Financing Obama and McCain

After the American Century

From abroad, the cost of American elections is unbelievable, appalling. In 2008 more than $1 billion will be spent just on the presidential primaries and general election. But I will spare readers a sermon on this matter. The media world has been actively discussing Senator Obama's decision not to accept public financing, established back in the 1970s to eliminate fund-raising and create a level playing-field. It has never worked well, but it seemed a step in the right direction. All along Obama has refused to accept any money from lobbyists (in contrast to McCain), but he apparently accepted the idea that campaigns should be financed by the government. Taking public money means accepting a cap on spending, however, and Obama has found that he can raise vast sums from private donors. He does not need public financing, which would cap his spending.

Obama is the first candidate who has understood how to use the Internet to reach potential donors, and to involve them in his campaign as partners. Anyone who gives begins to receive a regular stream of emails with information about campaign events, opportunities to join others in raising money, and chances to meet fellow supporters (both on-line or in person). So while Obama himself seldom needs to eat a rubber chicken and make a speech in person, the virtual Obama has been prodigiously successful at eliciting donations. By comparison, McCain is computer illiterate. For more on how Obama raises money, see Joshua Green, "The Amazing Money Machine" The Atlantic.com Alternately, give Obama $10 or more and you can experience it first-hand.

Obama presented his campaign funding decision not as a change of heart about campaign reform, nor as a proof of his on-line wizardry, but as a recognition that the public financing of campaigns has not worked. It has not worked because it is too easy for an "independent" group to raise money and spend it lavishly to help a candidate, who thereby can get both the public financing and the benefits of private funds. Anyone who looks at how John Kerry was "swift-boated" in 2004 knows that this is true, yet a surprising number of commentators, such as John Brooks in the New York Times, are taking Obama to task. They want him to play by the Washington rule book. But he has decided not to work with an ill-conceived, broken system.

Fortunately for Obama, most voters seem to agree with him. Indeed, his fellow Democrats are most likely to be upset that he has abandoned public support, while Republicans have never supported it much. So the decision might even help him with swing voters. In any case, subsequent polls have not detected any loss of support since he decided not to take public money. In fact, most voters are not that interested in the issue. Americans generally do not mind if a candidate says he is independent, can stand on his own, needs no assistance, or is individualistic.

The irony is that for decades the Republicans have always been better at fund-raising that the Democrats. McCain is the first GOP presidential candidate I can remember that has had trouble getting contributors. That is what derailed him last year, when it looked like his campaign was over, due to near bankruptcy. Even now that he has been the nominee for months, he has raised less money than either Obama or Clinton. As of May 31, McCain had raised $121 million, only a little more than Mitt Romney, who dropped out of the race long ago. By comparison, Hillary Clinton barnstormed for $221 million by the same date, and yet had run out of funds even as she lost the nomination to Obama.

By the end of May the Senator from Illinois had put together contributions of $295 million, all of it from small donors. He has also shown good financial management, keeping costs under control. He has a rather tidy surplus, too, with $43 million in cash at the end of the primary cycle. McCain was almost as well off, however, because he sewed up his nomination much sooner and could use far less of his money against fellow Republicans. At the end of May he therefore had $31 million - less than Obama, but not so much less.

So no one should be surprised that Obama has decided not to subject himself to the restrictions of public financing, when he does not need it. That leaves the Internet-challenged John McCain to take the government handout, like a charity recipient, because he has not been able to motivate his base.

How Moderate is McCain?

After the American Century

Writing on Super Tuesday before any votes have yet been cast, I shall say nothing about the exciting Democratic contest, except that Obama seems to have momentum, rising in the polls each day. He might surprise Hillary in California. But more about that tomorrow. Today it is time to think about the Republicans, who apparently will make John McCain their nominee. It may not happen in a formal sense on Super Tuesday, but all the polls suggest that his competition will fall so short that the race will effectively be over. Huckabee may win a state or two in the South, no more. Romney will apparently run second in many states, though he should win at least Massachusetts, his home state.

