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 War Over the Wonks"

The Washington Post provides an interesting list of the "national security and foreign policy advisers to the leading presidential candidates from both parties". While Hillary has garnered support from many of the Democratic establishment figures such as Albright, Holbrooke and Berger, it's interesting how many high-ranking former Administration officials now endorse Obama, including Clinton National Security Advisor Anthony Lake and Carter National Security Adbvisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. On the Republican side, the neo-cons have hedged their bets on Giuliani, while McCain has the support of the Republican Party establishment, which includes everyone from moderates like Brent Scowcroft and Colin Powell to dubious Nixonites such as Alexander Haig and Henry Kissinger.

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.”

Morrison's Dirty Laundry Exposed

Kansas Attorney General Paul Morrison announced his resignation this month after admitting to having an extramarital affair with a subordinate and colleague. The details that have been exposed by Linda Carter, the accuser, are juicy enough to have a pretty decent script for a made-for-TV drama. General Morrison's resignation will be effective at the end of January 2008, one year after being sworn into office.

Morrison gained popularity in Kansas by leaving the GOP for the State's Democratic Party and being elected to office after challenging the incumbent Attorney General Phil Kline (Republican). Although Morrison admitted to having the affair, he has denied allegations made by the accuser which are detailed in a sexual harassment complaint filed with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Despite Morrison's resignation, this drama will continue well into the New Year. For the 411 on this latest scandal, you should read the Topeka Capital Journal article from the 12/16/2007.

Hitchens on Romney

If you haven’t seen the Christopher Hitchens’ response to the Mitt Romney speech on Faith in America, it’s definitely worth the read. Hitchens, who has become the outspoken voice of Americans disillusioned by the potential “poisoning” influence of religion, is never one to pull punches and always provides a thoughtful, often pretty humorous, take on things. In this case, Hitchens mocks Romney for his rewriting of American history and for being duplicitous about his religion – saying it defines him and should play a role within the public square, but failing to address concerns about his particular faith.

Composed chiefly of boilerplate, the windy speech raised the vexed question of the candidate's religious affiliation—and thus broke the taboo on mentioning it—without setting to rest any of the difficulties that make it legitimate to raise the issue in the first place.

…Romney does not understand the difference between deism and theism, nor does he know the first thing about the founding of the United States. Jefferson's Declaration may invoke a "Creator," but, as he went on to show in the battle over the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom, he and most of his peers did not believe in a god who intervened in human affairs or in a god who had sent a son for a human sacrifice. These easily ascertainable facts are reflected in the way that the U.S. Constitution does not make any mention of a superintendent deity and in the way that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention declined an offer (possibly sarcastic), even from Benjamin Franklin, that they resort to prayer to compose their differences.

Romney may throw a big chest and say that God should be "on our currency, in our pledge," and of course on our public land in this magic holiday season, but James Madison did not think that there should be chaplains opening the proceedings of Congress or even appointed as ministers in the U.S. armed forces. Trying to dodge around this, and to support his assertion that the founders were religious in the Christian sense, Romney drones on about a barely relevant moment of emotion in 1774 and comes up with the glib slogan that "freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom." Any fool can think of an example where freedom exists without religion—and even more easily of an instance where religion exists without (or in negation of) freedom.

This does not mean that freedom of religion is not as important as freedom from it, yet Romney makes himself absurd by saying that Mormons may not be asked about the tenets of their faith, lest this infringe the constitutional ban on a religious test for public office. Here is another failure of understanding on his part. He is not being told: Answer this question in the wrong way, and you become ineligible. He is being told: Your family is prominent in a notorious church that proselytizes its views in a famously aggressive manner. Are you only now deciding to make a secret of your beliefs? And if so, why?

...His stupid unease on this point is shown by his demagogic attack on the straw man "religion of secularism," when, actually, his main and most cynical critic is a moon-faced true believer and anti-Darwin pulpit-puncher from Arkansas who doesn't seem to know the difference between being born again and born yesterday.

According to the admittedly very contradictory scriptures of the New Testament, Jesus of Nazareth warned his disciples and followers that they should expect to be ridiculed and mocked for their faith. After all, how likely was it that God had decided to reveal himself to only a few illiterate peasants in a barbarous backwater? Those who elected to believe this stuff were quite rightly told to expect a hard time, and the expression "fool for God" or "fool for Christ" has been with us ever since. That concept has some dignity and nobility. Entirely lacking in dignity or nobility (or average integrity) is the well-heeled son of a gold-plated church who wants to assume the pained look of martyrdom only when he is asked if he actually believes what he says.

