provides its "Mosts and Bests" on both the Republican and Democratic debates.

Oh, and Hillary's angry response to Edwards taking sides with Obama is getting a good deal of press. See below:

The Caucus Breakdown: The Morning After

Stuart Rothenberg analyzes the winners and losers from last night:

Iowa Winners

1. Barack Obama. The easiest pick of the night, Obama’s win means that he goes to New Hampshire as a winner. No, the Democratic contest is not over, but if he wins in the Granite State, he’ll be hard to stop in South Carolina. And if he sweeps those three, he may never look back.Entrance polling showed Iowa Democrats responded strongly to Obama’s message of change – half of Democrats said that the top quality they were looking for in a candidate was his or her ability to bring about change, and of those respondents, 51 percent voted for Obama. The Illinois Democrat’s campaign also clearly benefited from the surge in Democratic turnout and from the participation of Iowans who had never before caucused. Obama won among caucus-goers who said the war was the top issue, as well as among those who identified the economy or health care as the most important issue. He won “very liberal” and “somewhat liberal” Democratic caucus attendees handily, and nosed out Clinton among self-described moderates. All in all, an impressive performance.

2. Mike Huckabee. In May, Huckabee wasn’t even on the radar screen in Iowa. At the end of the day, he was outspent, and he won what is always regarded as an “organizational race” without much of an organization. Huckabee clobbered the rest of the GOP field on two key candidate qualities: “shares my values” and “says what he believes.” That’s a good place to start when you are running for your party’s Presidential nomination. But Huckabee did as well as he did on Thursday only because of the make-up of Thursday’s Republican caucus-goers. The former Arkansas Governor won the caucuses because he cleaned up among the most conservative and most religious attendees. Six out of ten GOP caucus-goes were evangelicals, and he won them 46 percent to 19 percent over Mitt Romney. Among the 36 percent of GOP attendees who said that the religious beliefs of the candidates matter “a great deal,” Huckabee won 56 percent – five times more than Romney, McCain or Thompson. But New Hampshire doesn’t look like natural Huckabee territory, and the Arkansas Republican’s long-term prospects in the race are not as bright as they may look today.

3. John McCain. Sure, McCain finished essentially tied for third with Fred Thompson, but Romney’s less than sterling showing could dry up some of the former Massachusetts governor’s support in New Hampshire, and that could boost McCain’s prospects on Tuesday. The only problem for the Arizona Republican: If the Obama bandwagon draws even more Granite State Independents into the Democratic primary, depriving McCain of potential supporters.

4. Rudy Giuliani. The win by Huckabee means that the GOP race is as confused as ever, and that’s a plus for the former New York City mayor, who benefits from confusion in the early contests. Giuliani’s chances for the Republican nomination don’t look all that bright, but he would have been much worse off if Romney had won in Iowa.

Iowa Losers

1. John Edwards. Anyone who listened to Edwards’s caucus night speech had to be asking, “What’s he smoking?”After drawing 32 percent in the 2004 caucuses and spending the next four years camped out in the state, Edwards finished essentially tied for second on Thursday. To make matters worse, the other “change” candidate in the contest, Barack Obama, finished first. And, Obama’s optimistic change message trumped Edwards’s angry, populist message. Edwards, who railed against corporate greed, focused on jobs and trade and aimed his message at the “little guy,” lost union households to both Clinton and Obama. Edwards will now have major resource problems, and he isn’t likely to do well in New Hampshire. If his comments last night are any indication, he isn’t likely to go quietly. But the former North Carolina senator is in serious trouble. He needed to win in Iowa, and he didn’t. It’s just that simple.

2. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Clinton’s problem isn’t that Edwards nosed her out for second; it’s that caucus attendees preferred change over experience, raising questions about her fundamental appeal. The calendar isn’t her friend over the next month, and she’ll be peppered with process questions when she’d rather talk about things that voters want to hear. Nobody should count the New York senator out. Iowa, after all, is just a single state, and Clinton and Obama ran virtually even among self-described Democrats in Iowa, which offers her hope in true closed primary states. But Clinton no longer is in the driver’s seat, as indicated by the fact that she lost women, 35 percent to 30 percent, to Obama in the caucuses.

