Republican Voters Shifting to Protectionism

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows Republican voters growing increasingly skeptical of free trade policies:

By a nearly two-to-one margin, Republican voters believe free trade is bad for the U.S. economy, a shift in opinion that mirrors Democratic views and suggests trade deals could face high hurdles under a new president....

Six in 10 Republicans in the poll agreed with a statement that free trade has been bad for the U.S. and said they would agree with a Republican candidate who favored tougher regulations to limit foreign imports. That represents a challenge for Republican candidates who generally echo Mr. Bush's calls for continued trade expansion, and reflects a substantial shift in sentiment from eight years ago.

Take a look at the article. In my view, the findings of GOP unease with free trade reflect a broader unhappiness with the greater forces of globalization, and especially GOP concerns surrounding illegal immigration and border security (48 percent of Republicans oppose the administration's proposal for a guest worker program). The survey indicates a breakdown of the conservative concensus on economic and regulatory policies. For example, the survey finds a plurality of Republicans supporting tax increases to fund health care and other items:

In part, the concern about trade reflected in the survey reflects the changing composition of the Republican electorate as social conservatives have grown in influence. In questions about a series of candidate stances, the only one drawing strong agreement from a majority of Republicans was opposition to abortion rights.

Post-9/11 security concerns have also displaced some of the traditional economic concerns of the Republican Party that Ronald Reagan reshaped a generation ago. Asked which issues will be most important in determining their vote, a 32% plurality cited national defense, while 25% cited domestic issues such as education and health care, and 23% cited moral issues. Ranking last, identified by just 17%, were economic issues such as taxes and trade.

The WSJ poll appears to buttress some of the findings from the Washington Post's recent survey, which found increasing numbers of business professionals shifting to the Democratic Party.

The Republican shift on trade policy is a toubling development for American international economic policy. A shift toward protectionism - perhaps under a new Democratic administration in 2009 - is the last thing the U.S. needs. Since World War II, the U.S.-led liberal international trade and monetary regimes have provided the economic foundations for world growth and prosperity. Both developed and less-developed nations thrive on open markets and access to the diversity of the world goods and human resources. Rising protectionism threatens these achievements.

In a 2005 Foreign Affairs article, Carla A. Hills, who was U.S. Trade Representative during the G.H.W. Bush administration, reviewed the stakes involved in the continued push for trade expansion:

The U.S. experience since World War II proves that increased economic interdependence boosts economic growth and encourages political stability. For more than 50 years, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, the United States has led the world in opening markets. To that end, the United States worked to establish a series of international organizations, including the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the World Trade Organization (WTO)....

The results to date have been spectacular. World trade has exploded and standards of living have soared at home and abroad. Economist Gary Hufbauer, in a comprehensive study published this year by the Institute of International Economics, calculates that 50 years of globalization has made the United States richer by $1 trillion per year (measured in 2003 dollars), or about $9,000 added wealth per year for the average U.S. household. Developing countries have also gained from globalization. On average, poor countries that have opened their markets to trade and investment have grown five times faster than those that kept their markets closed. Studies conducted by World Bank economist David Dollar show that globalization has raised 375 million people out of extreme poverty over the past 20 years.

And the benefits have not been only economic. As governments liberalize their trade regimes, they often liberalize their political regimes. Adherence to a set of trade rules encourages transparency, the rule of law, and a respect for property that contribute to increased stability. Without U.S. leadership...the world would look very different today.

The United States has an interest in continuing this progress. Republican voters worried about the effects of trade on their economic well-being have legitimate fears, although ultimately the gains from trade will exceed the pain incurred by trade-induced economic dislocation. Candidates in the GOP presidential field need to provide public leadership on this issue, rousing the party's base to a greater understanding of the benefits of international trade openness. Recent Democratic Party statements in favor of trade policy protectionism present a much more damaging alternative to the American economy in the long run.

Runaway Train? Hillary Boosts Lead in Polls, Money

Hillary Clinton's nomination as 2008's Democratic standardbearer is looking more and more inevitable, according to new poll findings from the Washington Post:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has consolidated her place as the front-runner in the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination, outpacing her main rivals in fundraising in the most recent quarter and widening her lead in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

For the first time, Clinton (N.Y.) is drawing support from a majority of Democrats -- and has opened up a lead of 33 percentage points over Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.). Her popularity, the poll suggests, is being driven by her strength on key issues and a growing perception among voters that she would best represent change.

The new numbers come on the heels of an aggressive push by Clinton to dominate the political landscape. She unveiled her health-care proposal and then appeared on all five Sunday news shows on the same day -- all while her husband, former president Bill Clinton, went on tour to promote a new book. Within the past month, at least one Clinton has appeared on television virtually every day, increasing the campaign's exposure among millions of Americans.

