Edwards is out. So is Guiliani, who’s endorsing McCain. George Bush gave what is probably his last State of the Union address, and nobody cares. Seriously, it’s hard to find any interest at all in the US plogosphere…
Meanwhile, in the background, the situation in Congress is fascinating. According to Kos of the (in)famous Daily Kos, there seems to be an oddly large number of House Republicans who aren’t intending to run again in 2008:
With the decision of Rep. Kenny Hulshof in MO-09 to quit to run for governor, and with Tom Davis’ supposed (but still not official) retirement this now makes what, 28 House Republicans who are calling it quits?
And we’re still not done. There are 199 Republicans in the House this Congress. We may literally see a fifth of them quit before election day.
While all the attention is on the White House race at this stage, Congress is arguably even more important in many ways. It’s a truism of American politics that incumbent Congresscritters are almost impossible to dislodge once elected. While it’s unwise to take Kos’s political analysis too seriously, the House elections might be very, very interesting. If the trend from 2006 continues, the Democrats might have a quite solid majority in both houses of Congress.
It’s a shame about Edwards. He had the most substance and was pushing the Democratic agenda to the left on issues of universal health care and poverty. Much of the time, Clinton’s and Obama’s policies were in response to what Edwards had already announced (even though the media ignored him).
I know he would not have won but the longer he stayed in, the more everyone would have had to take heed if it ended in a close race.
Also it says expected to gain endorsement, unless someone who might win offers Guiliani a position in a future Administration.
I see the endorsement now.
Oh pullleeeease! We don’t need yet another story about Bill & Monica, it’s just SOOOOOO 1998.
I share Oz’s sentiments on Edwards quitting. It will be interesting to see who Edwards endorses if anyone, After what the forgettable John Kerry did in backing Obama, Edwards could legitimately question the worth of anyone endorsing anyone which would be a poke in the eye for Kerry. But that wouldn’t last and eventually Edwards would probably have to back either of the remaining twosome, perhaps as king/queenmaker. But that would be more useful if he had a swag of delegates won by staying in the race which makes you ask why he has thrown in the towel now rather than wait and see what super Tuesday offered in the way of delegates.
As an afterthought the 2008 US race makes the possible process for an elected head-of-state here just a little more intriguing. If you could make any campaign funding illegal I’d favour anyone putting their hand up and relying on townhall style meetings to show their wares.
Not probably, definitely. Because Presidents have fixed terms, the new Prez gets to do it in 09.
Not necessarily, Mark.
See this post on Talking Points Memo. The SOTU isn’t set in stone as an annual event; an outgoing President might choose go give a final one immediately before he leaves office. While Reagan, Bush senior and Clinton didn’t bother, Carter and the ones immediately preceding him did.
The odds are that he won’t - heck, this one was pretty perfunctory - but the option for him to do so remains.
assuming that the running mate is chosen out of clinton, obama and edwards, what are people’s thoughts on best permutations for winning office and governing?
(obviously running mates could come from elsewhere.)
my pick would be obama-edwards, as both are relatively young and fresh, so linking in with obama’s change mantra. but edwards also has some experience from the 2004 campaign and has a more ‘traditional’ face of politics. (ie. neither black nor a woman - not that it *should* matter - but it probably will/does)
m
Thanks, Rob, didn’t know that. Maybe he would as a “legacy” thing, but I don’t think it’d be wise!
Robert/Mark, B43 is a Signing Statement specialist who has shown scant regard for due constitutional process. If Martial Law were declared due to some unexpected “National Emergency” and the Nov. election were “Delayed”, then The Imbecile may yet again burden Americans and Freedom Lovers worldwide with another SOTU. Sure it’s a longshot. Nobody in their right mind could possibly foresee such an event coming. Just like 9/11 came right out of the blue. Right?
I’d prefer to cop the oppobrium levelled at nut case conspiracy theorists than to not mention this contingency.
Latest board odds from CB
CLINTON, Hillary 2.40
MCCAIN, John 3.00
OBAMA, Barack 3.15
Go Mike Gravel!
Not gonna happen, EC. It’s a bit reminiscent of Graham Bell’s constant mantra last year that there wouldn’t be an Australian election. There’s no precedent for anything remotely similar in US history - elections took place during the Civil War and WW2 (whereas in Britain in WW1 and WW2 they were suspended through a “party truce” and extending the life of parliaments). If you wanted to see a political and economic meltdown in the States, you’d really be in for one. But, particularly given military scepticism about Bush and his minions anyway, it would never work. Nixon found out when he toyed with some sort of vague coup that the real powerbrokers effectively circumvented his role as commander in chief and forced him out of office. Nor do I see that Bush would want to do this - he’s obsessed with his role in history and wouldn’t want to destroy his “legacy” - which I think he genuinely believes will look better as years go by. Never underestimate the hubris of a political leader thinking “after me, the deluge” and relishing the prospect of watching his successors stumble.
