Obama and Huckabee Sitting in a Tree

Are the simultaneous rises of Obama and Huckabee mutually reinforcing, or just coincidence? I've been thinking about this for about a week now, wondering what the polling would bear out. Well, with both candidates seizing the clear momentum in Iowa and SC, I have to believe it's more than just happenstance.

Here's what I think is going on:

For Republicans, Hillary is the very epitome of the "Great Liberal Beast." She's a pot-smoking, bra-burning, Mao-loving commie. Most progressives find this laughable, but within the GOP primary electorate, it is an article of faith, and beyond reproach. So, as Hillary began to assert her dominance in the field in roughly late September, GOP voters began to reassess their field. If Hillary was going to be the nominee, who did they want to face her? Like many Dems in 2004, they felt that they had to stick true to their core beliefs. Rudy and Romney didn't look like winners -- and as long as they were going down, they might as well go down fighting and with some integrity. Hence, the rise of Huckabee.

But, on the Dem side, the rise of Huckabee created something else. Many Dems, including myself, were starting to get comfortable with Hillary in late September because it looked like Rudy was going to be the GOP nominee. Many Dems wanted someone tough, experienced and even ruthless to knock back the hagiography of America's Mayor. But then she stumbled in that Philly debate. She didn't look like that unbeatable, unshakable robot we were all starting to be OK with. At the same time, Huckabee began his rise.

Just at the moment Dems started to falter a bit on Hillary, one of her greatest assets -- the prospect of facing a vicious right-wing opponent -- started to disappear. With the rise of Huckabee, Dems no longer needed a candidate to scorch the Earth. In fact, the perceived "toughness" of Hillary is a huge liability against an affable, charming guy like Huck. To fight a guy like that, you need a guy like that.

"It can't be! Is that Obama's theme music!!!!"



Post-script: I have to say, if it turns out to be Huck and Obama....woohooo, thank the Lord. I know the 527s will have a field day with both of them...but it sure would be nice to have both major party candidates be decent human beings for once.

Face Tattoos are Scary!!!!!

All you need to know about this new ad from xenophoic nut and GOP presidential candidate Tom Tancredo is that is has this classy line:

"Pushing Drugs. Raping Kids. Destorying Lives."



(Thanks again to TPM Election Central for the heads up. There's some great Obama-Hillary reporting going on over there today, too, so check it out.)

The NIE Debacle: Some Confusion and GOP Advice

As the fallout from the "Iran Ain't Got No Nukes" NIE released this week continues to sort itself out, I'm still trying to think this all through -- all the empty saber-rattling, fear-mongering and outright lying that's been going on the past three months, at least.

The NIE says, basically, that Iran stopped all covert nuke weapons efforts in 2003. First, a question: So, in the entire time that "The World's Most Dangerous Man," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has been president, Iran has had no covert military nuclear program? (He took power in 2005). He has NEVER overseen a nuke program? Yet, we're supposed to be so goddamn afraid of this guy. By personifying external threats, the GOP has left itself extremely vulnerable to exculpatory evidence: (see: Osama, uncaptured; Saddam, closet wimp; Ahmadinejad; apparent truth-teller)

Second, why haven't the GOP grabbed ahold of a very simple talking point: The War in Iraq worked. One of the key post-invasion rationales for the war was that it would scare the shit out of the rest of the Arab world and force them to stop working on their own weapons of mass destruction programs. So, we invade Iraq in 2003 and suddenly Iran decides to stop its covert programs? I very skeptical there is a direct cause-effect relationship, but why haven't GOP leaders seized this very logical, visceral talking point?

By the way, I loved this bit of an online chat with WaPo National Politics reporter Anne Kornblut:

Floris, Va.: Good morning, Anne. Which Presidential candidates benefit and which suffer from the revised administration pronouncements on Iran? (I assume John McCain's Beach Boy-ish "Bomb, bomb, bomb ... bomb, bomb Iran" is now inoperable.)