Yesterday, her campaign announced that it had topped Obama for the first time in a fundraising period, taking in $22 million in the past three months in funds that can be used for the primary campaign, to Obama's $19 million.

When all funds raised in the period were included, Clinton raised a total of $27 million in the quarter and Obama took in $20 million. While Obama topped her performance in the first two fundraising periods this year, the two are virtually even in the amount they have raised for the primaries, with Obama bringing in about $75 million for the nominating contests and Clinton about $72.5 million.

Even with the avalanche of publicity the Clintons have received, the Post-ABC News poll suggests that there is more than name recognition at work.

Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, 53 percent support Clinton, compared with 20 percent for Obama and 13 percent for former senator John Edwards (N.C.).

Despite rivals' efforts to portray her as too polarizing to win the general election, a clear majority of those surveyed, 57 percent, said Clinton is the Democratic candidate with the best chance on Nov. 4, 2008. The percentage saying Clinton has the best shot at winning is up 14 points since June. By contrast, 20 percent think Edwards is most electable and 16 percent think Obama is, numbers that represent a huge blow to the "electability" argument rivals have sought to use against her.

One of the central claims of Obama's campaign is that he is best suited to lower partisan tensions in Washington. But, in this poll, more see Clinton as best able to reduce partisanship.

Here's something that made me think: The article noted a major publicity blitz by both Hillary and Bill Clinton last week (Hillary appeared on all the Sunday talk shows and Bill made the rounds promoting a new book). This in turn reminded me of the discussion early this year of Hillary's ramrod-like presidential campaign machine, composed of fierce loyalists with much more discipline than that found among the top aides in the Bill Clinton White House:

Bill Clinton ran a loose and leaky ship during his two White House terms, and many in his old brain trust who are expected to return to the fold for a Hillary Clinton presidential campaign now have careers to tend and outside interests to promote.

By contrast, "Hillaryland" is a disciplined structure of her own design, a tight-knit realm populated by discreet, fiercely devoted aides who have been with the former first lady since her East Wing days, along with newer additions who serve on her Senate staff. Some wonder if her circle is too buffered.

Buffered or not, Hillary Clinton's emergence as the odds-on nominee poses tremendous electoral challenges to the Republicans, who look to be facing a less decisive nomination process, and thus a delayed party rally behind the eventual general election candidate.

It's also worth thinking about the prospects of Hillary as president. Some in the GOP have essentially conceded 2008 to the Democrats, and if Hillary retains her momentum through November 2008, she'll bring a degree of experience to the top rungs of power rarely seen in the history of the presidency.

Republicans Losing Grip on Business Vote

Today's Wall Street Journal reports that the GOP is losing support among business groups, a trend that could prove to be one of the most important developments in partisan identification in generations:

The Republican Party, known since the late 19th century as the party of business, is losing its lock on that title.

New evidence suggests a potentially historic shift in the Republican Party's identity -- what strategists call its "brand." The votes of many disgruntled fiscal conservatives and other lapsed Republicans are now up for grabs, which could alter U.S. politics in the 2008 elections and beyond.

Some business leaders are drifting away from the party because of the war in Iraq, the growing federal debt and a conservative social agenda they don't share. In manufacturing sectors such as the auto industry, some Republicans want direct government help with soaring health-care costs, which Republicans in Washington have been reluctant to provide. And some business people want more government action on global warming, arguing that a bolder plan is not only inevitable, but could spur new industries.

Already, economic conservatives who favor balanced federal budgets have become a much smaller part of the party's base. That's partly because other groups, especially social conservatives, have grown more dominant. But it's also the result of defections by other fiscal conservatives angered by the growth of government spending during the six years that Republicans controlled both the White House and Congress.

The article cites polling data indicating a decline in business professionals identifying as Republican (down about 7 points since 2004). But business interests aren't the only groups defecting from the Republican fold. The GOP is facing major divides across various voter constituencies, not just on Iraq and fiscal policy, but also on immigration and social issues such as abortion and gay rights.

Also key is the appearance of Republican incompetence - for many partisans the GOP can't seem to get things right, like on the Justice Department's firing of U.S. attorneys under Alberto Gonzales, or on veteran's medical care and the Walter Reed disaster (see also Time's cover story from May, How The Right Went Wrong, which argues that conservatives have achieved much of their Reagan-era agenda, and may need a time out of power for recuperation).

Some of the criticisms are unfounded, for example, on fiscal policy, where the Bush tax cuts have resulted in increased federal tax receipts since 2005, and have contributed to the post-9/11 economic expansion.

But I do think overall that the GOP will be spending some time in the political wilderness. The Journal story concludes with some references to Pew Research Center polling data on public support for traditional values. According to Pew, Americans are less attached to "old-fashioned values about family and marriage" and the public's backing for international policies of "peace through strength" have declined as well.