It is therefore time to look more closely at McCain, and ask what his positions are. Is he really a moderate? For my European readers, I should say that compared to the Scandinavian or German politicians, he is off the scale to the right on many issues. No one with his views would have a shadow of a chance of leading any of these nations.

The American media's image of McCain, however, is that he is a moderate compared to the other Republican candidates. He is also perceived as something of a maverick, unwilling to toe the party line. It is true that he has not been a knee-jerk supporter of Bush's foreign policy. He is not a Bible-thumping fundamentalist like Huckabee, and he does not quote the Book of Genesis on the campaign trail. He admits that climate change is real (though he argues that nuclear power is the remedy). And he has supported stem-cell research, along with that wild-eyed radical Nancy Reagan. But on most of the issues McCain is quite conservative. Consider the following examples.

Abortion. McCain consistently has called the Supreme Court decision that legalized avortion, Roe vs. Wade, a mistake. He said again in the California debate last week that he would appoint "strict constructionists" to the courts. In American political code, this means he wants judges to stay away from legislating from the bench, particularly on abortion. McCain considers the "right to life" to be a human rights issue, and he has voted consistently on this issue. For example, he supports punishing doctors who perform abortions.

Iraq. McCain wants to fight the war as long as it takes. As a Vietnam War veteran who was imprisoned by the North Vietnamese, he has strong feelings on this issue. He has said the United States should stay in Iraq for 100 years, if necessary. Note that McCain went to the Naval Academy for his education, as did his father, his grandfather, and his son. By comparison, Bush was not trained as an officer. He served briefly in the National Guard and never saw combat. McCain is a warrior by instinct. He is also reputed to have a fierce temper.

The Arts. McCain would eliminate Federal spending on the arts and humanities. This is a symbolic issue, as annual Federal arts funding is less than the Iraq War costs every single day.

Civil Rights. McCain wants to keep the Federal government out of rights issues and leave them to the states. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) consistently has rated McCain as hostile to civil rights. In 2002, for example, McCain had the lowest possible score (0%) in their annual rating of candidates on civil rights issues. Nevertheless, at times his conservatism can lead him to vote with liberals on specific issues. On gay marriage, for example, he has voted against a federal ban, saying that imposing this from Washington is inconsistent with Republican principles.

Evolution. McCain would allow the decision about teaching "Creationism" to be made in each school district. No Federal imposition of the teaching of Darwin would be allowed.

Death Penalty. McCain supports the death penalty, and would have it extend to drug dealers. He would increase spending for Federal prisons.

Drugs. McCain strongly opposes any legalization of marijuana, which he sees as an addictive, "gateway drug" that leads to more powerful drugs.

Energy. McCain has voted against achieving energy independence, even though he rhetorically supports that idea. He has opposed putting research money into alternative fuels, and he has opposed federally supported development of ethanol as a partial substitute for oil. The Campaign for America's Future (CAF) rates law-makers' voting records on bills dealing with energy independence, and they give McCain only a 17% rating. That is quite low compared to Clinton and Obama, both of whom CAF rated at 100%.

McCain's positions are what passes for "moderate" in the Republican Party, which suggests how far to the right the other candidates are. On all of these issues, the Democratic Party has a different stance. Internal party differences between Obama and Clinton pale to insignificance by contrast.

In short, do not be deceived by the assiduously cultivated "marverick" image of John McCain. On most issues, he is not a moderate. Rather, he is much like the George Bush that has emerged during his second term. Bush too now admits that global warming is real and that the US is "addicted to oil," while doing little about either of these problems. He too wants to stay in Iraq, pack the Supreme Court with strict constructionists, keep the death penalty, encourage the Creationists, and discourage those pressing for Civil Rights. McCain does smile more, but he is a real warrior and a real conservative.

The interesting question becomes, will this conservative McCain become visible to the voting public by November, or will he still be perceived as a moderate maverick?

Does the First Nominee Have the Advantage?