3. Mitt Romney. How do you go from a prohibitive favorite in the Iowa caucuses to a surprisingly distant runner-up to Mike Huckabee? Ask Romney. He did it. Romney won with upscale Republicans, more moderate and urban GOP caucus-goers and those for whom the religious beliefs of the candidate didn’t matter a lot. But he got swamped by conservative evangelicals who wouldn’t vote for a Mormon. He won’t have that problem in New Hampshire, but he has a different one there: John McCain.Romney needs a win in the Granite State or in Michigan to stay in the hunt. One of his biggest problems is that caucus attendees didn’t think that “he says what he believes.”

The Caucus Breakdown

Chuck Todd provides a thoughtful breakdown of the potential outcomes of the Iowa Caucuses and what they would mean to the various candidates.

In summary, John Edwards has to win because he has invested so much time and effort in the state over the last few years. A loss would be devastating. Because of the resources at their disposal, both Clinton and Obama need to win but could stomach a loss. Meanwhile, Richardson, Biden and Dodd are fighting for 4th place. Finshing behind the Big 3 would be considered a victory while anything less would make their campaigns more irrelevant and most likely knock them out of the race.

A win for Huckabee would obviously be huge but, considering the amount of time and money spent by Romney in Iowa, he could also declare victory with a strong 2nd place finish. A win by Romney gives him momentum going into New Hampshire while a 2nd place finish would shift that momentum over to a surging McCain (who will be rooting hard for Huckabee) in New Hampshire and South Carolina. A respectable showing by McCain ("north of 15%") would be considered a victory for a candidate who hasn't put much effort into the state. And the only thing keeping Thompson in the race would be a top 3 finish and if that doesn't happen, he will likely throw his support to McCain.

It's still muddled but I can see some possible trends developing. The significant outcome of the Democratic Caucus will be the fate of Edwards and to whom the third tier candidates will shift their support. My guess is an Obama victory in Iowa, followed closely by Edwards and Clinton in a near statistical tie. Biden comes in a strong 4th followed by Richardson and then Dodd.

On the Republican side, it seems more clear. Huckabee wins in Iowa, followed by Romney then McCain (at around 17%), Thompson, Paul then Giuliani. Thompson then drops out and endorses McCain, who then crusises to a victory over a staggered Romney in New Hampshire and South Carolina. Romney has to bow out and Giuliani's irrelevance in the early states prevents him from competing with a surging McCain. McCain then outlasts Huckabee, who has a more difficult time winning with less resources and in states with smaller Evangelical populations. Soon after, Huckabee bows out and is picked as a running mate by McCain who attempts to shore up support from the Republican base.

The Appeal of Obama: The Fresh Candidate

In a recent article in the Atlantic Monthly, Andrew Sullivan writes:

The logic behind the candidacy of Barack Obama is not, in the end, about Barack Obama. …The most persuasive case for Obama has less to do with him than with the moment he is meeting.

(Obama’s candidacy) is a potentially transformational one. Unlike any of the other candidates, he could take America—finally—past the debilitating, self-perpetuating family quarrel of the Baby Boom generation that has long engulfed all of us.

As Sullivan contends, to fully appreciate the appeal of Obama, it is essential to not only reflect on the political divisiveness of today, but to also understand how these divisions are closely linked to (and derivative of) those of the past. We see this divisiveness in Congress as political rivalry and posturing takes precedence over results, and we see this divisiveness in our communities as way too many of our friends and neighbors take their cues from the likes of Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and MoveOn.org.

As Americans eagerly look for leadership on the issues that impact our lives, we often come away empty-handed and completely disgusted by the over-politicization of the nation's business. On both sides of this debate, politicians take compromise for weakness and more frequently choose to score points with their electoral base than to produce meaningful results. With an eye toward the future, we have longed for a greater sense of unity but are left with a President whose lasting legacy will undoubtedly be his divisiveness – a divisiveness that was stubbornly and recklessly born from a historic time of national and international accord. Thus, as the next presidential election nears, both sides are as firmly entrenched as ever, Americans have lost confidence in their elected representatives, and international mistrust of American leadership is dangerously high. Sullivan elaborates on that point:

As the Iraq War faltered, the polarization intensified. It was and is a toxic cycle, in which the interests of the United States are supplanted by domestic agendas born of pride and ruthlessness on the one hand and bitterness and alienation on the other. This is the critical context for the election of 2008. It is an election that holds the potential not merely to intensify this cycle of division but to bequeath it to a new generation, one marked by a new war that need not be - that should not be - seen as another Vietnam.