In my view I see the changing partisan tides as reflecting not so much deep cultural or ideological shifts in the American electorate, but rather a yearning for something new, a willingness to give the other side a shot, for example, by electing a Democrat to the White House. In other words, we're simply seeing a natural swing of the political pendulum away from the dominant mode of politics represented by the party in power this last few years.

Recent polling data confirms the point, with Gallup finding last week that Americans are looking for some decisive policy leadership, governmental competence, integrity, and performance, and less partisan animosity. It's still some time until November 2008, and I wouldn't write off the GOP altogether, but the current period augurs better for the Democratic Party than in any time in the last few decades.

State of Denial: Politics and the Black Family Crisis

Orlando Patterson, in his essay today discussing Jena and contemporary black politics, cuts to the crucial racial issue of our time with his discussion of the crisis of the black family (via Memeorandum):

What exactly attracted thousands of demonstrators to the small Louisiana town? While for some it was a simple case of righting a grievous local injustice, and for others an opportunity to relive the civil rights era, for most the real motive was a long overdue cry of outrage at the use of the prison system as a means of controlling young black men.

America has more than two million citizens behind bars, the highest absolute and per capita rate of incarceration in the world. Black Americans, a mere 13 percent of the population, constitute half of this country’s prisoners. A tenth of all black men between ages 20 and 35 are in jail or prison; blacks are incarcerated at over eight times the white rate.

The effect on black communities is catastrophic: one in three male African-Americans in their 30s now has a prison record, as do nearly two-thirds of all black male high school dropouts. These numbers and rates are incomparably greater than anything achieved at the height of the Jim Crow era. What’s odd is how long it has taken the African-American community to address in a forceful and thoughtful way this racially biased and utterly counterproductive situation.

How, after decades of undeniable racial progress, did we end up with this virtual gulag of racial incarceration?

Patterson offers explanatory examples of pathological black culture, including the case of New York Knicks owner Isiah Thomas' practice of calling a former black female Knicks executive a "bitch" and a "ho," the beating of black evangelical minister Juanita Bynum by her estranged husband, and O.J. Simpson's recent run-in with the law:

These events all point to something that has been swept under the rug for too long in black America: the crisis in relations between men and women of all classes and, as a result, the catastrophic state of black family life, especially among the poor. Isiah Thomas’s outrageous double standard shocked many blacks in New York only because he had the nerve to say out loud what is a fact of life for too many black women who must daily confront indignity and abuse in hip-hop misogyny and everyday conversation.

What is done with words is merely the verbal end of a continuum of abuse that too often ends with beatings and spousal homicide. Black relationships and families fail at high rates because women increasingly refuse to put up with this abuse. The resulting absence of fathers — some 70 percent of black babies are born to single mothers — is undoubtedly a major cause of youth delinquency.

The circumstances that far too many African-Americans face — the lack of paternal support and discipline; the requirement that single mothers work regardless of the effect on their children’s care; the hypocritical refusal of conservative politicians to put their money where their mouths are on family values; the recourse by male youths to gangs as parental substitutes; the ghetto-fabulous culture of the streets; the lack of skills among black men for the jobs and pay they want; the hypersegregation of blacks into impoverished inner-city neighborhoods — all interact perversely with the prison system that simply makes hardened criminals of nonviolent drug offenders and spits out angry men who are unemployable, unreformable and unmarriageable, closing the vicious circle.

Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and other leaders of the Jena demonstration who view events there, and the racial horror of our prisons, as solely the result of white racism are living not just in the past but in a state of denial. Even after removing racial bias in our judicial and prison system — as we should and must do — disproportionate numbers of young black men will continue to be incarcerated.

Until we view this social calamity in its entirety — by also acknowledging the central role of unstable relations among the sexes and within poor families, by placing a far higher priority on moral and social reform within troubled black communities, and by greatly expanding social services for infants and children — it will persist.

I have made parallel arguments in my posts on black America. In one recent entry I argued:

Blacks do not need more policies of redistribution amid the endless cries of "institutional racism." We've seen enough of that. It's been 43 years since the passage of the Civil Rights Act, and the political system, the educational establishment, and the corporate sector have made historic efforts to promote full inclusion for African-Americans in mainstream life. The key agenda for the GOP should be to promote black independence and uplift through policies focusing on greater individual and family responsibility, excellence in educational achievement, the rebuilding of the black family structure, and opportunity-oriented economic policies, focusing on entrepreneurship and ownership.

The current crisis presents a phenomenal opportunity for the GOP to provide crucial leadership on race, and smarts too!

