A very early prediction

If Barack Obama and Rudy Giuliani wind up as the finalists in the 08 Presidential campaign, which one is the worthier candidate? Which one will win? And do these two questions have to have the same answer?

Given that Obama and Guiliani are both strong candidates, stronger than we have had in many years, it's really not possible to objectively decide who is "worthier." That's a value judgment.

Guiliani guided our nation's most important city through our worst nightmare. He became America's mayor due to his unwavering confidence, tempered by a clear and deeply felt empathy for the victims of 9/11 - the most important event in our lifetime. He didn't boast about retribution, he didn't seek political gain from the disaster and he didn't fearmonger.

Obama's candidacy has revealed that despite recent momentary lapses into racial ugliness, America will eventually overcome it's ethnic divisions. Obama is intensely intelligent, and he, better than anyone, understands that he is a bridging figure - from polarization and fear to unity and hope. He's lived, it breathed it and dreamt it.

So who will win - and why?

If I am right, this election has already been decided. The confluence of events leading up to this presidential cycle have in effect already determined the winner. Our next President won't be the one with the most experience. All else being equal, he or she won't necessarily be the one with the absolute "best" plan to solve the Iraq quagmire, defeat the terrorists, keep our economy running strongly, etc. If that were true, my guess is the winner would be Rudy Giuliani - although we're still rightly months away from finding out the details of Rudy's campaign platform. And if I'm wrong, I'll still be proud to call Rudy Giuliani our President.

But in a Guliani - Obama election I don't think we'll see dirty campaigning or a distortion of your opponent's views. Yes - there will be significant differences and heated exchanges. I'm sure there will even be attack ads (although nothing like the nastiness of "Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth). But in the end, those won't matter. I think Barack Obama will use the inevitable series of Presidential debates to put to rest fears that he is too inexperienced to be President. And then his charisma will take over.

I don't think any pundit realizes the thirst this country has for a charismatic leader whose ideals also match up with the majority viewpoint. No matter how well Rudy campaigns, he won't be able to overcome this.

If only he would be Obama's Vice President...

Neck and Neck

I've spent most of my time writing about the Democratic candidates for President on this blog. And while it is true that my ideals overall slant a bit to the left of center, it doesn't mean that I loathe Republicans. In fact, there is one Republican that all voters should take a good hard look at. A Republican who has almost the ideal combination of smarts, toughness and leadership experience. And the Democrats fear him.

Rudy Giuliani.

After 9/11, does anyone think that Giuliani doesn't have the skills necessary to run the country? Does anyone think he would have waged as incompetent a campaign in Iraq as George Bush and the neocons did? Does anyone think he won't stand up and make tough decisions, even if it costs him votes from the base of his party?

Giuliani has that tough to define quality - he's someone you respect even when you disagree with him. He knows who he is, but he listens to others. He's proven to be tough on crime (NYC's crime rate has dropped dramatically while he's been mayor), but he stands up for civil liberties. He's made mistakes in his personal life, but you don't hold it against him because he doesn't lie about it, or make excuses.

Frankly, if Giuliani wins the Republican nomination (and I think he will), he's going to be very tough to beat. And if Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination (and I think he will), it's going to be a campaign like nothing we have seen. A campaign between, two honest, thoughtful, centrist candidates.

So what's to choose between these two?

There's one small, but perhaps decisive difference between the two. And I'll cover that on my next post.

Is Barack Obama for real?

Critics of Barack Obama usually fall into two camps - right wing ideologues or those who believe he's pulling one over on the electorate. It would be true to say that Obama has had a relatively easy go of it from the national media so far. For every Fox News driven "discovery" of abhorrent behavior that quickly dissolves when exposed to the truth (i.e. unrepentant smoking or attending terrorist madrassas) there are a multitude of stories that cast Obama in glowing terms. But the naysayers remain persistent and lately with stories about 17 year old parking tickets and the arcane structure of blind trusts, they've become louder. Why?

The Right Wing angle is pretty easy to understand. If you're a Republican, whom do you most fear? Hillary Clinton? Please...as mentioned on the post about Hillary and Barack's spat over David Geffen, the Republicans have a treasure trove of information to use against her in nasty (but likely effective) attack ads. And while it used to be Hillary occasionally would blurt out an alienating statement like the infamous, "What I am I supposed to do, stay home and bake cookies?" she now seems so intent on avoiding controversy that people are wondering if her obsession with the Presidency has stifled her true beliefs.

Do Republicans fear John Edwards? I doubt it. It's not impossible to imagine Edwards' populist message catching fire - with a different candidate. There's a reason there are so many lawyer jokes...people have an innate distrust of them and Edwards hasn't done much to dispel the notion that he's just a bit too slick (see the last post).

The other Democratic candidates are going to fall off the radar sooner rather than later. It would be nice to see Bill Richardson do well though, as he would make an outstanding Vice Presidential pick.

But yes...the Republicans do fear Obama - as they would fear anyone who is charismatic enough to capture the imagination of the average (centrist) voter. And, as I hope but admittedly don't know, there doesn't appear to be much dirt on the guy.