In normal times, such division is not fatal, and can even be healthy. …But we are not talking about routine rancor. And we are not talking about normal times. We are talking about a world in which Islamist terror, combined with increasingly available destructive technology, has already murdered thousands of Americans, and tens of thousands of Muslims, and could pose an existential danger to the West.

…Of the viable national candidates, only Obama and possibly McCain have the potential to bridge this widening partisan gulf. …Perhaps because the Republicans and independents who are open to an Obama candidacy see his primary advantage in prosecuting the war on Islamist terrorism. It isn’t about his policies as such; it is about his person. They are prepared to set their own ideological preferences to one side in favor of what Obama offers America in a critical moment in our dealings with the rest of the world. The war today matters enormously. The war of the last generation? Not so much. If you are an American who yearns to finally get beyond the symbolic battles of the Boomer generation and face today’s actual problems, Obama may be your man.

To get beyond these “symbolic battles” of the past, we need someone with appropriate qualifications, but we also need someone with a certain freshness. On a slate of recycled candidates and those who employ “politics as usual”, Obama clearly stands out. Beyond the fresh face he brings to the campaign, he brings a fresh approach and good judgment to many of the issues that have long stale-mated the traditional Washington “interests.” His rhetoric is also fresh. It lacks the rancor we hear from other candidates and it better articulates what is in the hearts and minds of the average voter. It is also thoughtful, sometimes blunt, sometimes unpopular with a given audience, and sometimes flies in the face of Washington conventional wisdom.

He is among the first Democrats in a generation not to be afraid or ashamed of what they actually believe, which also gives them more freedom to move pragmatically to the right, if necessary. He does not smell, as Clinton does, of political fear.

That Hillary factor makes the appeal of a “fresh” candidate particularly strong. Her competence is appealing but, along with a good deal of experience, she brings a good deal of political baggage. Instead of putting us on a course toward greater national unity, her candidacy would further polarize the electorate and put us directly in the middle of a two-front war - confronting the challenges of today while trying to stave off the battles of the past.

The paradox is that Hillary makes far more sense if you believe that times are actually pretty good. If you believe that America’s current crisis is not a deep one, if you think that pragmatism alone will be enough to navigate a world on the verge of even more religious warfare, if you believe that today’s ideological polarization is not dangerous, and that what appears dark today is an illusion fostered by the lingering trauma of the Bush presidency, then the argument for Obama is not that strong. Clinton will do. And a Clinton-Giuliani race could be as invigorating as it is utterly predictable.

But if you sense, as I do, that greater danger lies ahead, and that our divisions and recent history have combined to make the American polity and constitutional order increasingly vulnerable, then the calculus of risk changes. Sometimes, when the world is changing rapidly, the greater risk is caution. Close-up in this election campaign, Obama is unlikely. From a distance, he is necessary. At a time when America’s estrangement from the world risks tipping into dangerous imbalance, when a country at war with lethal enemies is also increasingly at war with itself, when humankind’s spiritual yearnings veer between an excess of certainty and an inability to believe anything at all, and when sectarian and racial divides seem as intractable as ever, a man who is a bridge between these worlds may be indispensable.

Unfortunately, John Edwards is a far different candidate from the one we saw four years. He has grown too divisive. The Southern moderate who provided optimism and spoke of hope has given way to the polarizing liberal who appeals to the Democratic base by demonizing the special interests his Administration would ultimately need to enact significant reform. His charm and his story are certainly appealing but his campaign lacks the freshness of approach and the unifying potential of an Obama candidacy.

The signs are telling and the choice is clear. As Sullivan cleverly sums it up – “We may in fact have finally found that bridge to the 21st century that Bill Clinton told us about. Its name is Obama.”

Lets Try This Again

Coming on the heels of the “Alan Keyes et al. GOP Debate”, the Democratic presidential candidates squared off in what would be their final debate before the Iowa Caucuses . In what seemed to be a much more fluid and substantive debate (either the moderator worked out the kinks from the day before or the candidates were simply more polished and substantive - probably both), all of the candidates showed us glimpses of why they deserve to be in this race.

For the most part, Obama and Clinton fought to a draw - an outcome that will undoubtedly be seen as an Obama victory. The two also provided one of the best off-the-cuff moments of the debate – score another for Obama.

It's also becoming clear that as Joe Biden continues to impress on the issues and as folks begin to learn more about the man and his life’s journey, the more plausible a top-3 finish in Iowa becomes. Much of his growing support will likely come from the front-runners and the undecided vote, but the rest could largely come from Richardson and essentially knock him out of the ballgame. Despite an impressive resume and tremendous experience, Richardson is simply not that good of a candidate and fails to impress each step of the way.