At least one top Democrat has already demonstrated an astounding ignorance of diversity of black America today:

We need reform of the black family in America, and we need frank discussion about the crisis of the black lower third in this presidential campaign. Democratic Party pandering on race to young, left-leaning MTV crowds represents just more of the same old victims' strategy of grievance mobilization. Blacks need high expectations, not condescension. A freedom and opportunity agenda, one the GOP is best situated to champion, offers a powerful direction for the future of black progress.

More Hatred From Daily Kos

This Daily Kos post evinces pure, unmitigated hatred of the Bush administration and the U.S. military. There's really no other way to describe it.

The entry is from "lurxst," and it represents one more unsurprising sample of America-bashing nihilism from those of the Kos crowd:

I Don't Support the Troops..oops, there, I said it...

This has been digging at me for, oh, about 4 years now. I have been hesitant to express this thought, in comments sections and in discussion with other people about the Iraq quagmire for fear of, I don't know, being called mean. Or, un-American. Or something.

Supporting the troops essentially means supporting the illegal war. It seems that us anti-war types have been doing all sorts of mental and philisophical gymnastics to try and work around this. What has emerged is a sort of low impact, mealy-mouthed common wisdom that is palatable to everyone but is ultimately going to allow us to stay in Iraq for years to come....

Until we have another draft, this is a volunteer armed services. I am not even beginning to count the numerous mercenaries that are involved in the occupation. You signed up, you get to go to the desert and risk being shot at by brown skinned people who don't believe the lies you've been told. A war of aggression is immoral, period. If you believe in God, you can damned well be sure you are going to hell for your participation in it. The only troop I support is the man or woman who refuses to be deployed so that they can make the middle east accessible to profiteers who don't give a flying F about morality or democracy. Or a soldier's life.

When Sunni tribes got paid off enough to stop shooting at GIs and instead shoot at Al-Qaeda (in reality themselves) it is funny how they suddenly became Freedom Fighters. During WWII, French resistance fighters were also called terrorists and insurgents by their German occupiers. Can an anti-war proponent look at these Iraqi resistance fighters with the same admiration, even though they worship differently than us and when they eventually win are likely to install a distasteful (to Americans) theocratic tinged state. Can a person who doesn't believe in violence support that people's right to govern themselves, perhaps violently.

I am sorry but supporting the troops means supporting this illegal war.

Notice the de rigueur comparison (only mildly veiled) between the Bush administration and Nazi Germany.

Kos diarists' rants are getting more and more unhinged (and I only catch these lunacies when they're forwarded around the conservative blogosphere).

Recall here as well that I've noted Markos Moulitsas' own narcissism and megalomania, with reference to his regular outbursts claiming that "his movement" represents the true soul of the Democratic Party.

I know Kos and his underlings are deadly wrong about this war and our country. As we learned in recent polling data, public opinion is improving on the war, and with good campaigning, the GOP can come in strong in next year's elections. Still, it's hard to deny that the Democrats are looking good heading into 2008. This is all the more reason to expose and resist all the nihilist garbage that Daily Kos spits out.

Hat tip: Gold-Plated Witch and Jules Crittenden.

"I Can Support the President..."

Hillary Clinton states, on Meet the Press, September 15, 2002 (via Liberty Pundit):

"I can support the president on weapons of mass destruction...I can support action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long-term interest of our national security..."

This YouTube is pure gold! The absolute best!

The Democrats don't care about victory in Iraq, they care only about victory in 2008!

McCain's Petraeus Strategy

Today's New York Times includes an interesting article on Johh McCain. McCain's enjoying renewed fortunes. His campaign's increasingly focused on success in Iraq under the Petraeus counter-insurgency approach, and he has backed away from a close affinity to the White House:

Mr. McCain has entered a pivotal period in what he now sardonically describes as his “lean and mean” campaign, faced with unexpected opportunities but also huge obstacles, two months after many of his supporters had all but written off his campaign, riven with debt and staff dissension. At stop after stop, he has seized on General Petraeus’s report as a validation not only of the so-called surge strategy in Iraq but also of his argument, made long before the White House came to the same conclusion, that victory in Iraq required many more troops there.

But even as he lashes his presidential campaign that much tighter to the war in Iraq, Mr. McCain is seeking to decouple his fortunes from those of Mr. Bush, in the latest chapter of a 10-year relationship that has been at times tortured, at times cordial, at times symbiotic.

So it is that Mr. McCain sprinkles his speeches not with references to Mr. Bush but to General Petraeus, a shift that not only mirrors the White House strategy of putting the military out front but also symbolically encapsulates a recognition of what many Republicans consider to have been a fundamental mistake of Mr. McCain in his candidacy: trying to present himself as Mr. Bush’s anointed successor and ideological heir.

The situation demands that Mr. McCain maintain a balance between continuing to embrace a defining characteristic of Mr. Bush’s presidency, his dogged insistence on fighting on in Iraq, even as he distances himself from the administration. He lauds General Petraeus, portraying him as a hero to cheering crowds — “thank God America is blessed with that kind of leadership,” he said in Sioux City — but also excoriates Donald H. Rumsfeld, the former defense secretary, for the way he led the war.