After the American Century

There is a myth floating around in conversations I have heard in the US, that the party which decides on its candidate first has a decisive advantage. In other words, the party that unifies first behind one candidate can then consolidates its troops, while the other side is still fighting amongst themselves. It seems plausible. If true, then the Republicans might have an advantage, because their primaries are often winner-take-all contests, like Florida, where Romney got 31% of the votes but no delegates.

In contrast, the Democrats divide up the delegates from a primary roughly in proportion to the votes each candidate received. I say roughly, because the division is made at the local level, and can lead to small anomalies. For example, Clinton got the most personal votes in Nevada, but Obama got one more delegate (13) than she did (12), because of the way the vote broke down in particular districts. In other words, McCain (or conceivably Romney) might assemble the needed delegates in the next few weeks much more quickly than Clinton or Obama can. The Democratic race could easily take several months after Super Tuesday. If it is really close, then the decision might be made in balloting at the Democratic national convention in the summer. In other words, possibly neither Hillary nor Obama will get a majority, even when the primaries are over. In that case, the delegates who are pledged to Edwards would become crucial. He could be the power broker, deciding who gets to be the nominee, in exchange for something he wants - such as being the Vice Presidential nominee (again).

With that sort of scenario a possibility, the myth of early consolidation sounds appealing, but it is simplistic. The myth may be true if a party's candidates broadly agree on policy and are only fighting for the right to be the nominee. But what if the candidates fundamentally disagree about policy, as they do in the Republican Party right now? McCain is the front-runner, but I have met people who are furious at him, for example because he has a liberal approach to immigration policy. One angry woman told me that all the illegal immigrants should be thrown out, that they should have gotten in line for a green card and not entered the country before then. In her view, and that of millions of other conservative Republicans, McCain is completely unacceptable on that point. They will not much feel like rallying behind him, even if he does sew up the nomination. The question asked on a CNN Poll today was, "Can McCain Bring the Republicans Together"? Three out of four did not think so. There are too many fundamental issues that divide them. In addition to immigration, they disagree on what for them are fundamental moral questions: the theory of evolution, abortion, and gay marriage. Nor do they agree on how to deal with Iraq. Ron Paul's vocal minority wants withdrawal, but McCain will stay as long as it takes. I do not expect to see Huckabee or Paul supporters put much energy into a McCain candidacy. Or, if the candidate is Romney, many McCain supporters will sit on their hands, because he is too conservative for them.

In short, either Romney, or more likely McCain, might get the nomination early, only to find that party support is lukewarm. Weak enthusiasm from the Republican base would not stand up well to either the Clinton machine or the Obama wave. Moreover, the media are not going to give as much attention to an already-selected Republican as they will to a dramatic battle between the two exciting candidates on the Democratic side. And note that Obama and Hillary do not have radically different policy statements. Supporters of either one could in good conscience go out and work for the other.

An interesting historical comparison makes the same point. In 1960, Richard Nixon was the clear, early front-runner and early got the Republican nomination. On the Democratic side a fierce battle for the nomination went all the way to the convention and was only decided on the third ballot. In other words, the Republicans had unified early and, according to the myth, should have won, because the Democrats were fighting each other all summer. Moreover, Nixon could claim far more experience than his younger but less well-known rival. The winner? Jack Kennedy, a charismatic candidate demanding change. His vice-presidentail running mate? Lyndon Johnson, a Southern Senator who had the delegates needed for a majority. It might be "deja-vu all over again."

Republicans Struggle to Find a Candidate

Here in Boston, where I had my hair cut this morning, Mitt Romney does not seem popular. He once was governor of the state, and he also ran the Olympics, and normally such things make one respected. But my barber assured me that Romney was "a two-faced liar" who told every audience whatever they wanted to hear, and who did not stand for anything. This was the most direct expression of what many others also have said to me. Furthermore, rumors float about that some Democrats dislike Romney so much that they have changed their voter registration to "Independent." This will give them the right to vote in the Republican primary in Massachusetts - voting against Romney in his home state. In other words, they want to embarrass him. It may be that few people are actually going to do this, but the rumor itself suggests an unusually active dislike.

