The Word of the Day: "Chaos"

The Morning After Michigan provides glee for Democrats as we watch the GOP nomination battle sink further into disarray. The national consensus is the race is in chaos.

But Democrats need to be cautious. It would be a strategic blunder to develop a sense of overconfidence this early in the campaign. The year is barely more than two weeks old and we've seen conventional wisdom twisted and turned on its head multiple times already.

One thing we can all be certain of at this point: There is certainly a long way to go. We haven't seen the last time the punditocracy is left cleaning the egg off their collective faces.

One might try to make the case that the Democratic race is as murky and unpredictable as the Republican contest. While the ultimate winner remains a question mark, I don't think "chaos" is an apt description on the Democratic side. There is a lot of a agreement on policy among the candidates. The vitriol we're experiencing right now regarding race and campaign tactics is actually calm (for a Democratic contest) and is a normal and expected part of a tight nominating contest.

The Republicans, on the other hand, are in disagreement over core issues and approaches - and each candidate is playing to win over their own faction and segment within their disintegrating coalition. This is why you see their candidates cherry-picking the contests where they will compete.

They are also caught in an unenviable vice: How to run a primary campaign advocating change (and against the sitting President) without alienating that president's supporters in the easily agitated GOP electorate? It will become even more difficult in the general election when the Democratic Party unites and turns all of its attention to the Republican nominee, who will either have to refute Dubya's policies (and risk the base staying home) or stick by their guy (and watch indies flock to the Democrats in droves).

Questions for both parties remain as Tsunami Tuesday approaches.

Can the Dems still be torn asunder? Yes (especially if race remains a topic in the upcoming contests)

Can the Republicans pull it together? Probably (but the continued pandering to factions who are fundamentally opposed to one another will make it less and less likely)

"A Fool Born Every Minute"

Must be what Bill is banking on when he says stuff like this on the campaign trail.

Hey, Stupid, It's Iraq (and the Economy)!

Arianna has a post up over at HuffPo about the diminished focus on Iraq in the presidential campaign. In recent weeks, the MSM has pushed the "surge is working" storyline and Arianna correctly warns the Democratic contenders about the perils of ignoring Iraq on the campaign trail. She argues ceding the foreign policy and global war on terror issues to Republicans is risky and a repeat of Kerry's 2004 strategic mistakes.

I agree. The Democrats need to buck the newly delivered conventional wisdom being spouted by the media who "have hit on a new way of diminishing the importance of the war: pretend like no one cares about it anymore, like it's old news." It is yet another "inside the beltway" consultant driven talking point that reveals the disconnect between the chattering classes and the American electorate.

Our Democratic nominee will have the best chance of winning in November if they expand beyond our "kitchen table" economic issues (where Dems are traditionally strong) into the realm of foreign policy and national defense.

"Fight Night" in Vegas: Who's Angry Now?

The MSM weeks ago labeled John Edwards as "too angry" to win the Democratic nomination. But the recent turmoil between the Clinton and Obama camps - with charges of racism entering the campaign - puts a new light on Edwards' rhetoric. At least his "anger" is about real issues that affect the daily lives of average Americans.

The MSM's pitbull-like grip on this storyline over the past 72 hours once again reveals the media's fascination with the horse race aspects of the campaign rather than focusing on the important policy issues facing the nation. I may be wrong, but I believe voter interest in the "inside baseball" charges about dirty campaign tricks is negligible.

The charges being thrown between the Obama and Clinton entourages diminishes both frontrunners and the Democratic Party in general. I believe Clinton has been severely wounded - if not fatally for the general election - by angering African American voters. How does she win without their overwhelming support in November? Obama does not escape unscathed. His "politics of hope" is tarnished each time one of these old-time "politics as usual" schoolyard fights breaks out.

With the news of a tighter-than-expected race forming in Nevada prior to this Saturday's caucuses one has to wonder, are Democratic voters taking another look at John Edwards?

Michigan Mischief = No Mandate, No "Big Mo" & No GOP Nominee

Republican operatives are worried Michigan Democrats and Independents may alter the GOP primary results in the Wolverine State, essentially picking the eventual Republican nominee.

While the NY Sun article, "Mich. Democrats May Determine Republican Nominee" doesn't mention the cross-the-aisle meddling advocated by DKos' Markos Moulitsas to support Romney it does reinforce Kos' message: the Michigan results will be dismissed or questioned by whomever finishes second in the primary.