A long time ago, Romney took the decision to be a fool for Joseph Smith, a convicted fraud and serial practitioner of statutory rape who at times made war on the United States and whose cult has been made to amend itself several times in order to be considered American at all. We do not require pious lectures on the American founding from such a man, and we are still waiting for some straight answers from him.

Interesting Stories from the Campaign Trail

This week in South Carolina, John McCain was approached by a Navy veteran during a campaign stop and offered a pack of Marlboros. As it turns out, the veteran, Bobby Putnam, had also shared cigarettes with McCain when the two were on board the USS Forrestal in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1967. That summer, a fire broke out on the carrier, killing 134 and injuring dozens more. Needless to say, the survivors of the Forrestal share a unique bond forged by one of the worst disasters in American naval history.

“That’s kind of cool,” was the reaction from a national reporter traveling with the campaign. McCain’s response - "I have not had (a cigarette) in 28 years, so I'm going to get rid of this pack immediately.”

Meanwhile, former JFK confidant and legendary speechwriter Ted Sorenson recently campaigned in New Hampshire for Barack Obama. Referring to this election as the most important presidential election we’ve faced since the Civil War, Sorenson stumped that Obama was the one candidate who could make a change; "We need the change that he represents." Sorenson also drew upon the traits and challenges shared by Kennedy and Obama, and said he believes Obama is the best candidate to restore America’s credibility around the world.

Political Transformation in Iowa

Former Bush speechwriter, Michael Gerson, comments on the recent endorsement of Mike Huckabee by Jim Gilchrist. Gilchrist is founder of the Minuteman Project, an activist anti-immigrant organization that many have called a hate group or, at the very least, a xenophobic organization that espouses intolerance and relies upon the exploitation of American fears and insecurities.

While many would spur, or at least blush from, Gilchrist’s endorsement, the Huckabee campaign has fully embraced it. The candidate who speaks of bringing together, the candidate with reasonable and humane stances on immigration as Governor, again shuns his principles for political expediency by further kowtowing to the Republican base that will ultimately derail his message and his entire campaign. Gerson writes:

I am predisposed to like Mike Huckabee for his commitment to economic mobility, his firm but nonjudgmental social conservatism and his Christian concern for the poor. But Huckabee's embrace of Gilchrist and his recent shifts on immigration policy undermine the core of his appeal: authenticity. From the G-rated, family-values candidate, this is the kind of politics that should be covered with brown paper, kept under the counter and hidden from children.

Gilchrist is not just another voice on immigration. He is one of the most divisive figures in the most divisive debate in American politics. In 2006, responding to pro-immigration demonstrations, he told the Orange County Register, "I'm not going to promote insurrection, but if it happens, it will be on the conscience of the members of Congress who are doing this. I will not promote violence in resolving this, but I will not stop others who might pursue that." Note the oily formulation -- not promoting, but also not criticizing, the resort to political violence. "I'm willing to see my country go into battle if necessary," he added, "for our sovereignty and to be governed by rule of law."

Gilchrist has called for the impeachment of President Bush over the issue of border enforcement. He has made noises about running for president as a third-party candidate because of his disdain for Republicans. This is an odd choice of company for a candidate who promotes a conservatism without anger.

…Huckabee has accompanied his choice of new friends with an immigration plan that would require 12 million illegal immigrants to return home before applying for permanent status -- a completely unrealistic approach borrowed from anti-immigration activists. Huckabee's campaign regards this evolution as immunization against Mitt Romney's immigration attack ads -- and it may work in the short run. But a political shift this transparent raises questions about the quality and seriousness of Huckabee's campaign.

Huckabee's main appeal has been his homespun decency. But his behavior on immigration has been a kind of politics-as-usual so blatant it is actually unusual. Huckabee is managing to compromise his most distinctive virtue at the very moment the attention of the public is focused on his candidacy. In politics, a candidate can bend over backward so far that his spine snaps.

I can’t help but think that the blatant pandering of Huckabee, Romney and Giuliani to the Republican base will ultimately leave the door wide open for a John McCain resurgence.

Politics as usual?