Which brings me to the other doubters - those that believe Obama is too good to be true. That he's selling us what we want to hear without giving us any meat. I've got a simple answer - if his message of shared sacrifice, isolating the extremists and galvanizing the silent majority in a call to action is calculated - why isn't anyone else doing it? Why are almost all of the other candidates following the tired and ultimately disastrous (for the country) approach of appealing to the extreme wings of their party? It used to be that's how you won the primaries - but the 08 campaign is about a sea change. It's about leaving the extremists behind so they can fight their little battles against each other while the rest of us move on and solve tough, seemingly intractable issues. Obama didn't calculate that the time is right for that kind of campaign, he was for it all along - and smart enough to realize time has caught up with his ideals.

It's way too early in the campaign for extremely detailed plans on how Obama hopes to achieve his goals. But they will come. If they don't I won't hesitate to raise objection. But for now, just be glad it appears we finally have a candidate who understands the truth of our nation's fate.

The best candidate for President won't solve our problems - he'll inspire us to solve them for ourselves.

John Edwards - coming into focus?

John Edwards is a puzzlement.

He's a lawyer who long ago learned how to cleverly turn a phrase yet you seldom hear him give a stirring speech. He's young and attractive, yet it doesn't seem like his natural core constituency (young people) have taken much notice of him. He seems genuinely interested in big picture issues, like health care and income inequality, yet he consistently resorts to lowbrow politics.

Two recent incidents unfortunately paint a disappointing picture that gets harder and harder to look beyond.

First, there was his reaction to an attack by everyone's favorite crazy, Ann Coulter. To call Ms. Coulter a conservative is, frankly, a disservice to conservatives. She's only worthy of mention because of Edwards' reaction to her "faggot" comment. Well boo hoo John. Mean Ms Coulter doesn't like you. The Edwards campaign immediately placed a video of her ridiculous comment up on their website and appealed for $100,000 of donations to fight back. I'd hate to think what Edwards would do if Iranian crazy Ahmadinejab called him out.

Second, he's decided to withdraw from a Democrat Presidential debate in Nevada because it is cosponsored by Fox News. Fox News is a right wing news organization just as NPR is left wing. They are experts at finding and exaggerating minuscule incidents of "liberal extremism" so as to inflame their base. They are the best example going of what is wrong with American politics today.

But you don't change minds by walking away from them. The role of the President is to lead. It can be (and this time must be) filled by a person who overcomes our divisions and unites the country in order to solve problems that will end very badly unless we attack them together. But Edwards evidently decided that some free publicity showing him standing up to Fox News was the politically correct choice to make.

Maybe John Edwards isn't a puzzlement after all. Maybe he's just a regular politician.

Do you know why you don't like Bush?

If you are an ardent Bush Basher, which of the reasons below would best explain why you dislike him so?

• He lied to us about Iraq. He's a Texas oilman and we went there to help Halliburton and to take over Iraq's oil supply.
• He's a warmonger - or even a terrorist.
• His policies are designed to help the wealthy and hurt the poor.
• He's against a woman's right to choose and gay marriage.

It's hugely important to understand why "W's" presidency has been such a disaster. If you didn't find the reason you were looking for in this list - congratulations! Many of the reasons listed aren't even true - but the real reason was all over the news today with Scooter Libby's conviction.

Lost? Let me explain.

Those who follow the White House closely know that the real tragedy of his administration isn't his policies per se. It's "W's" arrogance, displayed by a lack of curiosity and questioning. It's his inability to accept/understand different points of view. And it's his inability to change his mind when the facts are shown to be different than he supposed. These inherent traits have led to the disaster in Iraq, the alienation of our allies and lack of action on key issues like global warming.

I remember when "W" came to Southern Oregon for a campaign stop in the 04 election. Barely noticed above all the excitement about the President's visit was that the only people who could attend his rally were those who signed a pledge that they planned on voting for him. It was a sad day for democracy - just like Scooter Libby's conviction in the Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson affair.

To recap the affair, "W" was determined to use the State of the Union address preceding the War as the opportunity to sell the American people on the need to invade in order to stop Iraq's ambitious nuclear program. The smoking gun was intelligence indicating Iraq was trying to obtain "yellow cake" uranium. But the only problem was that Wilson investigated this and found the claim wasn't true - and like a good whistleblower - he went public with it.

Apparently under orders from Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, Libby nastily attempted to discredit and intimidate Wilson by insinuating to reporters that Wilson only got the Iraq investigation job because of his wife (Plame) who, by the way, was a covert CIA agent. In other words - anyone who questions the President will pay a severe price - their name will be dragged through the mud and their livelihood will taken away (the CIA doesn't have much use for outed agents).

It's hard to underestimate how important this is. The momentous decision to invade Iraq...the decision that has led to 10,000+ wounded and dead soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead...the decision that has severely weakened our world standing while strengthening Al Qaeda and Iran...was made with an arrogance borne of a lack of curiosity, debate or planning. And anyone who tried to speak up was squashed.

That's the real reason to dislike Bush.

Portland bound

I'm on vacation until Monday. Enjoy the weekend!