Why I Won't Vote For Clinton

It's because of things like this:

Sen. Hillary Clinton would have long ago distanced herself from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright if she had been a member of his church, the Democratic presidential candidate said Tuesday.

It's the first time she or her campaign has commented directly on a controversy that has swirled around rival Sen. Barack Obama's campaign in recent weeks.

"I think given all we have heard and seen, he would not have been my pastor," Clinton said in a news conference in Greensburg, Pennsylvania.

I think this sort of comment is, in a nutshell, just about everything that's wrong with politics. She's referencing and making a "judgement" (which carries absolutely no real life consequences) about what she would have done, and posturing in such a meaningless way for nothing but political gain. It's meaningless, shameless, unadulterated pandering. It's like someone saying if they were married to President Clinton, they would have treated him better so he wouldn't have strayed into adultery. It's taking an intensely personal, complex matter and reducing it to the point of parody, making a farcical judgment based on that reduction, and claiming to be morally superior for doing so.

Really, it just makes me mad.

Good Show, Mitt

It's tough to fight so hard and invest so much in something you believe in, only to walk away before the bitterest end. But un-fracturing the party can't come soon enough, and the ability to do that rests largely on your shoulders.

Thanks.

I only hope that someone has the foresight to put you in a position where you can still use your knowledge, skills, and organizational ability for the benefit of the country.

Memo to the Democrats

Nominating Hillary Clinton to run agains John McCain is the best way possible, short of attacking children on national TV, to blow the closest thing in decades to a sure bet to win the Presidency. Hillary Clinton strongly appeals to the core Democrats, but John McCain appeals more to moderate Republicans. That's not a matchup you'll find favorable in the general election.

Mitt Romney - The Driver's Tale

Today's New York Times has an editorial from a man who knows Mitt Romney well, but seems to have a fair take on why people feel the way the appear to. All that follows is an excerpt, longer than normal, but long enough to give a true sense of the editorial:

I often marvel at how the public perception of Mr. Romney differs so radically from the man I know. The blame for this lies in the campaign he has run.

Early in the presidential race, Mr. Romney perceived a tactical advantage in becoming the campaign’s social conservative. Religious conservatives and other Republicans with socially conservative views found the two early front-runners, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, unacceptable. As someone who shares the beliefs of social conservatives, Mr. Romney saw an opportunity that he could exploit. He made social issues the heart of his candidacy.

This tack rang false with the public because it was false. The problem wasn’t so much the perception of widespread “flip-flopping” on issues like abortion. The public allows its politicians a measure of flexibility. But the public correctly sensed something disingenuous about Mr. Romney’s campaign.

Voters perceived the cynicism of a campaign that tried to exploit wedge issues rather than focus on the issues that in truth most interested the candidate. They sensed phoniness. As a consequence, many have grown to feel that Mitt Romney can’t be trusted. This lack of trust is now the dominant and perhaps insurmountable obstacle that the Romney campaign faces.

I know few voters will believe this, but Mitt Romney wants to be president out of a sense of duty. He feels our government needs someone with his managerial skills. He also feels that to fight the long war facing us, we need an intellectually curious president who’s willing to learn about an unfamiliar foe and who will fight resolutely to defeat that foe.

Mr. Romney cares passionately about social issues, but he knows his Republican competitors can appoint strict constructionist judges as well as he can. The real value of a Romney presidency would lie in the talents, honed in the business world, that he would bring to the White House.

Because Mr. Romney chose to make this argument a secondary matter compared to his stands on social issues, he mounted a campaign that was, at its most basic level, insincere.

Obama is a strong candidate because...

The biggest criticism of Senator Obama is his lack of experience. As an Illinois Senator with 4 years in the US Senate, he's young, and doesn't have much experience at the national level. It's a fair criticism, but see in the RGJ how he turns it around:

“I have a pretty good sense of my strengths and my weaknesses,” he said today during a meeting with the Reno Gazette-Journal editorial board.“I am very good at teasing out from people who are smarter than me what the issues are and how we resolve them,” he said. “I don’t think there is anybody in this race who can inspire the American people better than I can. And I don’t think there is anybody in this race who can bridge differences ... better than I can.“But I’m not an operating officer. Some in this debate around experience seem to think the job of the president is to go in and run some bureaucracy. Well, that’s not my job. My job is to set a vision of ‘here’s where the bureaucracy needs to go.’”

The Odds

It's not looking good for any Democratic contender for the party's nomination to run for president, unless their name is Barack Obama. InTrade is an electronic forecasting tool that uses markets to make predictions (since the people "responding" have an incentive to choose wisely, not just with their gut, they tend to do a decent job of it). Obama is a significant front-runner in almost every listed state, and barring a significant faux pas, I'm guessing he'll be the nominee.

The same numbers are more mixed for Republicans, but McCain and Romney seem to be #1 and #2 right now.