Anne E. Kornblut: We're just starting to sort out the answer to this question. As my colleague Peter Baker wrote online earlier today, the Democrats quickly jumped on the NIE -- as an example of another Bush mistake, but also to criticize each other's handling of Iran previously. I am betting it will, generally, redound to the Democrats' benefit, but it is too soon to tell. (emphasis mine)

Really, you think that having the president and his allies all lying about the Iran threat will "redound to the Democrats' benefit"? Insightful.

The Breakout Star!

From the second he took his first awkward steps onto the presidential stage, it was abundantly clear that Fred Thompson wasn't a great campaigner. But today -- exactly a month before the Iowa caucus -- I saw this headline on the CNN.com front page:

Ticker: Law & Order star: I'm OK with the Lord

The substance doesn't matter at all (and is, in fact, stupid), but what the hell kind of campaign is he running that he's still referred to as "Law & Order star." I clicked on the story thinking Jesus was pissed off at Sam Waterson's omnipresent investment commercials.

Even a Broken Turd Blossom is Right Twice a Day

My friend Geoff pointed out this pretty solid "Strategy Memo" that Karl Rove wrote to Obama in the pages of the Financial Times. This type of advice is why I never feared Rove as much as I was angry he was so good. His suggestions are quite simple: highlight your strong suits and use humor and body language to subtly dig on Hillary's marked deficiencies. Not rocket science, but a maddening number of Dems refuse to play to their strengths.

I think Obama has made significant strides in all of the areas Rove highlights here, from focusing on Dem voter doubts about Hillary's long-term impact on the party to simplifying and clarifying his positions.

But there is one place where, if he can make some movement, he would have the nomination in hand:

Fifth, you need to do a better job explaining what kind of change you represent. The change theme is a good one and Democratic voters know you were against the war and represent the idea of something fresh. But they do not know who you really are, what you want to do and where you want to take the country. Taking her down a few notches is step one; telling people who you are is the next. Both are necessary.

Iowa voters now think Obama has crossed the "experience threshold." That was a pretty big hill to climb, but he appears to have done it. Now, to motivate folks to make that cold trek out into the Des Moines night Jan. 3, he has to give them something tangible to hold onto beyond the uplifting promise of "Hope." It needs to be "Hope and..." One big idea (like, say, mandatory service -- military, education, infrastructure building, etc. -- for all 18-year-olds) right now would be incredibly useful.

The Cleaning Power of "The Great Line"

The most frequently quoted snippet from the recent GOP debate was this excellent bit of political evasion:

Cooper: I do have to though press the question, which -- the question was, from the viewer was? What would Jesus do? Would Jesus support the death penalty?

Huckabee: Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office, Anderson. That's what Jesus would do.

Ah, a funny, cute little answer. Of course, it's so intellectually dishonest I want to rip my arms off. But, boy, that Huckabee feller sure can charm 'em...at least that's how the media narrative developed around the little quip. "He loves Jesus and he's funny! Woo Hoo!"

I don't like picking on Huckabee here, since he's far less guilty than his fellow GOPers of using "The Great Line" whitewash to avoid contentious discussions. But I got quite angry seeing this.

In a Washington Post chat with political reporter Lois Romano, you see the distillation of the Beltway Reporter Syndrome, where she allows Huckabee to get away with this utter evasion.

{M]y guess is that Huckabee made a quick judgment that it was not a question for a 90-second sound bite. Both religion and the death penalty are very complicated topics.

The Religious Right, more than any other political sector, has made a living off bludgeoning opponents with complexity-free bumper stickers. "Abortion is Murder" "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" "Little Boys are for Touching" Etc.

But when faced with a truly difficult question that challenges religious orthodoxy, the political press just lets Huckabee get away with "The Great Line." I have no problem with the disproportionate attention lavished on political theater, but when that theater is a deliberate deceit to move your eyes away from a major hole in a political party's platform, that pisses me off.