Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Overheard

The great site, Overheard in Minneapolis, has a doozy here, with a customer weighing the benefits of how to apply a 10% discount.

Bye Bye Dara

Twin Citians who have occasionally grabbed the free weekly, the City Pages, are most likely familiar with restaurant critic Dara Moskowitz Grumdahl. Despite giving great reviews of all the foodstuffs the Twin Cities have to offer, she's a colorful and hilarious writer. She can come up with the most outlandish and lengthy metaphors in her task to give you the most accurate sense of the restaurant. To make a point on the cost of wine, she started one article the following way:

Recently I received a sad and plaintive email from a doctor's wife. She wanted to use my bank account to free a Nigerian fortune worth, if you can believe it, hundreds of millions of dollars. And she chose me! As I crowbarred my neighbors' windows in search of additional Social Security numbers, I wondered why she picked me, and then I realized: All the big restaurants I've reviewed lately have been expensive, and more expensive. Of course she would think that the Twin Cities was a land of nothing but millionaires: The price of an average glass of wine seems to have zoomed from $6 to $9, and as far as the dinner entrees, $23 seems to be the new $12.

The City Pages was recently bought by a national media company that owns the Village Voice. Both before and after the change in ownership, the weekly's talented writers have gone to greener pastures. Dara Moskowitz Grumdahl's departure solidifies the City Pages' downfall in my eyes. I'll still take a look at it from time to time, but it's not the newspaper it once was.

Moskowitz Grumdahl will now write for the Minnesota Monthly magazine. Local media critic David Brauer writes about the meaning of this departure in his December story City Pages just lost its sugar mama in the MinnPost.

This week she writes her final piece with the City Pages. It's probably not of interest to first time readers, but fans may appreciate it: Bye-Bye - January 30, 2008

For most of her career at the City Pages, she was simply Dara Moskowitz. Then she got married and added the Grumdahl. Personally, I don't know why someone with the last name Moskowitz would add the equally large portioned Grumdahl, but perhaps I shouldn't be too critical when it comes to choosing names.

This is just wrong

The below map is courtesy of the Weather Channel. It's as of 11:14 AM local time. Nevermind the vicious windchill factor, which in the middle of the day is still minus 27 F. Makes you want to live in Winnipeg, eh?



Remote controlled vasectomies

Via Salon.com's Broadsheet today.

[Insert your male joke here.]

Pot vending machines

Good thing schools are starting to get rid of vending machines. This one would be an interesting addition...


It looks pretty slick...

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

The little things

I'm getting a little tired writing about the politics of the presidential contest, but I can't seem to help myself. Right now, I'm going to go halfway and use a political story to make a non-political point.

The Washington Post today ran a piece about former candidate Bill Richardson's struggle on whether to endorse Clinton or Obama (presumably not Edwards by his omission in the piece). Richardson is under a lot of pressure from all sides to commit. He likes Clinton and feels loyalty towards her. He then tells the reporter one of the reasons he likes Obama, stemming from an experience at a Democratic debate last year:

"I had just been asked a question -- I don't remember which one -- and Obama was sitting right next to me. Then the moderator went across the room, I think to Chris Dodd, so I thought I was home free for a while. I wasn't going to listen to the next question. I was about to say something to Obama when the moderator turned to me and said, 'So, Gov. Richardson, what do you think of that?' But I wasn't paying any attention! I was about to say, 'Could you repeat the question? I wasn't listening.' But I wasn't about to say I wasn't listening. I looked at Obama. I was just horrified. And Obama whispered, 'Katrina. Katrina.' The question was on Katrina! So I said, 'On Katrina, my policy . . .' Obama could have just thrown me under the bus. So I said, 'Obama, that was good of you to do that.'"
I'm not going to claim that this says anything specifically noteworthy about Barack Obama. I'm sure most the other presidential candidates have also said and done nice things in the past, even to political rivals. (Well, maybe not Rudy Giuliani.) What's noteworthy is how a little gesture can make such an impact.