On the other hand, John Edwards showed us glimpses of the John Edwards that captivated Democrats in 2004. For supporters, his ability to reach voters through his eloquence hasn’t shown through as much this time around, but it’s certainly refreshing to see.

To remember that in the midst of political hoopla, the glorification of politicians and presidential candidates, that somewhere in American tonight, a child will go to bed hungry; somewhere in America tonight, a family will have to go to the emergency room and beg for health care for a sick child; that somewhere in American today, a father who's worked for 30 or 40 years to support his family will lose his job.

And if that's what's at stake in this election. What's not at stake are any of us. All of us are going to be just fine no matter what happens in this election. But what's at stake is whether America is going to be fine.

Given that Edwards has the best organization in Iowa and got his kick-start in 2004 from a solid showing in the Caucuses, a top-3 finish for his campaign is critical.

Chris Cillizza offers his debate winners and loser.

A Forgotten Issue

The fact that John Edwards is the first “front tier” candidate to declare his intention to run for president is newsworthy in itself, but the way he chose to make his announcement was even more so.

Standing in blue jeans and work boots in a New Orleans neighborhood devastated by Katrina, he spoke of poverty and citizen activism. The location was chosen because, to him, it symbolized his campaign theme of two Americas and was exemplary in both positive and negative senses, as a symbol of citizen action and government inaction. It symbolized “the power of ordinary citizens to take responsibility for their own futures” but it also symbolized the government’s incompetence in the aftermath of Katrina and its refusal to treat the issue of poverty as a moral imperative.

More and more, Edwards has become reminiscent of another Democratic presidential candidate from 40 years ago. And although John Edwards and Bobby Kennedy will ultimately be defined by the times in which they lived, their similarities may outnumber their differences. Each were tempered by a personal tragedy that fundamentally altered their life, and each (at the time of their presidential campaign) was a one-term senator with youthful good lucks, personal wealth, a fairly liberal voting record, and a thick accent that highlighted their regional upbringing. Moreover, each led a campaign focused on the issue of poverty that called on all Americans to do their part and to be patriotic for “something other than war.”

But it’s also true that Edwards doesn’t necessarily embody all of which made Bobby Kennedy who he was. After all, we may never see another candidate capable of invoking that same level of passion among the electorate. We knew Bobby too well. Because of his family, he was constantly under the spotlight. We watched him achieve unprecedented professional success at a young age, and we watched him suffer through overwhelming personal tragedy. Many supported him and what he represented, but many others felt personally vested in him. When war and bigotry divided our country, he was the one we turned to. He was the standard bearer of hope and reassurance capable of uniting us again. After Martin Luther King, Jr. was killed, it seemed as if he was the only one left.

To the impoverished mining families of Appalachia, it may have initially seemed awkward to bear their soul to a young millionaire senator from New York, but that feeling soon faded. For once, someone was there to listen; someone who embodied compassion and sincerity and strove to not only speak, but to act on their behalf. And he had the ability and influence to make good on his promises. Far from a phony, he was a saint. He became an advocate for those with no voice of their own; a true champion of the people.

Today, Edwards (the southern populist) speaks to that same issue but it’s unclear how effective he will be. After all, the issue of poverty is looked upon quite differently than it was 40 years ago. Unlike RFK and to his credit, Edwards is actually a product of humble beginnings (a mill worker’s son) and can credit his ambition and hard work, not his family estate, for his personal wealth. In fact, it is a wealth earned from years of representing the interests of everyday Americans who fell victim to powerful corporations and insurance companies. As a result, representing the powerless is natural to him because it’s an issue that he knows all too well. Long before Katrina brought renewed attention to the issue of poverty, Edwards was speaking on behalf of impoverished America and highlighting the moral responsibility of our government to provide for those less fortunate. In February of 2005, his efforts led to the establishment of a Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Depending upon its resonance with the American people, I’m hopeful that Edwards can adapt his message effectively throughout the upcoming campaign. But in doing so, it’s imperative that he not undermine the needed focus and moral clarity that conveying this message provides. The issue of poverty is conspicuously absent from today’s political discourse and the people are desperately looking for a capable new voice, a new champion. Like Bobby Kennedy 40 years ago, John Edwards may be the only one left for us to turn to.