Campaign Update

The field of Presidential aspirants is thinning. For the Democrats, Edwards faded in New Hampshire and Nevada, and no longer seems viable. With Clinton and Obama running so close, they have unfortunately embarked on attacking each other personally. Such sniping is bad for the Democratic Party and for the American people. Whether it is good for the candidates is arguable; some say negative attacks work, while others say they backfire. Whether or not Bill Clinton is an asset or liability to the Hillary campaign is also arguable; he remains popular with many voters, but the sight of a former President acting as a campaign cheerleader and hit man does not sit well with many Americans.

Results so far are not surprising in showing women going for Hillary and African-Americans for Barack. Hispanics in Nevada went for Hillary, which may indicate a negative racial attitude toward Barack, but it might also be due to resentment over the Culinary Union pushing so hard for him. Polls show Barack with a bit of a lead in South Carolina, but Hillary with a much larger lead in Florida. This one may go on a while, though there is only one Democrat debate left. With McCain having crept back in on the Republican side, I would like to see the Democrats jointly use some of their campaign energy to point out how unsatisfactory his voting record is on many important issues that separate Democrats from Republicans.

McCain does seem to have staged a surprising comeback on the Republican side. I think that is mainly because their field is so weak. Romney spends huge fortunes with disproportionately low results. His Mormonism and flip-flop record won't do well with traditional Southern voters. Huckabee appeals to the Evangelicals, but has exposed himself as a man who has no concept of the separation of church and state, thereby limiting his appeal to all but the most religious minded. Giuilani has a one note campaign which has been scoring only one digit votes. He expects to do well in Florida, yet the polls do not bear that out. It is beginning to look like McCain first and Romney second.

Democrats may be focusing on electability issues more than Republicans are, probably because Democrats want to think any Democrat should be able to beat any Republican this time around, but are concerned about the possibility of missing the opportunity by nominating the wrong candidate. This leaves the Democrats wondering about Hillary's high negative number with many voters, as well as her gender, and Barack's perceived lack of experience, as well as his race. An experienced white male candidate would seem to have been an easy choice, but two men who qualified that way, Senators Biden and Dodd, barely got any votes and dropped out. Republicans realize they have an uphill battle and may choose their candidate more on principle, or on what John from Phoenix seems to be registering as an emeritus vote for McCain.

Head to head against McCain, I think Barack would do better than Hillary. For those who want change to happen, youth and color will be more appealing than gender, especially when gender comes coupled with the Clinton name. If Hillary had made it on her own, rather than by way of First Lady, she would have much greater appeal as a female candidate. Many traditional voters of both genders will be more concerned about a woman President being weaker, than an African-American President being _____ [they will supply their own stereotype]. African-Americans will go for Barack in droves. Women who preferred Hillary will still choose Barack over McCain. Some who would not vote for another Clinton might vote for Barack. Some who would be inclined to vote Green Party (like maybe a couple of my sons), might be willing to vote for Barack, but not for Hillary. Libertarians, who have been giving Ron Paul better numbers than Giuliani in some states, are not too likely to vote for McCain, and will probably not vote in the Presidential election or else they may vote for the official Libertarian candidate.