We never truly know how and when the little things will matter. Of all the interactions we have every day, which one is going to carry us forward? Stories like this serve as a reminder to be on one's best behavior in all circumstances and with all people. You never know when a good deed will pay back or when a misdeed will bite you back. Some may call that karma. I think it's just common sense.

Although it might have felt like a big deal at the time, asking the moderator to repeat the question wasn't going to seal the fate of Richardson's campaign. Maybe Obama was thinking ahead when he gave a helping hand to Richardson or maybe it was automatic. In any case, now Richardson is in the position to have an impact with an endorsement and this little gesture may make a difference.

Monday, January 28, 2008

Hillary and Tracy Flick

Okay, this might be a little unfair to Senator Clinton; but I really like the movie Election. It's from Slate.com.

Voice of feminism

Having worked in the advocacy non-profit community, I've seen a wide spectrum in sophistication from advocacy organizations. There are some small, grassroots organizations out there with just a couple staff that are incredibly effective at what they do. Then there are the groups, big and small, which simply take donations and make lots of noise, and often cause trouble for the other groups who are actually making a difference. It can be distressing sometimes.

I suspect that the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women falls into the ineffective category. It's hard to have a favorable impression of them when their president releases this statement:

Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings.

And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this” one).
It goes on from there. Thanks to Feministing.com for flagging this

One wonders why many women are hesitant to embrace the term "feminist" even when they seem to hold such viewpoints. Who wants to be in company with people like the author of the above missive?

Friday, January 25, 2008

Today's Quote: More from Bill

I stole this from the Doonesbury website.

"If [Barack Obama] wins this nomination, I'm going to do what I can to help him become president...After all the mean things they said about me, I can't believe I'm saying this."
-- Bill Clinton

Tired of Clinton

No, I'm not talking about Senator Hillary Clinton. I'm talking about the ex-president himself. Maybe it's just me, but is anyone else following the presidential primaries getting fed-up from hearing from Bill Clinton all the time? Every time he opens his mouth to distort Senator Obama's positions or say Hillary will solve the health care mess, my response is, "Who cares what you think?"

Honestly, I want this election to be about the future, not the 1990s. And while I don't think that argument should be what disqualifies Hillary Clinton from consideration, it doesn't make me want to go out and vote for her. I don't want to relive the '90s. The former president's constant presence in the campaign seems to be making the argument that they are simply going for a 3rd Clinton term.

According to the Washington Post, however, it seems many people disagree, Democrats in particular. Chris Cillizza convincingly argues that Bill Clinton overwhelmingly remains the most popular Democrat. This makes sense; what other high profile Democrat has been able to spend any where near as much time in the national spotlight for the last twenty years? Many people, me included, look back wistfully to the Clinton years when we reflect on the last 7 years of the Bush administration.

But was Bill Clinton really the knight in shining armor? Yes, by comparison, he was a world of difference from what we have now. Still, for argument's sake, let's consider the following from Clinton's presidency:
  • He did raise taxes slightly on the rich early in his term. Later, he apologized for that and said he regretted it.
  • He signed the so-called "welfare reform" act simply to position himself well for the 1996 reelection campaign.
  • His environmental policy was a do-nothing approach for most of his 8 years, except for signing a bunch of executive orders in his final days. Many of these were simply and quickly reversed by the Bush administration.
  • He opposed the establishment of the International Criminal Court.
  • He signed the Defense of Marriage Act, putting discrimination into federal law.
  • He was wishy washy and allowed millions to be sunk into the development of the National Missile Defense program.
  • While he didn't invade Iraq, he did oversee nearly a decade of inhuman sanctions on Iraqis that destroyed it's economy and prevented things like medicines, textbooks, and water filters into the country. His administration also did a lot of bombing of Iraq.
  • He bombed a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan that, despite arguments at the time, had no link to terrorist activity. The bombing occurred at a suspicious time during the Lewinsky scandal.
  • And no, this did not merit an impeachment, but one may consider the guy as a bit slimy. He has an inappropriate relationship with a young employee and then lies to his family and the nation about it.
Yes, he did well too. His administration managed the economy pretty well and balanced the budget. He appointed good judges and signed the Brady Bill. His administration was not marked by continuous incompetence and lies about important things. And yes, I'd much, much, prefer him today to George W. Bush. But the Clinton administration still wasn't "all that."