Nevertheless, on the national scene, Romney has begun to look like McCain's most serious Republican rival. Fred Thompson has dropped out of the campaign, and Huckabee is so short of money that he cannot afford to give journalists free transportation. He has decided to cut back his appearances in Florida and concentrate on more evangelical places, notably Georgia, where polls put him in first place. Still, cutting back on travel for the press is one of the last things any contender will do, because the press are vital to keeping your name and opinions before the public. In Florida's primary, coming up on Saturday, that leaves McCain and Romney as the main contenders, which Giuliani a potential spoiler. At the moment Romney is leading in the Rasmussen polls, with 27%. McCain is close behind at 23%, and the former Mayor of New York at 20%. [Update Friday 25th: since writing this I have seen several other polls that put McCain slightly ahead, but the margin of error is 5%, which means they are in a tie. But these polls also show Giuliani falling back to about 15%, in a tie with Huckabee.] Since Giuliani has spent far more time and money in Florida than the other two men combined, he seems to be fading out of the race. But note that slightly more than one third of the Republicans say they have not entirely made up their minds yet. In other words, "undecided" is winning just at the moment.

And what the Republicans cannot decide upon is not just which candidate to support, but what policies they stand for. Each of these men stands for something quite different. McCain comes from a military family, in which four generations have now gone to the Naval Academy. He is a maverick on social issues, and does not appeal to the Huckabee backers. The religious Right only likes Huckabee, in fact, as Giuliani has been married too many times and does not get angry about abortion or praise Jesus. Worse yet is Romney, whom the largely Southern Evangelicals do not like because he is a Mormon and in any case a Northerner. So this numerically important, if intellectually stunted fundamentalist rump of the Republican Party is in a crisis. There is even talk of running a third party candidate if an unacceptable candidate wins the nomination. For more sensible Republicans, Romney represents the business wing of the party, the employer class. Before serving as governor he was a successful capitalist.

For those readers who know their Protestant theology, the differences between these candidates can be explained in the theological terms. Ever since European Protestants came to the New World, they have struggled with two incompatible ideas about how one achieves salvation: the doctrine of grace vs. the doctrine of works. Huckabee is all about grace, the word of God, and the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit. There are millions of people in the United States who believe in the reality of Angels, who refuse to accept the theory of evolution, and who see nothing wrong with "speaking in tongues" in a church service. Huckabee is their man, and he represents the idea that the only way to salvation is through grace raining down on the unworhty sinner. Romney may be a Mormon, but his career is all about hard work and achievement, or the doctrine of works. A man earns his way into heaven. By prospering in this world he shows that he will be one of "the elect" in the next world. Ever since the seventeenth century, Protestants have disagreed about whether grace or works is the correct doctrine. Churches have broken into warring sects over these matters.

For those immersed in the doctrine of grace, Giuliani, with his Italian background, is the worst thing imaginable. For he is a very secular man. He is not just a Catholic, which for several hundred years was thought a terrible thing. He appears to be something even worse, he is a lapsed Catholic, with three divorces and liberal positions on abortion and other family value issues. A man like that, to the religious right is Godless, liberal, and clearly untrustworthy.

McCain is another matter, representing the warrior class. A potential slayer of infidels and defender of the American faith, he is more acceptable to the religious right in the sense that he stands for some moral absolutes. They respect that. But McCain has also been a maverick on social issues. He too seems secular, certainly neither a Creationist nor Bible-thumper. So the religious right is uncomfortable with all the candidates except Huckabee. However, the non-evangelical Republicans, the ones who went to real universities, gag when they hear Huckabee pontificate.

To sum it up, not only is the Republican Party struggling to find a candidate, it is struggling with its own identity. Bush could win over Evangelicals with a bit of coded rhetoric now and again - which was also the old Reagan tactic. Both gave fundamentalists the sense that their values were honored in the White House. Reagan and Bush II were mostly rhetoric, however, and they did not use too much political capital actually trying to stop the spread of gay marriage, prevent the teaching of evolution, or get prayer back into the classroom. It seems that neither Romney nor McCain nor Giuliani will play that game. The Reagan coalition seems to be dead.