So, if the winner of today's primary receives a questionable mandate and negligible momentum heading into South Carolina, the next stop on the GOP's chaotic campaign of '08 how can anyone really believe the article's headline?

Rudy's (and America's) Shame

We need to let Rudy know building a presidential campaign on the backs of American heroes while ignoring their long-term medical needs is immoral. Rudy, despite your claims, you are not "one of them."



Let Rudy know he should meet with the 9-11 First Responders by signing the petition here.

NH Dems Tell MSM: "Slow Down, Important Election Underway"

The punditocracy is stunned for the second time in a week. The Democratic nomination battle has everyone scratching their heads, hungover from a weekend-long binge of polls and political rallies in the snow. The frenetic pace (and the 24-7 news cycle's voracious appetite) have left the candidates, the media and the general population (at least those of us who pay attention to politics and not Britney) exhausted and disoriented.

Thank you, New Hampshire, from a long-time member of the ABC (Anybody But Clinton) Camp. In this compressed election cycle, I think the NH Democrats did the rest of us a huge favor yesterday.

Why? Because the voters have shown they are now in control of the campaign's narrative.

The Democratic nomination's 2008 narrative had been viewed throughout the 2007 calendar year as Hillary Rodham Clinton's "coronation march." The endless endorsements and insurmountable leads in national opinion polls combined with a professionally run textbook campaign led the MSM to believe in Sen. Clinton's aura of inevitability.

The only hint that something may have been amiss in the House of the Democratic Establishment was Sen. Barack Obama's quirky ability to raise oodles of money. Everyone anticipated Sen. Clinton would be able to raise unprecedented funds for her presidential campaign. Few predicted anyone - nevermind a freshman Senator from Chicago, Hillary's hometown - would be able to keep pace and build a fundraising list larger than the well-connected Clinton machine.

While Obama's fundraising prowess was impressive, the MSM also found it easy to dismiss as another insurgency a la Howard Dean. Democratic nomination fights often have insurgent campaigns that catch the electorate's imagination early but flame out when the real voting takes place.

When Iowa's caucus voters showed up in record numbers last Thursday night and delivered a resounding repudiation of the Clinton machine, the media and the general population (not to mention TeamHillary) woke up to the realization that this Democratic nomination would be no cakewalk for the former first lady. As John Houseman would say in the old Smith Barney ads, "She's going to have to earn it."

The media - provided a new and exciting storyline for the Democratic race - caught a severe case of "Obamamania" over the weekend. Every poll seemed to indicate an ObamaWave was sweeping across from the plains to swamp the Clinton Granite State firewall. The talking heads told us there was little Clinton could do to reverse the momentum. We saw Hillary tear up (and the media tear her down). We saw Bill Clinton's angry and bitter side (one we often heard rumors about but rarely saw during his presidency).

On election day, media predictions during the afternoon heralded the end of Two Dynasties - the Bushes and Clintons. It was a grandly historic day - at least the media kept telling us. More than 4 out of ten Republican NH primary voters were either dissatisfied or angry with Bush and Obama was going to win going away, if the latest polls were to be believed.

It turns out the polls predicting a 10-12 point Obama victory were dead wrong. Many theories are being bandied about. Was it the tears? Did women rally to Hillary's side when the media (and her opponents) displayed a blatantly sexist double-standard? Was it the fact Hillary decided to change tactics and actually answer audience questions over the weekend? (without which the tears would never have flowed) Or was it the playing out of the "Bradley effect?" Did a latent Yankee racism creep into the privacy of the polling booths? Or was it the triumph of the experience over rhetoric argument?

I argue it was a combination of all of the above. But, I also believe another factor was in play: This race to a nominee was hurtling far too fast for the staid Granite Staters. In their stoic wisdom they understood that the media frenzy and the willingness of the punditocracy to transfer the crown of inevitability from one head to another was occuring far too fast.

Iowa Democrats validated Obama's viability as a national candidate. New Hampshire Democrats, in backing Clinton, were not rejecting Obama's message as much as they were saying: Slow down. We're moving much too fast. We need to make sure the Democratic standard-bearer is our strongest candidate in November. As a result, more Democrats get to weigh in and determine our nominee.

Thank you, New Hampshire and Iowa.