I've never understood why many Republicans so strongly detest Bill Clinton. I've never really understood why many Democrats so strongly worship Bill Clinton. We shouldn't look at the past through rose-tinted glasses. Bill Clinton was an incredibly gifted and slick politician from the "centrist" Democratic Leadership Council. He frequently "triangulated" and abandoned his own party. He was ineffective in important areas. He has and continues to show a propensity to bend the truth.

I wish he would go back to taking a back seat. I won't hold my breath.

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Great story

One of my favorite episodes of This American Life replayed recently. Called, "The Super," it has three acts involving building superintendents. My favorite is the funny, yet creepy, Act I.

You can no longer download the show for free, but you can listen to it live stream for free or pay 95 cents to download it on to your computer or MP3 player.

Monday, January 21, 2008

Extreme hybrid cars

It's the "extreme hybrid," plug-in car of the future. Running solely on electricity for 40 miles and having a fuel-cost one-third of gasoline, it sounds like a heck of an improvement. But will it come our way?

The car of the future is here - Jan 22, 2008, Salon.com

Friday, January 18, 2008

Today's Quote: Booing kids

"I'd boo the most adorable child in the world saving a kitten from drowning if she were wearing a Stanford jersey while she did it. Or if the kitten was." -King Kaufman, Salon.com columnist

Yes. He is being sarcastic. It's to illustrate a point over the minor controversy of Indianapolis Colts fans booing an 11 year-old girl wearing a New England Patriots jersey at last week's Chargers-Colts game. Incidentally, he's the only sports writer I read.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Test your geography skills

A fun, fast-passed geography quiz. On the first try I advanced to level 11 (out of 12) and got a "traveler IQ" of 121. I think warming up my mouse hand on another try will give me a better score.

Try it out!

Offensive Target Ad

An ad from Target Stores has appeared in NYC's Times Square, outside their Minneapolis headquarters, among other places. It features a woman allegedly doing a "snow angel" with an odd placement of their trademark target.


Target claims they've received less than a dozen complaints. Judging by the attention in the last day, I'd guess that will go up. You can be the judge. I personally can't believe the "subliminal" image is anything but intentional. In any case, it's distasteful. Tell me what you think.

Top 5 Songs

In honor of John Cusack's character in High Fidelity, I present several "Top 5" song lists. It won't take the reader long to discern my taste in music. Of course, these lists should not be treated as the definitive, final authority.

Top 5 Cynical Rock Songs
  • Won't Get Fooled -The Who - The more things change, the more they stay the same.
  • It Ain't Me Babe - Bob Dylan - Maybe more sarcastic than cynical.
  • Punk Rock Song - Bad Religion - The song goes through everything wrong in the world and exclaims "this is just a punk rock song." It's cynical on its surface in the hope of pushing the listener to action.
  • Holiday in Cambodia - Dead Kennedys - Most DK songs could end up in this list.
  • Bohemian Rhapsody - Queen - A downer of a song, "nothing really matters."
Honorable Mentions
  • Shitloads of Money - Liz Phair - Also sarcastic, and yet, the song sounds confessional.
  • Bear Mountain Picnic - Bob Dylan - About getting conned.
  • I Saw Her Again Last Night - The Mamas and the Papas - Made even more depressing when you understand it is autobiographical.
  • We Got to Get Out of This Place - The Animals - "You'll be dead before your time is due."
  • Fortunate Son - Creedence Clearwater Revival - An indictment of the ruling class.

