In Iowa at least. The two candidates that won their respective party caucuses – Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee – are hardly foreign policy heavyweights. That’s putting it politely. Huckabee is barely clued in. Obama had the good sense to oppose the Iraq War, but has yet to demonstrate much command on the detail of world politics.
What do Iowans want? Change. A clean sweep of Washington politics. Insiders are out. Outsiders are in. Vision matters. Experience, evidently, does not. This has shades of Carter’s victory in 1980 1976 [Ed: oops, hard to confuse Carter and Reagan I know - apologies to Reaganites]. Except Obama is looking and sounding ever more like the new Kennedy – with, one hopes, better judgment. Might this even be the return to Camelot?
In contrast, Senator Clinton sounded tired and insincere. Sure enough, she was on the midnight plane to New Hampshire. This is shaping up to be an exciting election.
Friday, 4, January, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
Obama’s foreign policy shop is pretty impressive.
Prof. Sarah Sewall from Harvard gave input to FM 3-24 and her take on Iraq as seen on the latest Charlie Rose Show on COIN is pretty accurate IMO.
The youth wing of the Democrats’ foreign policy wing is with Obama, not Clinton.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118895877299317784.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Huckabee is a much better fit with the idea of foreign policy ignorance. That Frank Gaffney has a prominent seat at his table says it all.
Friday, 4, January, 2008 at 4:57 pm |
Good point Tequila. Obama does have a good ‘foreign policy shop’ (nicely put). But I still reckon that when it comes to the caucus voters, it’s the candidate’s own record that counts. How is the ordinary Iwoan to know who is advising Obama on foreign policy, much less their CV? So I read this as a vote for change rather than experience.
Friday, 4, January, 2008 at 5:23 pm |
It’s all about falling in love. My road (rural, upscale) is blue with Obama yard signs. I’ve voted in every New Hampshire primary since 1952 (for all practical purposes the first such, and the one that launched Eisenhower as politician), and I have never seen a cascade like this one.
Miachael Barone has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this morning titled “The 16-Year Itch”
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110011077
which likens 2008 to 1992 when Clinton swept out the Republicans (talk about foreign policy creds! Obama at least has been in the US Senate, whereas Clinton was governor of Arkansas, full stop) and 1976 when Carter did the same (governor of Georgia, peanut farmer, WW2 draft dodger).
He specifically did not include 1960 in the 16-year cycle, but I agree with you that it fits. While the 16 years preceding Kennedy was split between a Republican and two Democratic administrations, they were alike in being old guard: Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower were the men who ran WW2, whereas Kennedy was one of the men who fought it.
So let’s see:
1960 gave us the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Vietnam.
1976 gave us the Iran Hostage Crisis, Desert One, the Great Arab Oil Embargo, and stagflation.
1992 gave us Watergate, impeachment, the dot-com boom and bust, and (not to be overlooked) a continuation of the Reagan prosperity and stock market boom (from 900 on the Dow to 14,000).
The one sure conclusion is that the next eight years will be interesting.
(And look at the bright side: at least Iowa didn’t go for Gordon Brown!)
Blue skies! — Dan Ford
Friday, 4, January, 2008 at 9:51 pm |
I seriously doubt that Mike Huckabee will be the eventual GOP candidate. Expect to see him take a major punt up the chuff in New Hampshire. Obama, on the other hand, seems to me likely – though not by any means a dead cert – to get the Democratic nomination. Personally, I’d like to see an Obama vs. McCain contest. If Obama is the real deal, the main campaign will act as a proving ground and he’ll emerge strengthened and probably victorious. If not, McCain is, in my view, the best GOP candidate.
I’d also note that while Obama’s lack of experience is an issue, I’m not sure what it is that allows Hillary to strut about as the Experience Candidate. She’s got one term longer in the Senate than Obama, which counts for something but doesn’t exactly make her an elder statesman (and Obama has a hinterland in elected state-level politics to a greater degree than she has). Other than that she was First Lady, a position requiring no electoral mandate and the manner in which it acts as a qualification for the presidency escapes me. Furthermore, her “tenure” in the White House largely involved, so far as I can tell, being deeply unpopular and buggering up a healthcare reform package that she should never have been entrusted with in the first place.