It’s not a long shot, it’s just not in the realms of possibility.
It seems likely that Edwards pulled out in order to keep some cred with both Dem candidates. On balance I think a narrow majority of his support will go to Obama, but will not be enough to deny La Clinton the nomination. She may reward Edwards with the A-G spot, which will please Edwards’ union backers, since US labour reform is now top of the pops even among relatively conservative US unions.
I am actually more intersted in the likely composition of the US Congress after the election. The one elected in 2006 was not up to much, and since this time around there appears to be a full bore economic crisis to be dealt with together with the social stresses and strains that an unbelievably insouciant political elite have allowed to fester for twenty years, I expect, on the basis of no firm evidence whatsoever, that the new Congress will be ‘populist’ protectionist, with a vengeance, with much ‘crossover’ voting between Republican conservative fruitcakes and Democrat populist scoundrels, all seeking their place in the sun by beating up on the Spanish speaking working class.
This will provide the necessary ‘distraction’ that permits the resolution of the current mess firmly in favour of precisely the forces that created it in the first place.
It is all too depressing.
Mark is right.
Even if Bush and Cheney were tempted (and, like Mark says, I very much doubt they are), the hardheads in the Republican Party have just enough remaining commonsense to tell Bush that if he tries it he’ll be impeached, the military will refuse to act on blatantly illegal orders - no Republican could afford to stand with him because they’d face electoral annihilation whenever elections finally did occur.
Dealing with a crazy president is much harder under their system than dealing with a crazy Prime Minister under ours (which is why I wince at the very idea of an executive president), but even so there enough checks and balances to deal with him if really necessary.
MD at 7
the feeling in the states is that Obama, if he were to win by getting enough delegates in the South and metro/republican areas of NY/Cali, would either get an old white bloke to run with him OR get Sibilius - there is no way he gets Hillary and little chance of Edwards. edwards has allegedly been offered AG by both camps. i’d like to think it’s a testament to Edward’s character that he dropped out now and didn’t crowd the debate tomorrow etc. because I agree with Oz. Except that he voted the opposite way the only time her ever held elected office.
The big endorsements left this week are: Edwards, Gore and Pelosi. No one expects her to get involved, but if she did, that would be something.
Thanks for your reasoned responses, gentleman.
Mark, Nixon was never really a Beltway insider. Tricky was a Quaker from California with a major interest in gooey black stuff called Pepsi, rather than oil. He was always headed for a fall after Watergate broke. Nobody closed ranks to save him. However, lurking there or thereabouts back then were Rumsfeld and Cheney who developed a nuanced understanding of the power plays involved in Tricky’s demise. B43 was spawned from Skull and Bones establishment stock, joined at the hip with with Big Oil. Don was, and Dick still is “in the picture”.
Anyway, my position lies somewhere between “longshot” and “not in the realms of possibility”; happy to have placed it on the record and will not rabbit on about it anymore unless circumstances change dramatically.
“We don’t need yet another story about Bill & Monica…”
Maybe, but I kind of liked it much better, back when that was about the most interesting thing there was to talk about. Dunno about you, but I’m plain old exhausted from seven years of waking up every morning, dreading to look at the headlines, thinking ‘Good heavens, what did this idiot do *now*…?’
So now we’re down to a four-horse race. Not crazy about any of them, but I think that Romney has the best chance of delivering what everyone actually really needs: the most boring presidency possible. The other three strike me as having more of that quality where they say whatever they think is necessary, then the minute they get into office, they lock the door behind them, peel off the latex mask, and start off on their actual, crazy, agenda. Bush spouted all sorts of mild platitudes too, in 2000, and that sure didn’t last for long.
You ever see that old Woody Allen movie, “Bananas”? All the dedicated revolutionaries assemble in triumph to hear the inaugural speech of the Great Leader, now that the guy they fought for has finally gained power, and the guy starts saying, “From now on, the national language will be… Swedish! And everybody has to wear their underwear OUTSIDE their clothes!” and so on, and you see this look on the rank-and-file’s faces, while they think, THIS is what we get now?!