5 Top Break-Up Songs
  • Already Gone - The Eagles - A victory take on the break-up.
  • Don't Think Twice - Bob Dylan - Would also make the list of most bitter songs.
  • Free Bird - Lynard Skynard - Title says it all.
  • Every Breath You Take - The Police - Also the creepiest song.
  • Without You - Harry Nilsson - So very sad and over the top.

5 Top Long, Larger than Life Rock Songs

  • Paradise By the Dashboard Light - Meatloaf - Should probably have also made the cynical list.
  • Free Bird - Lynard Skynard - There's a reason annoying drunk people shout out "Free Bird!" requests.
  • American Pie - Don McLean - Overplayed on all classic rock stations, but still a goody.
  • Stairway to Heaven - Led Zeppplin - "Zepplin!"
  • Layla - Eric Clapton
Honorable Mention
  • Won't Get Fooled - The Who
I'm open to suggestions for revisions or additional lists.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Stupid idea from Kos

The grand master of the left side of the political blogosphere, Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos, has suggested a dumb idea to Michigan Democrats for today's primary: mess up the Republicans by voting in the Republican primary and propping up Romney.

Michigan has an open primary, so no need to be registered to vote for a party. You decide which party's primary when you walk in that day. Since the Democrat side is of no consequence, there is added incentive for Democrats to make their votes "count" by voting on the Republican side.

I doubt a substantial enough number of Democrats in Michigan would do this with any sort of consistency to make a real difference, but with this suggestion Moulitsas gives the Republicans a great talking point about those unethical, menacing Democrats.

So, from a political perspective, it's stupid; and I don't use that word lightly here. It's also highly unethical. I think it is perfectly fine for someone who identifies with one party to choose to vote in the other primary if they have a genuine preference within that race. But to "mess with" or "embarrass" the other party breaks rules of simple fairness.

I'm not a regular reader of Daily Kos, but when I do look there I'm rarely impressed. Here's another strike against that overrated site.

"Threats" to the U.S. Nazy

UPDATE: As of Jan 15, it appears that the Associated Press and National Public Radio have now covered this story. But no mention in other mainstream U.S. media as far as I can tell.

Last week we've heard the news on the "aggressive" incident between Iranian boats and U.S. naval vessels (including a destroyer) in the Strait of Hormuz. During the close encounter, the U.S. personnel heard a threat on the radio: "I am coming to you. You will explode in a few minutes." The Bush administration has been utilizing this for all they can to trump up the threat of Iran.

Then I hear on Harry Shearer's radio program from Sunday that retired Navy officers believe the voice to be from a prankster in the area known as the "Filipino Monkey." Apparently, it is a fairly common practice worldwide, and particularly in the crowded Strait of Hormuz, for pranksters to interrupt other radio transmissions with threats and abuse. The self-named "Filipino Monkey" is particularly notorious and well known in the area.

A Google search doesn't come up with any mainstream media coverage of this important update, which was originally printed by the Navy Times. The highest profile media report comes from the U.K.'s The Guardian, which on Monday wrote:

Rick Hoffman, a retired captain, told the paper: "For 25 years, there's been this mythical guy out there who, hour after hour, shouts obscenities and threats. He used to go all night long. The guy is crazy.


"Could it have been a spurious transmission? Absolutely."


An unnamed civilian mariner told the Navy Times: "They come on and say Filipino Monkey in a strange voice. You're standing watch on bridge and all of a sudden it comes over the radio. It's been a joke out there for years."


The Guardian further notes that on the dubbed-over video released by the U.S. Navy "a strange voice, in English, can be heard saying "I am coming to you. You will explode in a few minutes." The voice sounds different from one heard earlier in the recording and there is no background noise that would usually be picked up from a speedboat radio." Emphasis added.

One would think that naval personnel would come to the conclusion that the transmission probably came from a prankster. Maybe not in the heat of the moment, though the different voice and lack of background noise seems suspicious. When presented with this theory, the Navy's response has been to shrug and say "we don't know where it came from." It seems clear that this is another incident of the Bush administration flat out lying and willfully ignoring inconvenient facts. And like a repeat of 2003, the mainstream media seems to be going along for the ride. One wonders why both the U.S. government and media have so little credibility...