Sunday, 6, January, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
Very good article here on the issue at hand:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2235791,00.html
I think it expresses, for me at least, why I’m leaning to Obama–more accurately why I’d like to see a Mccain-Obama contest and not a Clinton-Giuliani one. The latter just means more divisiveness; the former promises something else. The only issue I really care about is the war which is going badly enough to quit the infighting.
Sunday, 6, January, 2008 at 9:19 pm |
Dan:
I believe 1972 gave you Watergate…that, and the Trickster Dickster.
Monday, 7, January, 2008 at 12:53 am |
Also note that carter was elected in 1976, not 1980. Get your facts straight before you pontificate.
Monday, 7, January, 2008 at 10:11 am |
Via Megan McArdle I learn that Huckabee had Chuck Norris at his shoulder at the Iowa caucus.
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/your_morning_caucus_blogging.php
So Gaffney schmaffney. If Chuck has his back then Huckabee is a shoe-in for the Presidency.
‘Chuck Norris’ calendar goes straight from March 31st to April 2nd; no one fools Chuck Norris.’
‘Chuck Norris doesn’t read books. He stares them down until he gets the information he wants.’
Nuff said
Monday, 7, January, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
Anthony – true, both Clinton and Obama are on SFRC, and Clinton has only done 4 more years that Obama. But (a) that still is twice as long and (b) I don’t buy the idea that she has not gained experience on foreign affairs from her eight years as First Lady. All this is not to say that she wd be a better candidate – I’m increasingly leaning towards Obama (on the herd principle: me follower) – but simply to say that the Obama counter that Clinton is not that much more experienced is…well…disingenuous.
Morgan – thanks for the…er…gentle correction re: Carter’s election. Facts schfacts. Ignorance is bliss!
David missed this one:
‘There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures that Chuck Norris has allowed to live.’
Monday, 7, January, 2008 at 5:48 pm |
Prof Farrell,
True, but if we’re seriously punting for Experience Candidates, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden would and should be walking it.
I wouldn’t necessarily follow the crowd on Obama, incidentally. I am because I think he may well take the nomination and I also happen to like him. But if Hillary floats your boat, once you look beyond New Hampshire she’s actually still polling really well. That and she’s got the party institutional support and she’s rolling in cash. So she may well still take it. One of the things I think the past couple of weeks has really highlighted about the press – and it’s as true or more so about the British press, incidentally – is just how easily they collectively slide into a collective “narrative” that the fact don’t necessarily support. It’s very sloppy.
Monday, 7, January, 2008 at 6:01 pm |
Well said, Anthony.
Tuesday, 8, January, 2008 at 12:41 pm |
Anthony – HRC was polling very well in NH and SC until the Iowa win. Then her support fell through the floor. What’s going to happen in CA and NY after Obama takes both places and like NV as well, and has an entire month of victory narrative behind him, while HRC fires staffers and has nothing to show for all her “inevitability” hype?
The Party institutions are part of what Obama is running against and part of his appeal. But he’s not doing it in a slash-and-burn style as Dean in ‘04 was – he’s a reformer, not someone who wants to gut the party structure. The Party institutions are not unalterably opposed to him.
As for cash, Obama has more on hand than Hillary, a far larger base of individual donors especially online, and how many of those funders will continue to support HRC in the wake of the defeats that look very likely in NH and SC?
Monday, 21, January, 2008 at 4:44 pm |
Things are a little worrying, experience or no experience:
1. Huck does not believe in evolution (perhaps due to the Norris influence). Riigght.
2. Hill said that LBJ and MLK, Jr. should share the glory for the advances in the civil rights movement. Riiigght.