Feb. 7

Super Tuesday has come and gone, and given some disappointing results, Mitt Romney has decided to drop out. His comment about leaving the race was typically self-aggrandizing as well as predictable pap by those who mistakenly equate the war in Iraq with the war on terror. If he had stayed in the race, he said, the fight for the nomination would be a drawn out affair and Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would then probably win. And as he put it, he wouldn't want to cause a surrender to terror. Please. No one wants to give in to terrorism, but patriots from all parts of the political spectrum can have honest differences on how the fight should be waged. It's the same as his campaigning in Michigan by telling troubled auto workers there he'll help get their jobs back. Pandering at best, blatantly dishonest at its worst.
OK, so what do Missouri conservatives do now? Out of a little over 550,000 votes cast in the Republican primary, Romney and Huckabee got almost 358 thousand. If John McCain does become the party's nominee, which seems likely now, what will those folks do? Conservative radio talk show hosts have been howling about McCain for some time now, and some have even suggested they won't vote or gasp!, even vote Democratic.
But there's a silver lining here for Republicans. If Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee for the Democrats, I firmly believe she will rally the Republican base like no one since Ronald Reagan. Conservatives will turn out in droves to defeat her...that's a good part of the reason Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill endorsed Obama. What if Obama becomes the nominee? The crystal ball becomes much more murky with that scenario. Conservatives would presumably favor McCain, but would they turn out in the numbers needed to elect him?

Jan. 22

He joked about it when he first ran for President. With Hillary, Bill Clinton said, you get two for the price of one. Some people didn't like that much, but some 16 years later, we're still getting two for the price of one. Bill seems to be campaigning almost as hard as his wife, and receiving a good bit of press in doing it. His criticisms of her main challenger (Barak Obama) seem un-presidential to many (including me), but despite some party leaders telling him to cool it, he may find it impossible to keep quiet.
If nothing else, it raises the entirely legitimate question of what kind of role will the former president play if his wife does win the White House. Try as he might, it's hard to see Bill Clinton being satisfied to remain in the background.

January 8

As I write this, the polls are about 45 minutes from closing in New Hampshire. And to judge by the histrionics in the Clinton camp, the Senator from New York doesn't expect the tally to be favorable. First, after Iowa, as I predicted, she went negative on Obama, or tried to. Then she tried to retool her message from experience to change (which is Obama's). And finally, she came close to breaking down in tears. Not to mention her husband going off on the media today about not being tough enough on Obama. And just a few minutes ago, the wires reported that big shake-ups are coming in the Clinton camp...and that they might actually skip the next two primaries and concentrate on Super Tuesday. Wow...I confess I didn't see this kind of meltdown happening. I thought she would be steady as she goes, but apparently Iowa really rattled her. I'm sure she's praying the vote tonight will at least be close. If it's not, it may be difficult for her just to get to Super Tuesday.

January 4

So now the voters of Iowa have spoken, and Hillary Clinton was not first, not second, but third. And the spinners in her camp are working overtime. Clinton chief strategist Mark Penn said "This had nothing to do with issues. When it comes to issues, we're seen as President."
Hmmm...seems to me the Clinton camp had to be reeling by the size of Barack Obama's win, and the record turnout. But they're too smart not to realize what's happening. That's why you saw all the blue signs around her at her postcaucus speech reading "Ready for Change."
If anyone has cornered that market, it would seem to be Obama. But the Clintonites are bright enough to now realize that Iowans (and I would suspect many others) are sick of the status quo...so they'll change tack and head in that direction, or try to. And watch for the Clinton campaign to go negative...as negative as they dare...on Obama. They know if they don't take him down a notch or two quickly, his snowball may turn into an avalanche.

December 31st
First of all, Happy New Year everyone. I hope 2008 is everything you want it to be for you and yours.
For a bunch of candidates who have been canvassing Iowa like crazy for what seems like eternity, it's obvious what they want the New Year to bring, and quickly.
Which brings me to the recent poll I saw, and the media coverage of it. The headlines said, Romney back on top, Huckabee's bubble bursts, or something very close to that. In the body of the story, it explained that Romney was now ahead in Iowa, 29% to 27%. Only in the small print, did it also mention that the poll had a margin of error of plus or minus five percent. Any decent pollster will tell you a poll with that big a margin of error is virtually worthless. It means the numbers for Romney and/or Huckabee could be off as much as ten points...which would dramatically change the whole story, wouldn't it? So why run the story at all?
Who's going to win in Iowa? I don't know, but I do know the poll didn't shed any light at all on what will happen there.

Dec. 20

So...almost everytime I see Mike Huckabee now, I see a guy in the background who looks familiar. Oh, yeah, it's um, er, ah, Chuck Norris, that's right. Yep, he's endorsed the former Arkansas Governor... and Oprah is stumping for Obama...and Magic Johnson is for Hillary.
Do celebrity endorsements make a difference? Clearly in terms of star power endorsements, Oprah's has to outshine all the others. But is anyone really going to vote for Obama because Oprah likes him? The candidates themselves must think so...since they try to line up stars for their side.
I find the whole thing a little silly, but I'm sure the candidates think even if it just means a few votes, that could make the difference. As Lyndon Johnson used to say, "If you do absolutely everything, you will win."

Dec. 6

Mitt Romney decided to deal with his religion head on today. In a speech at the George Bush Presidential library, he defended his Mormon faith, but also said his religion would not play a part in any decision he might make as President.
I thought he appeared calm and poised, and did a good job of making his case. But will that put the issue to rest with voters? What do you think? Should a candidate's religion have anything to do with his (or her) qualifications for President?

Dec. 4

Let's see...a month ago Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons was so dangerous the President warned us of World War III. Now the NIE says Iran halted that program 4 years ago.
The President says that doesn't change his opinion about Iran at all. Really? 16 agencies say all the crying of wolf by Misters Bush and Cheney was without foundation...and there are some reports indicating that the President knew the contents of the report BEFORE he made his World War III comments. Talk about rattling sabers...it's like the run-up to Iraq all over again. Discount or downplay any doubts or evidence other than your pre-formed opinion and push ahead. But this administration's credibility is in such tatters with the vast majority of Americans that I'm not sure anyone really pays attention anymore.

Nov. 27

So Missouri Governor Matt Blunt toured the state yesterday touting legislation forbidding illegal immigrants from getting a driver's license. Why the need for a new law? They're already prohibited from getting one. It wouldn't have anything to do with trying to emphasize an issue for his re-election campaign, would it? It's a classic case of a politician trying to appear like he's actually doing something. His likely opponent next fall, Attorney General Jay Nixon, quickly called it a "political stunt."
Anytime one politician accuses another of a political stunt, it has to make you chuckle. It's the pot calling the kettle black. But in this case...he's right.

Oct. 29

Interesting tidbit in the softball article in the Post-Dispatch Sunday about former congressman Dick Gephardt. Gephardt is now a well paid lobbyist, among other things. And so where he once was for a resolution calling the mass killings of Armenians by the Ottoman Turks in 1915 genocide, now he's lobbying against it on behalf of the Turkish government.
As California representative Anna Eshoo said, "It represents a sea change in terms of position, but money does that." Yes, it does. Is it any wonder that people are so cynical about politicians and especially members of Congress? To paraphrase the old saying, money talks, and everything else walks.