Yet politics makes strange bedfellows. What if Huckabee became the vice-presidential nominee? Surely not Giuliani and Huckabee. But Romney and Huckabee? McCain and Huckabee? Then the Evangelicals would rejoice in their temples, gird up their loins, and march out on the campaign trail to do the Lord's work. It is a frightening prospect.

The Bush Economy, Part 2

More than one month ago, on December 12, I put out a blog on the failings of the Bush economy.(See the archive.) In the past week the failures of his economic policies have been driving down the stock market, and have prompted the head of the Federal Reserve to call for an economic stimulus package as quickly as possible.  Bush's immediate response has been to call for an across the board tax cut. Now, recall that the foolish tax cuts of his first year in office helped to over-heat the economy, and recall that these overwhelmingly favored the very rich. The immediate problem is not that these same rich people need yet another tax cut, but that relief is needed specifically by the middle class. More specifically still, people who bought houses recently need help in paying their mortgages. Rather than give a tax cut to everyone, in other words, Bush should be focusing on those families who are on the brink of going under. If they default on mortgages, the ripple effects will further destabilize the entire economy. What to do?

First, Congress should step in and guarantee mortgages, helping banks and borrowers to renegotiate the terms of their debt. Neither banks nor borrowers gain anything if the mortgage market collapse. Rather than just give some money to everyone, including rich people who already have received a terrific tax cut, and then hope that the economy as a whole will be stimulated enough to help people with big mortgages, why not attack the problem directly?

Second, Bush should admit that the US cannot afford to keep spending $1 billion a day in Iraq. There were strong military and strategic arguments against going into that war in the first place, but they made no impression upon the true-believers who directed policy. Perhaps the Republicans will listen to an economic argument, especially in an election year.

Third, the Democrats should seize this opportunity to attack the Republicans for their mistaken foreign policy and their failed economic policy. During the last week in the Nevada Caucuses we have witnessed some rather pitiful in-fighting, especially from the Clinton side. It is time to tell the American people just how bad a President Bush has been. The Democrats have to attack the neo-conservative policies that have weakened the United States financially and hurt its international image. Obama must move beyond "feel good" unity and hope toward a more detailed vision of what will change and how. And Clinton should stop crowing about her vast experience and start to show the American people that she has the courage to confront the Republicans and hold them accountable for their mistakes. 

Unfortunately, I doubt that any of these things will occur. In an election year Congress is likely to be distracted, and the Democrats may not want to rescue the Republicans. They may calculate that the worse the economy gets, the less chance there is for McCain or Romney or whoever it turns out to be. Nor should one expect that Bush will retreat from Iraq. He will no doubt stubbornly "stay the course," just as Richard Nixon stubbornly stayed in Vietnam, convinced that a victory and vindication would eventually come. Even if Bush suddenly did change his mind, it will take more than a year to get the troops out in an orderly fashion, and that $1 billion a day will continue to hemorrhage out of the economy. Finally, it seems that the Clintons may lower the tone of the Democratic primaries. Bill Clinton in particular has become more aggressive toward Obama. In contrast, McCain and Huckabee on the whole seemed to be take the high road of civility in South Carolina.  (But note the latter has begun to embrace the Confederate flag!)

In short, while the economic woes of the US continue to worsen, there is no clear sign yet of intelligent policy or good leadership from Bush. Meanwhile, the Democrats may squander the opportunity to lead in an internal war of attrition. 

Michigan Primary

Michigan is much different than Iowa or New Hampshire: it is more like the rest of the United States. In that sense, the Michigan Primary could function as a reality check. How might these candidates fare in an industrial, multicultural state? Unfortunately, the Michigan Primary will not function this way, because when it was moved to an earlier date, this was against party rules. Both parties have punished Michigan by taking away delegates to the national nominating conventions. The Republicans took away half, the Democrats took away every one of the delegates. As a result, Obama, Edwards and Richardson have taken their names off the ballot, while Clinton did not. So, on the Democratic side, there is no contest, though voters may choose to vote "uncommitted." In a curious way, the vote then turns out to be a referendum on Hillary. Her or "uncommitted"?