Until recently everyone has raved about Senator Clinton’s disciplined, efficient, well-run campaign. Now the campaign is seemingly scrambling to win in Iowa and handle “unauthorized” statements by Bill Shaheen. Senator Clinton has since apologized to Obama. However, following apologies from the Clinton camp and the firing of Shaheen, Mark Penn, Clinton’s chief strategist, tried to subtly connect Obama to Cocaine on MSNBC’s “Hardaball.” – “The issue related to cocaine use is not something the campaign is in any way raising.” This is politics as usual

It’s become increasingly obvious that Shaheen’s statement was a calculated move, perhaps not approved by Hillary herself, but nonetheless done to connect Obama to cocaine and all off its negative connotations in voters’ minds. To add, this story has legs and successfully replaced the positive stories about Obama’s surge in the polls and the Oprah.

This is what Pat Buchanan had to say about Shaheen, "Look, this is an experienced man. His wife has been governor of New Hampshire. He's an able fellow. And to go to the Washington Post and say, ask about selling drugs. ... Nobody thinks that up. Somebody fed that to him. I don't know where it came from. But you use the term even in the open, drug dealer. That is a killer" ("Tucker," MSNBC, 12/13).

While I do not hold Buchanan to have the most brilliant political mind out there, nor do I know anything about Shaheen, his statement echoes my own thoughts of why Shaheen would say such a thing and also why it won’t necessarily hurt Clinton as much as it will hurt Obama by planting another seed of doubt in voters’ minds.

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.

Support That's Hard to Come By

As the presidential candidates continue to fight for influential endorsements, one group has proven largely immune to excessive courting, even from its own colleagues – the United States Senate. As Paul Kane reports, these endorsements remain highly coveted, especially in key battleground states, yet have become much more difficult to come by. To date, "the two leading recipients of senatorial endorsements are Clinton, with nine, and McCain, with 10."

“(For all of the frivolity), one thing remains odd about the senators-turned-candidates and their relationships inside the chamber: Very few of their colleagues have bothered to endorse their candidacies.

On both the Democratic and Republican side of the aisle, barely a third of the Senate has endorsed a candidate. Despite - or perhaps because of - the intensifying battle for the nomination, just 22 of the 48 Senate Republicans have endorsed a candidate for president (exempting Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) since he obviously endorses his own bid).

More stunning, just 12 of the 47 senators in the Democratic caucus have endorsed a candidate for the Democratic nomination (exempting the four vying for that nomination).

…This is in sharp contrast to the House, where basically half of the 435 members have endorsed candidates. While just 25 percent of Senate Democrats have sided with a candidate, 122 House Democrats -- more than 50 percent -- have gotten out front of the campaign and endorsed.

A huge majority of senators appear to have made the calculation that is simply better to wait for a clear winner to emerge, avoiding any risk of siding with a loser and engendering ill will with the eventual nominee.

Is that Alan Keyes? Oh Dear...

Earlier this week, the American public (well, those who were watching Iowa public television in the middle of the afternoon) were all subject to what Charles Krauthammer dubbed, "the worst debate in western history, and that includes the ancient Greeks." The aftermath of the Des Moines Register-sponsored Republican presidential debate consisted mostly of head-scratching and shell-shocked pundits asking each other “what the hell just happened?”

It certainly wasn’t because of the political fireworks generated, or any raised level of discourse. It was more because of the awkwardness of it all….and because of the strange reappearance of Alan Keyes, someone we all thought (and desperately hoped) was out of our lives forever.

To me, the low and high point of the debate occured when the moderator asked for a show of hands from those who believe global climate change is a serious threat. Fred Thompson-led pandemonium quickly broke out as each candidate sheepishly tried to distance themselves from such an absurd contention. Well, all of the candidates except one. And it just happened to be the one candidate who couldn’t raise either of his hands because five years of torture in a Hanoi prison camp prevent him from even being able to comb his own hair. The statement that followed from John McCain was as articulate as it was principled, especially given the mood in that room. It was just another one of those McCain moments when so clearly transcends everything around him and wins us over.

Otherwise, yes, the moderator did look like a strange morphing of Senator Amy Klobuchar and that mean lady from the Weakest Link. And yes, the only thing reassuring about the reappearance of Keyes was that he's still as crazy as we remember. This time around, he may have failed to announce an endorsement from Jesus Christ or that all homosexuals were selfish hedonists, but he did give us a couple more special moments.

Chris Cillizza provides a good breakdown of the debate winners and losers.