The goal seems to be to acknowledge both public distress over the war and concerns even among Republicans about the White House’s competence without directly assailing Mr. Bush himself, a step that could still alienate the most loyal of the party’s voters, those who tend to turn out in primaries....At the very least, the confluence of two campaigns — one by Mr. Bush and his supporters to rally public support for the war, and the other by Mr. McCain to effectively jump-start his candidacy — has won Mr. McCain a burst of new attention in the early primary states.

McCain's long been my favorite for the presidency in 2008, but I've been one of those GOP supporters who've bowed to reality and begun to weigh the alternatives.

Thus, I'm pleased McCain's doing much better. I've noted on occasion that I'm pretty much a single-issue voter on the war. Few candidates can claim the credibility and legitimacy on Iraq as can McCain. I think he'd make a fine president, and questions regarding McCain's age and health don't bother me.

For one of the more powerful statements on the goodness of our cause in Iraq, please read or re-read McCain's speech at the New School University, May 2006.

Hillary in Power

"How will Hillary govern?" I posed this query in a recent post.

It's no mystery, of course, as we have Senator Clinton's record by which to guide our analysis (YouTube courtesy of Goat's Barnyard):

But see also this week's cover story at Newsweek, "How She Would Govern."

The piece is a trip down the Memory Lane of 1990s presidential politics. It's a good analysis as well: Hillary's portrayed as ambitious and unbending, and she gets her comeuppance with the brutal political repudiation of the Clinton administration's healthcare initiative, which she spearheaded.

The article is also insightful in noting Hillary's signature unwillingness to give in, and her redoubtable skills of political recuperation.

But Hillary's lacking in conviction, and I think that quality tells us a great deal about how she'll lead. She's twisted and turned on Iraq, which this passage illustrates:

To many in her party...Clinton is often too afraid of political risk. Their most compelling piece of evidence: Iraq. It is hard to remember now, but in her early days in the Senate, it was taken for granted that Clinton's greatest political imperative was to boost her hawk credentials. As a woman, and a Clinton, she had to prove that she could be as tough as any man if she ever wanted to run for the presidency. After joining the Senate Armed Services Committee, she immersed herself in details of force structure and military preparedness. She reached out to generals and formed a close bond with Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, an Army ranger and paratrooper. In October 2002, she joined 28 other Democrats in voting to authorize the Iraq War.

Clinton says the Iraq War vote was without "any doubt" the most important one she's made as senator, the product of a "difficult, painful, painstaking" decision-making process. Over and over in the campaign, she and her aides have said that her vote was one of principle, not expediency, that she sincerely believed her "yea" would give Colin Powell the leverage he needed to persuade the administration to wait to invade until it had the support of the United Nations. This is hard for many in either party to believe. "Everyone knew that was in fact a war resolution," says one former Clinton administration official, who now supports Obama and did not want to criticize Clinton on the record. "The overwhelming sense among the Dems then was that this was a politically sensitive vote. They didn't want to be on the wrong side of a winning war, and a popular president. Political calculations were pre-eminent in the decision." Indeed, in her persistent refusal to acknowledge that political realities played any role in her decision, she seems most like the old Hillary—incapable of admitting a flaw.

There's a inevitability to Hillary Clinton's White House bid, well, at least in her quest for the Democratic nomination.

But should she win in November 2008, there should be no surprises regarding her formidable political powers, nor any delusions about her "weather vane" approach to government (thanks to G-Man over at The Pickle for the "weather vane" analogy.)

Hillary Clinton Pulls Out Lead in Key Early States

Today's article on the Los Angeles Times poll focuses its main attention on the Republican presidential field.

The poll finds, for example, that while Rudy Giuliani remains the GOP presidential frontrunner nationally, in the key states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, Giuliani is either running behind or is statistically tied with Mitt Romney or Fred Thomspon.

What I found more interesting is the poll's findings on the Democratic field. Hillary Clinton has consolidated her frontrunner status in this survey:

On the Democratic side, the poll results show that Clinton's top rivals have so far not succeeded in their recent efforts to portray her as too much of an insider to foster change in the country.

To the contrary, voters in the three early states sometimes view her rivals as more likable and more likely to offer new ideas -- yet they seem to place greater emphasis on Clinton's perceived experience and her ability to deal with Iraq and terrorism.

Clinton holds leads in all three states, despite factors in each that have been considered advantages for her opponents:

* In Iowa, where Edwards has been strong in the past, Clinton leads him by 5 percentage points, 28% to 23%, whereas Illinois Sen. Barack Obama wins support from 19% of voters.