It's a smurfy anniversary

It's the 50th anniversary of the Smurfs! Just when you thought those creepy, blue beings were all in the past, we get to celebrate all their smurfiness!

Apparently, new Smurf projects are being planned, including putting it back on television and a feature-length film. According to those producing these monstrosities, parents my age will be excited to introduce their children to their smurfy childhood joy.

As a child, I went through a Smurf phase. Now as an adult, I can't imagine any other adult viewing the Smurfs as having a positive impact on kids. Do we really want to subject our children to this!!

One article shows they are anticipating some potential concerns:

"They will mark 50 years with a series of new comic adventures, statuettes, an exhibition at Brussels' cartoon museum, a set of commemorative stamps and, in a reflection of changing times, more females in their mushroom cottage village.

"Blond-haired Smurfette, originally created by evil sorcerer Gargamel to foster jealous rivalry in the community, has been the single love interest for almost every other Smurf for years."

It's unclear weather Gargamel is the creater of these new Smurf females and whether they too will foment dissent among the original male Smurfs.


Monday, January 14, 2008

Yeah duh...

Apparently, according to one study, people enjoy wine when the price is higher, regardless of actual quality.

Though I don't think this should surprise anyone, it is interesting research nonetheless. So much of what we buy is marketing a brand that may or may not be as good as a item half its price. Figure that the majority of the clothes we buy aren't manufactured by the brand. The marketing brand simply stamps on their logo to products made from a variety of third parties, who may be making their competitors' items too.

With produce, dog food, and toy safety issues, we learn the same factories are supplying products for sometimes dozens of separate and often competing brands.

But people seem to think it's okay. Their favored brands clearly are the best out there. They would never be swayed by slick marketing even though some of their friends might.

I'm going to Target now to buy some Mattel toys, a pair of Nike shoes, Migraine-approved Advil, and a case of Diet Coke. Too bad they don't sell wine.

Today's Quote: Kurds

"What's a Kurd, anyway?" -Norman Podhoretz

This old quote comes courtesy of Jeffrey Goldbery in the current issue of The Atlantic magazine. He gives us the context of the quote in the cover story "After Iraq: What will the Middle East look like?" Basically, he's telling us now ignorant the neo-conservatives have been to the demographics in the Middle East, missing the fact that the Kurds would become a political complication in post-war Iraq.

'Just before the “Mission Accomplished” phase of the war, I spoke about Kurd­istan to an audience that included Norman Podhoretz, the vicariously martial neoconservative who is now a Middle East adviser to Rudolph Giuliani. After the event, Podhoretz seemed authentically bewildered. “What’s a Kurd, anyway?” he asked me.'

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Saturday, January 12, 2008

Airline mergers for Minneapolis-St. Paul

New rumors have arisen in the last week of a major airline merger involving Delta and Northwest.


NWA is headquartered in Minnesota and the Minneapolis-St. Paul (MSP) airport is their largest hub. So people pay attention here to what's happening with NWA.


Today, the Twin Cities Star Tribune reassured the community that MSP would not lose its hub status in the event of a merger because it is a lucrative hub even in a consolidated airline market. They write:

"A merger between Delta Air Lines and Northwest Airlines could begin a dramatic reshaping of the aviation industry but lead to only small changes in the importance of Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport to the combined carrier.

"The reason is simple: Northwest makes a lot of money in the Twin Cities, a situation no suitor will want to alter."


Of course, the reason for this is the near monopoly currently enjoyed by NWA at MSP. The article notes NWA's 67% marketshare over ALL the other airlines and that according to one survey MSP customers pay 21% than the national average for comparable travel.


I can't find how many flights Delta has out of Minneapolis. I don't think it's much. But a merger can't really help when it comes to competition at Minneapolis-St Paul airport, or anywhere else in the country. So, it's not reassuring from the vantage point of consumers.