Obama’s whole mystical-unity-messiah routine always struck me as expedient hooey, but I’m starting to think that him and his crew actually believe it. It’s all getting zanier and zanier. The New Republic just put him on their cover in the style of a Byzantine ikon, wearing a halo (I’m not making this up, wish I was). It’s not as bad as Bush’s flight suit, true, but just give the guy some time. His South Carolina speech had more code in it than Windows Vista, and I just read a summary of his Denver speech where he basically said something like, ‘Close your eyes and just imagine how incredible it will feel to see me being sworn in,’ as if the simple fact of his personally taking office as official transcendental black guy is the whole point of the exercise, so we can all get to experience some sort of communal Orbama-gasm. “Just put in your earplugs, put on your eye-shades. You know where to put the cork.”
I think Robert’s got a point: since none of these four characters are all that desirable, the interesting action will be to see whether Congress can form itself into a gigantic speed bump.
jpz: don’t kid yourself. Whether the next President is a Democrat or Republican, regardless of the merits of the individual concerned, does make a big difference.
On that basis, Clinton or Obama is infinitely preferable to McCain or Romney - who are, actually, the best of the Republican bunch.
Robert -
“Whether the next President is a Democrat or Republican, regardless of the merits of the individual concerned, does make a big difference.”
Agreed.
One of the main reasons being that the GOP (like the LibNats here) are showing themselves to be a shambling rabble, who couldn’t govern a [something-really-easy-to-govern] even if they had all the [whatever-would-be-needed-to-govern] in [some-place-that-is-famous-for-having-lots-of-that-stuff].
Robert: if by “on that basis,” you mean that a Democratic candidate is categorically more desirable, qua Democrat, as on that ‘basis’ the party of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid is somehow more innately competent, sane, and politically savvy through its inherent Dem virtue (despite getting several political flying wedgies from a fellow commonly considered to be a chimp and an imbecile), then I remain a little, um, skeptical.
FDB: would “they couldn’t lead a Boy Scout to a candy store” do for the required phrase? The problem, as I see it, is that all four remaining candidates are credible as “leaders.” It’s where, in particular, they want to lead, that has me worried.
Shucks j_p_z, I’m thinkin’ a little too hokey, too Huckabee. What would Romney say? That big hunky rhetorician.
although things are certainly very fluid with all the big endorsements etc. it seems edwards dropping out will favour hills.
The 101st Congress may not have covered itself in glory, but I hardly think you could characterise Pelosi and Reid as being insane, while if you take any notice whatsoever of what most of the GOP nominees have been saying, you’d have to conclude…
Damn, Edwards was my preferred candidate of the big three. I wish he would’ve waited until Super Tuesday to see what the results were because the Democratic race just got a whole lot less interesting. My hopes lie with Nader now.
Ronnie, not Nader again…
Whether you like it or not (and I don’t), the USA uses first past the post for their electoral system. A vote for Nader helps McCain or Romney get elected.
We saw what well-intentioned twits voting for Nader, claiming that Bush and Gore were effectively identical, did in 2000.
j_p_z - the local vernacular would have it as “couldn’t organise a root in a brothel”.
“root/brothel”
Well, Aussies have always been a far more worldly bunch, that I’ll freely admit.
“My hopes lie with Nader now.”
Yes, I fully agree. Go, Nader, go!
And be sure to tell all your friends.
The last Democrat debate before Super Tuesday is starting now at cnn.com if anyone is interested.
Simon Jackman is liveblogging the debate here:
http://jackman.stanford.edu/blog/?p=588
Debate cut-away celebrity tally:
Josh Lyman
Pierce Brosnan
Jason whatsisname from Seinfeld
CNN promised me “star-studded.” I feel a bit ripped off.
Oh wait.
Diane Keaton.
Rob Reiner.
God, the debate was so boring. I watched the whole damned thing, staying up till 3 AM to do it. Maybe I’ll be mean and inflict a post about it on the world…
Boring? Meaning they were polite to each other and stuck to articulating the policy position that separate them?
I enjoyed it alot.
Bor-ing.
The thing that bored me to tears was not so much the policy articulation as that it took Clinton 15 minutes to make each point. She kept interrupting and talking for an age in order to make sure that her side of the story was what got the most coverage.
Obama has to learn that debates aren’t so much about answering questions as winning over an audience.
That said there were some cracking quotes that came out of the debate. I particularly liked this one from Obama,
What people want most from Obama is for him to answer the questions, not just to win over the audience.
We know he can win over an audience. Everyone is already won over the “its a new day in America!” schtick, what they do not know is if he has the policy to back it up.
Hilary waffled on the war, other than that I thought the whole thing was relatively snappy.
Can imagine. Not easy to run as a Democrat for the US presidency post-GWBush at the same time believing in the necessary and indefinite US occupation of Iraq.