 

In the first two contests, the candidates could reasonably expect to come into personal contact with a good deal of the electorate. On a good day in Iowa or New Hampshire, they might be seen and heard by 15,000 people or more, and multiply that number by the days they spent in the state, and it compares rather well with the turnout in Iowa and New Hampshire. Fully half of the voters in each state got a first-hand impression of the candidates, and anyone who wanted to do so certainly has the opportunity. A friend of mine in New Hampshire wrote me that he and his wife managed to see Obama three times, Clinton, Richardson, and Edwards twice each, plus McCain and Giuliani.  He decided for Obama, saying, "When we first saw him, a year ago at a book signing event, I was underimpressed. But he grew into his candidacy. His Welcome Back to New Hampshire rally the morning after the Iowa caucus was rocking - and actually very moving." 

The voters in the first two states are the lucky ones, because they can really study the candidates and talk about them based on direct contact. Michigan is another matter, and more typical of the campaign for the presidency from now on. To begin with, there is the sheer scale of the State. Michigan is six times larger than New Hampshire, though about the same size as Iowa. More to the point, Michigan has 10 million inhabitants, more than twice as many as Iowa and New Hampshire put together, and they are not going to get many chances to see the candidates in the six days between primaries, no matter how intensive the campaigning. This means that the candidates will have to use the media to reach the voter, and that fact favors candidates with deep pockets.

Since there is no Democratic contest, we should focus on the Republican side. Huckabee and McCain do not have much money, and they will need to calculate carefully how to use the scarce resources. Huckabee will presumably be mobilizing the churches, as he did in Iowa, and McCain can count on support from veterans organizations. By comparison, Romney has more, and apparently plans to spend heavily.

Not only does Michigan demand more money to run a campaign, but it has a more varied electorate. More than 800,000 people in Michigan do not speak English in their homes, including many of the 400,000 Hispanics. Iowa and New Hampshire basically do not have Black people, which makes Obama's success there almost astonishing. Michigan's 1.4 million African-Americans traditionally vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party. Had there been a three-way contest with Edwards and Clinton, Obama presumably would have received far more than a third of the Black vote. Even more intriguing, Michigan also has a sizable Arab population, more than 400,000 in the Detroit metropolitan area. Dearborn, where Henry Ford once built his largest factory, today is 30% Arab. It seems reasonable to think that because of his cultural background, Obama would have appealed to such voters. But because the Michigan Primary is meaningless for the Democrats, we will never know how Obama might have done. However, the Arab voter is not necessarily a Democrat. The Arab population is better educated and more highly paid than the Michigan average, and half typically vote for the Republicans. This group may choose Romney, rather than the Bible-thumping Huckabee or militant McCain.  

The Republicans will battle it out in a state whose economy has been struggling for decades. Detroit is the headquarters for General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler, and as they have lost market share to Japanese and European firms, jobs have been disappearing. This is a blue-collar state, where only one adult in four has a BA (in New Hampshire it was one in three), and where the number of jobs has shrunk 7% during the Bush years, at a time when the country as a whole has created more than 2 million jobs. Given these local hard times, the populism that Edwards brought into the campaign and that other candidates have picked up, should play well in Michigan. That ought to favor Huckabee and McCain more than Romney. Note also that while Detroit dominates Michigan, it has a large rural area as well, and an entire penninsula, Upper Michigan, that has no large cities. This population is less multicultural and more conservative, and it will be interesting to see how Huckabee and McCain do in these areas. Romney's father was once governor of Michigan (and an unsuccessful Presidential candidate), and the resonance of the name, plus old family connections, can only help his faltering campaign. Indeed, the news today is that Romney has pulled his advertising off the air in South Carolina to focus all his energies in Michigan. This seems to be a recognition of the fact that if he cannot win there, his campaign may be over.