But people who are much more expert on this subject than I have been long claiming the inevitability of consolidation in the unstable and (sometimes) unprofitable airline industry.

Friday, January 11, 2008

Demon children

Writer Neal Pollack writes in his Parenting Magazine blog about the strange change in his 5 year old son's behavior, going from bad by even bad standards, to an angel. He is at a loss for an explanation.

Talking to other parents, this doesn't seem too unusual around the holidays and traveling. These kids are creatures of habit. Taking them out of their element in terms of time, space, people, activity can throw them off and suddenly they are someone different.

This week back from our Florida travels has been a difficult one. The first decent day was yesterday. Hopefully, it'll continue.

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Speaking of witches...

On the subject of witches, here's a fun witch mash-up...

Column of the day: The witch ain't dead

My favorite piece today is written by Salon.com's Rebecca Traister. She eloquently mirrors some of my thoughts the past couple of months. I'm not a Clinton fan. I hope she is not the nominee. I don't have a lot of trust for her. But I have been amazed at how poorly she has been treated by the talking heads. There has been a definite double-standard, and I suspect it is gender-based.

Traister opens with the following:
"I'm not a Hillary supporter, but ... " has been an oft-heard preamble in the five days since the New York senator's Iowa defeat, usually followed by a description of how aghast the speaker is at the treatment Clinton received from a media anxious to throw a hoe-down on her political coffin. To my surprise, it's a phrase I've heard myself uttering, before launching a tirade about the premature death certificate signed by pundits for a candidate I have never really wanted to win.

New Hampshire: Wrong again

So, I, like the majority of the pollsters and political reporters, called New Hampshire's primary wrong. The story now is the big boost Clinton's and McCain's respective wins give them. I had predicted, like some polls, Obama winning the Democratic primary by at least five points. Instead, with 95% of precincts reporting, Clinton won 39% to Obama's 36%. Edwards and Richardson got 17% and 5% respectively. I had also said that Edwards would be lucky to break 10%.

The Democratic side

What bothers me is the inflated media response. To be sure, Clinton's victory is a surprise and a boost to her. But the language out there is a bit much. Washington Post reporter Chris Cizzela described Clinton's win as "one of the most stunning comeback victories in modern American politics" in his Tuesday night blog post.

Clinton had been leading in the polls in New Hampshire by double digits for months. Her defeat in Iowa brought her numbers down drastically and over the weekend many New Hampshire polls had Obama with a good lead. The fact she bounced back for Tuesday with a slim, but real win, isn't the most stunning comeback victories. It is simply a surprise.

I would argue that McCain's win, although predicted by the polls, represents a more stunning turn around when you consider where his campaign was a couple months ago. John Kerry's resurrected campaign in 2004 was also more stunning than Clinton's victory.

Still, even without the media's self-fulfilling prediction of this lifting Clinton from the brink, it's clear the New Hampshire Democrats have a lot of faith in her. The Democrat side is now a 2.5 person race. It will be interesting to see how the half, Mr. Edwards, will impact the other two in South Carolina and Nevada and maybe even on Super Tuesday.

The Republican side

If the Democrat nomination contest is now a 2.5 person race, the Republican one is a 3.5 person race. It's McCain, Huckabee, and Romney, with Giuliani as the half. I still don't see Giuliani getting the nomination. In New Hampshire, he came in fourth, narrowly avoiding embarrassment by beating Paul by one point. He's not completely out yet, and can make some interesting things happen, particularly in Florida. Romney has been badly hurt by the results in Iowa and New Hampshire, but with his skill, funds, and ambition, I wouldn't count him out yet.

If it comes down to McCain versus Huckabee, which looks most likely, I think McCain will be the nominee. It is strange to think, as political analysts and commentators have pointed out in recent days, that the Republican establishment could quickly find themselves rallying around McCain because they are worried about Huckabee, both for his economic populisms and presumed unelectability. The irony that McCain, who used to have his name always preceded with the word "maverick," would be an establishment Republican would have been difficult to foresee a short couple of years ago.