Congress and Christmas

One of the more controversial stories being reported on Capital Hill this week deals with Christmas. On Tuesday, December 11, H.Res. 847, a bill recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith was passed by the House of Representatives. The bill in and of itself doesn’t seem controversial since it overwhelmingly passed 372-9 with 10 voting “Present” and 40 representatives not voting. The controversy to some including the bill’s lead sponsor, Rep. Steve King (IA-5), is the fact that the nine that voted in opposition have also voted to support similar resolutions honoring the holidays of Islam and Hinduism – all of which passed without any Nay (NO) votes. In an interview with Fox News Rep. King said "The [nine] naysayers didn’t make it to the floor to debate. I would like to know how they could vote Yes on Islam, Yes on the Indian Religions and No on Christianity when the foundation of this nation and our American culture is Christianity…I think there’s an assault on Christianity in America.”

While I agree with most of what Rep. King said – Christians need not the approval of Congress to justify their faith. The politics of America will change when the heart of America changes.

The Drug Stigma

A story broke yesterday that “a high-ranking advisor to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign said Wednesday that rival Barack Obama's public admission that he has used cocaine and marijuana could seriously hinder the Illinois senator’s chances of winning a general election matchup.” It wasn’t long before that high ranking official, Bill Shaheen, back tracked from his comments and resigned from his role in the Clinton campaign. Whether this dig was calculated or truly a gaffe is up for debate among political pundits. Either way, it’s taken the national media’s attention off the fact that Obama is surging in Iowa.

On a related note, George Bush talked about his struggle with alcohol abuse in an interview with ABC admitting that had never been a "knee-walking drunk," but that "I doubt I'd be standing here if I hadn't quit drinking whiskey, and beer, and wine and all that." Tom Brokaw also revealed in his new book, “The Greatest Generation,” that “he did inhale, and not just once.” Finally, earlier this year, New York Mayor Michal Bloomberg may have given marijuana use a ringing endorsement when he said that not only had he tried it, but enjoyed it.

This leads me to wonder if past drug use, legal or illegal, is losing its stigma. If anything, voters appreciate the candor, but the brutal truth is that it wouldn’t be brought up if it didn’t still impact how voters perceive a candidates’ judgment. Undoubtedly, if Obama gets the nod, his admitted drug use will come up again.

Oprah on the Trail

Say what you want about celebrities entering into the political fray, but it’s clear that Oprah was about the only supporter with the gravitas to challenge Bill Clinton for headlines in this campaign. And as it turns out, she was damn good on the stump. While exposing thousands of folks to the Obama message of change and hope, she also spoke of seizing opportunities and not simply "waiting your turn" - "We must respond to the pressures and the fortunes of history when the moment strikes…and I believe that moment is now." And regarding the question of experience - "The amount of time you've spent in Washington means nothing unless you're accountable for the judgments you've made with the time you've had."

Sure, these events were mostly stunts to garner media attention, headlines, and donations, but aren't campaigns little more than a series of stunts? While Oprah's appearances may or may not bring in more money or generate more support for Obama, they bring a new energy to the campaign. I think that is important...and that is something that not even Bill Clinton can provide his candidate at this point.

Secular Europe

There was an interesting column by Roger Cohen in the Times today that provided "secular Europe's" response to the Romney speech on faith.

“The Continent has paid a heavy price in blood for religious fervor and decided some time ago, as a French king put it, that “Paris is well worth a Mass.” Romney, a Republican presidential candidate, was dismissive of European societies “too busy or too ‘enlightened’ to venture inside and kneel in prayer.” He thereby pointed to what has become the principal transatlantic cultural divide.

Europeans still take the Enlightenment seriously enough not to put it inside quote marks. They have long found an inspiring reflection of it in the first 16 words of the American Bill of Rights of 1791: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Thomas Jefferson saw those words as “building a wall of separation between church and state.” So, much later, did John F. Kennedy, who in a speech predating Romney’s by 47 years, declared: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.”

The absolute has proved porous.

…Religion informed America’s birth. But its distancing from politics was decisive to the republic’s success. Indeed, the devastating European experience of religious war influenced the founders’ thinking. That is why I find Romney’s speech and the society it reflects far more troubling than Europe’s vacant cathedrals.

…Romney rejects the “religion of secularism,” of which Europe tends to be proud. But he should consider that Washington is well worth a Mass. The fires of the reformation that reduced St. Andrews Cathedral to ruin are fires of faith that endure in different, but no less explosive, forms. Jefferson’s “wall of separation” must be restored if those who would destroy the West’s Enlightenment values are to be defeated.