The Michigan Primary could have been the dramatic third act of an electoral drama, pitting the Clinton machine with its strong ties to the labor unions against the Obama wave. Instead, it will be a sort of referendum on Clinton by herself, and if half the Democrats are "undecided" that is a kind of defeat for her. At least on the Republican side there is still a contest, and a very interesting one, between Huckabee, McCain, and Romney, who each have around 20% in the average of all polls, with Giuliani running at about 10% and assorted others garnering a few votes, too. If one looks back over the polls for a year, McCain had a high point of 30% back in March of last year, before his finances collapsed and his campaign seemed hopeless. After falling as low as 10%, his numbers are rising rapidly now. Romney peaked at 26% at the same time that McCain waned. But Romney has been fading a bit ever since then, even before his losses in Iowa and New Hampshire. Giuliani once had 28% in Michigan, but he has been falling to his present 10%. Huckabee, in contrast, has not suffered any relapses. Starting at 0% in June of 2007, his numbers have continually risen to his present tie with Romney and McCain.  If the electorate in Michigan is as volatile as that in New Hampshire, the next week should be very interesting.

Iowa Caucuses: Not Clinton, Not Romney, but Obama vs Huckabee?

The Iowa caucuses have spoken. The clear winners are Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama. The clear losers are Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, both of whom spent a lot of time and money in Iowa and came up wanting. She was judged the front runner both in Iowa and nationally until a few weeks ago. But Clinton came in third, slightly behind John Edwards, even though she spent vastly more than Edwards did. It is worth noting that Edwards did slightly worse this time around (30%) than he did in 2004, when he garnered 32%. But Edwards is very much alive, having exceeded polling expectations. Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, failed to win, although she had her husband and heavy-weights such as Madelaine Albright at her side.  

Hillary desperately needs to do well in New Hampshire next week, for there is nothing worse in the presidential primary process than losing momentum. Edwards gained some of that last night, while Obama definitively became the front-runner. He is already the most successful Black candidate for the Presidency that the US has ever seen, and he is developing three campaign themes that Americans have always liked: restoring national unity, time for a change, and throwing out the rascals in Washington. What makes his campaign especially interesting is the surge of college students supporting him. Young people do not vote as reliably as older people. But when thousands of them become excited about a candidate, as happened with John Kennedy in 1960 or Eugene McCarthy in 1968 or Bill Clinton in 1992, such students can have a disproportionate influence on the election. For students have more time and energy than most others, and they will throw themselves full time into a campaign they believe in. Will New England's college students also turn out for Obama? If so, that will be a sign that new energies are going to redefine American politics in 2008.

Obama received the same percentage of support (38%) that John Kerry had in 2004. Recall that the front runner before the Iowa caucuses that time was Howard Dean, whose candidacy faded rapidly after his poor showing. This time around the Iowa voters have shown that Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich have virtually no traction with the voters. Together, all of them managed to garner only 3% of the delegates. They are effectively out of the race, which will be further clarified on Tuesday. Should Clinton continue to falter, then it might become a two-man contest between Obama and Edwards.

On the Republican side, the clear winner was Mike Huckabee, the affable Arkansas governor. He is a charming salesman for banning abortion and other conservative causes. The latest avatar of the "compassionate conservatism" that George Bush claimed to represent in the 2000 election, Huckabee garnered passionate support from evangelicals and other religious minded conservatives. They turned out for him and defeated the far more heavily financed Romney campaign. He has lost some momentum, but has a chance to regain it in New Hampshire, which in theory ought to lean his way. After all, Romney was the Republican governor of Massachusetts, which normally votes Democratic, and he evidently knows how to talk to the Yankee voter. By comparison, the Baptist preacher Huckabee with his southern accent will sound like a foreigner in the Granite State.

However, Romney's main opponents in New Hampshire are John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani skipped the Iowa caucuses, calculating that he would be better off using his time and money on the later primaries. McCain almost skipped Iowa, but decided to make a partial effort there, once he saw that he might place a respectable third, which he did.  So Romney runs the risk in New Hampshire of coming in second again. In that case, he might be through. For Huckabee showed that Romney cannot excite the conservative religious Republicans, even in Iowa; he would surely appeal to them even less in Alabama. Quite possibly either McCain or Giuliani will demonstrate that Romney is also the second choice among the more secular Republicans.