* In New Hampshire, which has been considered favorable ground for Obama given his past appeal among upscale and well-educated white voters, Clinton's lead is more stark. More primary voters there support her than Edwards and Obama combined.

* In South Carolina, where Obama's campaign has hoped to rally support from the state's large black population, Clinton continues to beat him among nearly every constituency, including blacks.

Edwards, meanwhile, who touts the fact that he was born in South Carolina and won that state's primary as a candidate in 2004, wins only 7% among South Carolina Democrats -- suggesting that he, like Obama, is failing to gain traction against what is looking more and more like a Clinton juggernaut.

"On foreign affairs, I think Clinton's stronger. On security, I think she's stronger," said Dana Cote, 64, a retired registered nurse who lives in Columbia, S.C.

Cote was among the 34% of South Carolina Democrats who named Obama as the candidate of "new ideas," compared with 27% for Clinton. But like Cote, nearly one-third of the South Carolinians who praised Obama on that front said they would actually vote for Clinton, anyway.

Obama "hasn't got enough experience," he said. "You've got to be dirty to play politics. And he hasn't gotten dirty enough."

Across the board, Clinton is either winning every major voter category or is competitive with Obama among groups that have favored him in the past, even the upscale voters who helped fuel his rise in national polls.

Obama holds slight leads among college graduates in Iowa and South Carolina -- a proven strength for him in the past. But Clinton leads among those voters in New Hampshire. The survey suggests that Clinton has closed that gap by courting college-educated women, among whom she is either tied with Obama or ahead in the three states.

Even among South Carolina's black voters, who are expected to make up about half of the Democratic primary electorate there, the prospect of electing the country's first black president has not yet emerged as an advantage for the Illinois senator. Obama wins only about one-third of the black vote, compared with 43% for Clinton and 18% who don't yet know.

That spells trouble for Obama, who clearly has not closed the deal with this core constituency.

I keep joking with my students about a Hillary Clinton presidency (they get a kick out of the notion of Bill Clinton as "first gentleman"), but there does seem to be some inevitability to her nomination as the Democratic standard-bearer.

How will she govern?

Earlier I had been reassured by some of Clinton's positions on foreign policy. She seemed quite centrist late last year - before she faced tremendous pressure from the antiwar factions - but she's now lost credibility on Iraq as far as I'm concerned. I'm not looking forward to a second Clinton presidency.

For more on these prospects, check this week's Newsweek adds cover story, "What Kind of Decider Would She Be?" How's that for some sense of "Hillary inevitability?"

Another Democrat Goes to Damascus

Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who is seeking his party's presidential nomination, blasted President Bush and the Iraq deployment during a visit with Syrian strongman Bashir Assad (via Memeorandum):

US Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich, on a Mideast visit that included a stop in Syria, said the country lambasted by the Bush administration deserves credit for taking in more than a million Iraqi refugees.

Kucinich, a strong anti-war opponent who trails far in the US presidential polls, also said he won't visit Iraq on his trip to the region because he considers the US military deployment there illegal.

"I feel the United States is engaging in an illegal occupation ... I don't want to bless that occupation with my presence," he said in an interview in Lebanon, after visiting Syria. "I will not do it."

Kucinich, who accused the Bush administration of policies that have destabilized the Mideast, met with Syrian President Bashar Assad during his visit to Damascus. He said Assad was receptive to his ideas of "strength through peace."

He also praised Syria for taking in Iraqi refugees.

And I'm sure Kucinich praised Assad for the arms pipeline he's providing for the transit of materiel from Iran to the Hezbollah thugs in Southern Lebanon.

Calls for diplomacy with Syria may be warranted (at least some have argued), but heaping such praise in a visit to the capital of a state that has allowed the free flow of insurgents in and out of Iraq , while at the same time refusing to make a stop in that country - with perhaps a goodwill gesture to the U.S. service personnel fighting valiantly there - ought to automatically disqualify Kucinich as a serious prospect for president of the United States.

Watching the Republicans

I caught last night's GOP debate on Fox News. One of the biggest issues of the night was Fred Thompson's absence, a point moderator Brit Hume raised as the initial question for the canidates (Thompson announced his entry into the race last night on Jay Leno's late show).

I thought Rudy Giuliani came off the winner, and John McCain made a strong - if stiff - showing.

Giuliani seemed confident and poised. He stayed on message in stressing his leadership in New York City, and didn't harp on the 9/11 attacks. He certainly seems the one to beat at this point in the campaign.