Richardson, Obama, and Energy Policy

Special credit to Senator Obama for admitting that doing something to regulate carbon emissions will affect consumers. Richardson, not quoted here, tries to sell the idea that we can hammer the polluters in a way that won't take money out of the economy. Obama disagrees with him in a recent debate:

Under a cap-and-trade there will be a cost. Plants are going to have to retrofit their equipment, and that's going to cost money, and they will pass it onto consumers. We have an obligation to use some of the money that we generate to shield low-income and fixed-income individuals from high electricity prices, but we're also going to have to ask the American people to change how they use energy. Everybody's going to have to change their light bulbs. Everybody's going to have to insulate their homes. And that will be a sacrifice, but it's a sacrifice that we can meet.

Cap-and-trade is like a carbon tax, but it lets the market set the price - if you want to emit more CO2, you need to buy the ability to do so from someone with spare pollution allowances. What I don't like about it is the possibility of incomplete or uneven implementation of it that would render it a costly song and dance.

But Obama gets credit for cutting to the chase: Lifestyle Changes (1) are costly, and (2) require individuals to change their habits.

A Caucus Myth

Just so you know:

I have heard from a couple sources dissatisfaction with the Republican caucus - specifically, people seem to think (as I did) that you will have to raise your hand, or vote publicly.

That is false.

You do have to show up, and you will gather with people from your precint. You will hear a representative for each candidate speak for a limited time and then you will write your vote on a piece of paper, to be tallied and used to determine the winner.

The Democratic caucus involves voting with your feet in a visible way. But the Republican caucus functions differently. It's not exactly the same as a primary, but it's closer than you might think.

Who Do You Vote For?

Taking the three Democratic front-runners (Obama, Edwards, Clinton), and the four Republicans (Huckabee, Romney, McCain, Giuliani), there are 12 possible matchups for the November election. Who would you vote for? If it's something other than a straight party-line preference, why are you deviating?

Group A: Obama
1. Obama v. Huckabee
2. Obama v. Romney
3. Obama v. McCain
4. Obama v. Giuliani

Group B: Edwards
5. Edwards . Huckabee
6. Edwards v. Romney
7. Edwards v. McCain
8. Edwards v. Giuliani

Group C: Clinton
9. Clinton v. Huckabee
10. Clinton v. Romney
11. Clinton v. McCain
12. Clinton v. Giuliani

Comparing Health Care Plans

The New York Times has an interesting piece comparing the health care proposals from Senators Obama and Clinton. From the article, I have to say that I consider Obama's to be more reasonable. There's reason to believe that simple is better, and finely targeted government policies aren't as effective as they might be (side-note: I dislike CAFE and corn-ethanol legislation for similar reasons).

Which Candidates?

Two questions for anybody willing to answer them:

1) Who should I vote for in the Republican caucus (and why)?
2) Who would be your second choice (and why)?

For example, I know that cousin Ken will say Gov. Romney, because that's his favorite candidate. But I'm also curious who, other than Romney, he would support.

Romney on McCain

I admit - the only two Republicans I'm looking closely at are Governors Romney and Huckabee. Both have prior experience as a governor, and in senior leadership positions outside of politics (Huckabee as a pastor, Romney as a leader (I forget the official term - I think it was "stake leader") in his church and as a private sector executive). Senator McCain is probably my third choice, in large part because of Lieberman's endorsement. I think a McCain/Lieberman (or vice versa) ticket would be interesting. But I think legislating and executing are two different animals, and as chief executive, I'd like someone with more applicable experience.

All that said, I'm disappointed that Romney is doing the thing I like least in politics - lying about opponents with the thinnest veneer of truth to cover it. I really want to know why I should vote for him, not why I shouldn't vote for the other guy.

It's doubly worse because I think the "base position" of Republicans on immigration (amnesty is bad! walls are good! keep them OUT!) is a downright poor idea (I'm a huge fan of very open immigration, with only security considerations preventing anyone and anyone that wants to immigrate from coming in - especially in light of the growing Medicare / Social Security crunch), and I wish someone had the guts to say it and the chops to prove it. I admit, however reluctantly, that saying dumb things to get elected is probably part of the beast.

Senator Barack Obama

(In trying to keep with Kenny's desire to use the proper honorifics for the people running for president, I added it here.)

Ken? Kenny? What do you think of Senator Obama as a presidential candidate?

Mike Huckabee

If they're both up to it, I'd love to hear what my cousin Ken and friend Kenny think of Mike Huckabee. They had an interesting discussion about Mitt Romney earlier, and I'm going to milk these guys for opinions on as many candidates as they'll give me.

Remember, Nevada voters - the presidential caucus process happens in mid-January this year. That's just a month away.

A Tale of Two Kenneths

One is a cousin, and strongly conservative. One is a friend from school, and probably would call himself moderate or liberal. Both are lawyers. Both are bright guys. Both have now blogged about Mitt Romney. One loves him. One doesn't. Me? I think I'm somewhere in the middle.