It is early in the campaign, and almost all the votes are still to be cast. But Iowa has suggested the possibility of a presidential race between a White Baptist preacher and governor from Arkansas and a Black lawyer and Senator from  Illinois. For US politics, that would be an absolute (and polarizing?) contrast in political goals, personality, and values. But if these turn out to be the candidates, then Obama will already occupy the middle of the spectrum, while Huckabee will have to work hard to show he represents more than the evangelicals.

What Does Iowa Mean?

The caucuses in Iowa this week will be the subject of every political reporter in the US, and each of them wants to convince us that the Iowa results are very important. But what exactly do these caucuses mean? To a considerable degree, the result reflects the depth and organization of a politician's local staff. That is why Hilary Clinton has been flying around the state in a helicopter, trying to inspire and energize her people, as well as the more obvious goal of meeting with the public.  Four years ago Kerry did well in Iowa because he inspired a strong local organization. This is one important thing for a candidate, but we found out that Kerry did not run a very good campaign once he got the nomination.  

One of the curious things this year is that Kerry's VP candidate, John Edwards, is running so well. Consider that he failed to deliver a single Southern state to the Democrats, and therefore cost them the election. In 2004, Edwards could not carry his home state, and yet he is considered one of the top three candidates at the moment. 

As of this writing the polls put Edwards in a statistical dead heat with Clinton and Obama, with each getting slightly less than one quarter of the vote.  The problem in Iowa is that knowing who is tied for first is only part of the equation. In the actual caucuses the room is full of people who can, and indeed often must, change their vote, based on the passions and arguments on that night. Iowans are not fickle. Rather, they must assemble at least 15% of the vote in any given hall for a candidate's supporters to be counted at all. So the roughly 30% of the voters who do not want Clinton, Obama, or Edwards all have to switch their votes as the evening progresses. And given the fact that no one has more than 24% of the vote right now, quite possibly in any given meeting one of the leaders will fall short of the 15%.  In other words, Iowa culls out the weaker candidates, and suggests who is acceptable, but it seldom discovers the winner all by itself. The results can surprise, but one should wait to see how voters respond in New Hampshire, where for the first time they use a secret ballot and they have only one chance.

As for the Republicans, things are even more volatile, and my sense is that many voters could change their minds in the next four days or on the night itself. Giuliani, Huckabee, and Romney all have such obvious flaws for some Republicans and most Democrats, that one cannot write off Fred Thompson, even if he has run a rather lackluster campaign until now. Overall, based on my extensive conversations with ordinary Americans last week, all of the Republican front runners generate considerable bad vibes among many voters. Giuliani is by no means everyone's hero, and has even been attacked by some members of the New York Fire Department. He has skeletons aplenty that are not well hidden in the closet, both personal and political. For the Southern wing of the GOP, he is too liberal, too soft on abortion, and too divorced. For Northern Republicans, Huckabee is almost a joke, a caricature of the poorly educated Bible-thumping snake oil salesman, who has no international experience at all. Hardly the sort to put in charge as the US faces such a volatile world.  Romney seems to lack principles, flip-flopping on issues. Many people in Massachusetts, where he was governor, really hate the guy. In any case, polls indicate that more than a third of Americans, perhaps as many as 40%, are not ready to vote for a Mormon. In short, the Republicans have a flawed field, and the average voter is not very excited by anyone in the group, nor the group as a whole.  

All these observations aside, my personal preference as of the moment is Obama, who seems to me the brightest of all the candidates. He is a wonderful breath of fresh air. Besides, we have had Yale in the White House continuously since 1988! Twenty years of Yale, and Hilary would just be more Yale. This being a democracy, it is time to give the former editor of the Harvard Law Review a chance.  However, this particular argument will likely have little weight with the Iowa voter. Which is as it should be.