I still like John McCain, of course, even though his campaign's pretty much dropped to the bottom of the barrel organizationally. McCain best represent my interests as a national security voter. Here's an inspiring excerpt from McCain's comments at the debate:

I’ve spent my life on national security issues. I’ve taken unpopular stands because I knew what was right. Back in 2003, amid criticism from my fellow Republicans, I spoke strongly against the then-Rumsfeld strategy which I knew was doomed to failure and caused so much needless sacrifice. I advocated very strongly the new strategy that some Democrats have called the McCain strategy -- (chuckles) -- which it is not, and I believe that the strategy is winning. I know the conflict. I know war. I have seen war. I know how the military works. I know how the government works. I understand national security.

I have led. I had -- I was once the commanding officer of the largest squadron in the United States Navy. I didn’t manage it; I led it.

McCain did well in promoting the surge, particularly in response to Mitt Romney's missteps on the war. Fred Barnes at the Weekly Standard provides a nice analysis of the impact of the debate for McCain's White House chances:

How far McCain went last night in reviving his battered campaign is unclear. A single strong debate performance can't, by itself, resurrect a candidacy. But it can help by guaranteeing McCain more press coverage--and more respectful treatment, at that--and perhaps a bump in the polls that come out almost daily.

By the way, a focus group of 29 New Hampshire Republicans conducted during the debate by pollster Frank Luntz found McCain to be the winner.

I'm hoping McCain can ressurrect some of his 2000 New Hampshire magic. I'm not so sure he'll be able to, however, especially with his problems of money and staff plaguing his organization.

Battling for the Independent Vote in 2008

Peter Wallsten's got a nice piece up this morning at the Los Angeles Times on the shift among independent voters away from the Republican Party. In 2004, independents around the country - ensconsed in their "exurban" enclaves - joined more conservative partisans in sending George W. Bush back to Washington.

This time around, these same voters are likely to do a 180 degree political turn, perhaps boosting Democratic chances for securing the White House in 2008:

Unaffiliated voters, who split evenly between Bush and Democrat John F. Kerry in 2004, are now looking more favorably at the Democratic Party, a reaction to Bush's slide in the polls, the U.S. struggle in Iraq and other disappointments with GOP leadership.

It is a dramatic political development in such a closely divided electorate, and one that is likely to paint a different Electoral College map that for the last two elections was shaded Republican red in the heartland and the South, and Democratic blue in the coastal West, the Upper Midwest and the Northeast.

Strategists in both major parties believe the shift among independents was crucial to last year's Democratic sweep of congressional and state races in a number of traditionally Republican states, such as Colorado, Missouri, Montana and Ohio....

Strategists agree that the shift foreshadows a far more complicated calculus as next year's presidential election unfolds. Already, both major parties are examining ways to lure the increasingly important constituency, which though losing faith in Bush, is not enthusiastic about the Democratic Party. At stake are the White House and control of Congress, with competitive Senate races expected in Colorado as well as in Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Virginia -- all with heavy concentrations of independent voters.

"These independents are not marching into the Democratic Party and declaring themselves Democrats, but the change is in the tilt," said Carroll Doherty, associate director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. "They are definitely leaning toward the Democrats."

Polls show that the movement among independents is a broad phenomenon.

It's hard to disagree with most of the analysis, although it might be worth it to take a good look at the Pew survey's sampling techniques and question items.

That said, one basic issue facing the electorate is the question of competence, especially as it relates to the war and national security policy. When it comes to pulling the lever in the voting booth in 2008, most Americans would likely be little influenced by overarching theories of democracy promotion or neoconservative ideology. Had the Rumsfeld Pentagon - and not to mention the military's general staff - been better prepared for post-conflict stablization in Iraq, and had we perhaps sent more troops for the invasion in 2003, our deployment might not have descended into unrelievable destruction and nihilist violence. This long deployment is testing even some arch conservatives. It's unlikely that those sitting on the fence would be unaffected.

Of course, the administration's early mistakes in Iraq have been internalized by those in the national security policymaking community; and now progress in Iraq is developing apace. Yet, the average voter is likely tired of the GOP scandals, and the roiling of the ecomomy and housing market must be putting quite a few voters on edge.

This opening has the Democrats salivating at their prospects. It's an opportunity that's driven the hardcore antiwar establishment into a frenzy, as well.

But there's still time for the GOP. The closeness of past presidential elections has shown that campaigns matters. There's no reason to expect 2008 to be any different. Plus, should Hillary Clinton win the nomination, her negative poll numbers remain high, a situation likely to be especially true of independents who lean toward Republican candidates.

Thus, it's wise for people to hold back a bit, and take all of this early polling and journalistic speculation with a couple of grains of salt. We've got a long way yet until November 2008. A lot could happen in the interim. Improvement in Iraq, or the Democrats' own Larry Craig scandal, might help persuade voters that the GOP might not be such a bad bet after all.