Pluses and Minuses of a McCain nomination

I have mixed feelings about McCain. His newfound ability to pander isn't endearing. He is even more of a hawk than George W Bush (but at least probably would expect competency). He's a true social conservative despite conservatives' long-held distrust of him. He is also an angry, unstable person. Even so, due to his stature and reputation and political profile, he is probably the most electable of the GOP candidates. I once thought that of slippery Mitt Romney, but his recent failures to run a primary campaign make me fear him less in a general election.

Another McCain irony would be that a general election with him as the nominee wouldn't be all about trumped up, imminent threat of immigrants. McCain is the lead proponent in the Senate on immigration reform, but does not approach it like the Republican base. To listen to the other Republican candidates, immigration is not only the defining issue of the race, it's the only issue.

I disagree with McCain on most of the major issues. I would still be delighted with some of the issues he'd bring to the campaign. I would love to hear him resurrect talk on a national service program and ethics reforms. He would talk about solutions to the economy and health care reform. He'd continue to be against torture and for a return to the rule of law. These would all be good things for a Democrat who fills the White House to be able to fulfill their own (better) solutions to these issues. If a Republican candidate succeeds in making the election all about immigration and taxes, there are no real issue-based mandates that the victor carries into the White House.

McCain would be a disaster in the White House. This is a guy who thought it was funny to joke about bombing Iran. You would think a former POW would regard armed conflict as less than funny. But I've never been a POW in North Vietnam, so I can't rightly judge how any former POW should and shouldn't find something humorous. I think of all the candidates, McCain is the most likely to lead us into unnecessary armed conflict. Clinton might be second on that front. (Oh wait, there's Giuliani!)

Monday, January 7, 2008

More Presidential Primaries Predictions

Okay, so it was several days ago, but I must admit that I was a bit off in my predictions of the Iowa caucus results. At least on the Democratic side. As we know, Clinton did NOT win by a double-digit margin but came in a close third place. So, I got it backwards. On the GOP side, I was right about Huckabee, but that was no real surprise.

Still, I'm going to barrel ahead and make predictions for tomorrow's primary in New Hampshire. I've only heard a little of the polls and some of the coverage. That won't stop my half-informed self from prognosticating though.

As the cable news channels tell us, the key in New Hampshire is the independent voters who can vote in either primary. (It's an open primary state.) I saw one poll last week that claimed that 60% of independents would vote in the Dem primary. If true, that should help Obama and harm the "moderate" Republicans.

Here it goes!

Democrats
Obama will win New Hampshire by at least 5 points. Edwards will be lucky to break 10%. Edwards will probably not drop out of the race yet. Richardson will have to withdraw after New Hampshire. It will be interesting to see who Richardson or Edwards will endorse, if anybody, after they withdraw. And no, I'm not going to even bother talking about Dennis Kucinich.

Republicans
Who the heck knows? It's all in flux. Either Romney or McCain will win. Whichever one wins here becomes the Republican front-runner in a three way race with Huckabee and Giuliani. McCain won the primary in 2000 with the help of lots of independent voters. Unfortunately, many of those independents will be voting Democrat, or could be pairing off to support Giuliani, Thompson, and Paul. Still, I'll predict McCain will win New Hampshire narrowly over Romney. Romney will stay in the race but his time is about done. Giuliani needs to come in 3rd or a narrow 4th to look competitive going into other states. My guess is that Giuliani, Paul, and Huckabee will be clustered around 10 percent each and Thompson will be less. One hopes that Thompson will end the charade and drop out after New Hampshire.

Another item on the horizon is whether high-profile independent Michael Bloomberg jumps in the race. If the Republican nominee appears to be Huckabee, I think that gives Bloomberg a great opportunity. If it is Giuliani or McCain, that is less possible. If he does enter, I think it could be as early as Monday, February 11th: one week after Super Tuesday. I remain doubtful that Bloomberg candidacy would amount to anything more than a spoiler candidate.