Norman Hsu is Shady Character in Democratic Fundraising Circles

This morning's Los Angeles Times has an excellent background story on Norman Hsu, the mystery Democratic fundraiser who's at the center of Hillary Clinton's fundraising scandal:

Money has brought both trappings and trouble for Norman Hsu. Major contributions to the campaigns of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and other candidates have made the apparel executive an insider in elite political circles. He shows up in cozy pictures with politicians, at lavish fundraising events, and on the boards of prestigious organizations.

But Hsu's history includes more unsavory episodes and associations. In 1990, he allegedly was kidnapped by Chinese gang members in San Francisco as part of an apparent effort to collect a debt. A year and a half later, he pleaded no contest to a charge of fleecing investors in what authorities called a Ponzi scheme of fraud. Along the way, he left a bankruptcy filing and bitter investors who accused him of making off with their savings.

Hsu is now at the center of a political scandal, with Sen. Clinton (D-N.Y.) and others rushing to return his contributions and sever embarrassing ties to a man still wanted on an outstanding warrant for the fraud case in California. Hsu could turn himself in as early as today in San Mateo County, where a hearing on the matter has been scheduled.

Read the whole thing. Hsu's a fugitive from justice who enjoys a reclusive life of luxury. Yet, Democratic Party bigwigs have welcomed Hsu into their fundraising circles, apparently oblivious to his shady side:

Hsu has donated or raised more than $1 million for Democrats and their causes, often delivering large donations from multiple individuals. Some of these "bundled" contributions have raised suspicions. In particular, Hsu has worked closely with a family in Daly City, Calif., headed by William Paw, a mail carrier, and his wife, Alice, who is listed as a homemaker.

The Paws apparently never donated to national candidates until 2004. Since then, they have given $213,000, including $55,000 to Clinton. Barcella denies Hsu provided money for the contributions, which would violate federal law. The Paws, Barcella said, "have the financial wherewithal to make their own donations."As a result of his largesse, Hsu's stock rose rapidly in Democratic circles.

He is a member of Clinton's "HillRaiser" group, made up of individuals who each pledge to raise more than $100,000 for her presidential campaign. Hsu helped host a series of high-profile events, including one in March at the Beverly Hills home of Ron Burkle, an ardent Clinton backer. In May, he co-hosted a fundraiser in Palo Alto with Susie Tompkins Buell, another Clinton bundler.

Captain Ed wonders where Hsu got all his money (and check Memeorandum for additional commentary).

A look at the Times piece suggests Hsu was a shady hustler running Ponzi schemes. The deeper question is why wasn't Hsu vetted more carefully by those who have welcomed him into the top circles of the Democratic Party establishment.

McCain's Public Funding Problem

Breaking news reports suggest that John McCain's presidential campaign has met the eligiblity for public election financing through the Federal Election Commission (see Liberty Pundit and The Politico).

This is an interesting development, either signaling new life for McCain's once-frontrunner campaign or the best new measure of just how desperate his White House bid really is.

Here's some background from The Politico:

John McCain on Tuesday became the first 2008 presidential candidate to qualify for taxpayer dollars for the primary election.

McCain’s application and qualification for the funds is likely to be interpreted by opponents as a desperate move, even though it does not lock him into the public financing system.

Jill Hazelbaker, a spokeswoman for McCain, said: “This isn't a sign of desperation — it's a sign of prudence and should be interpreted as such.”

McCain has lagged behind the Republican front-runners in the polls and in fundraising. Participating in the public financing system would allow him in the coming months to get an infusion of loans by borrowing against the promise of taxpayer dollars.

But the system is a trade-off, since it would also cap at about $50 million the amount of cash his campaign can spend during the primary — a limitation that would go into effect immediately.

The leading contenders for the nomination will likely quickly eclipse that level of spending, potentially putting McCain at a distinct disadvantage in early states.

Read the whole thing. Campaign analysts have touted a "$100 million entry fee" for the top canididates to be considered viable players by the time of the first presidential primary contests in early 2008.

There's a bitter irony here for McCain: The ability of both George Bush and John Kerry to each raise more than $250 million in the primaries in the 2004 presidential election is a direct consequence of the new fundraising regime arising out of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation. Now McCain finds himself unable to match that level of money power himself, and he'll be relegated to utlilizing a public funding system he himself made impotent.

Top-tier candiates nowadays forego public "matching funds" for the primaries because with individual contribution limits now at $2000 per person it's easily possible to raise and spend way more money than would be permitted under the federal spending caps. If McCain takes public funding, he'll be limited to $21 million dollars at the start of the primaries (as reported by The Politico), likely to be a dramatically lower figure than his top rivals for the nomination.

Also, the top candidates this year have indicated that they won't take public money even in the general election campaign, an unprecedented development. The way things are going, McCain, ever the political reform maverick, won't be among them. The Arizona Senator's best days as a top White House prospect were back in 2000, when the rules of the campaign game were different, and more ameniable to his come-from-behind insurgent style.