A Liberal Lion, A Big Dog and a Lame Duck

The two big stories today are the endorsement by Teddy Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy of Barack Obama and W's last State of the Union. On MSNBC, the after speech commentary was as much about the former as it was the latter. Score one for the Liberal Lion (Teddy) over the Lame Duck (W).

First, I must admit I didn't watch the speech. I can't watch much of W at this stage. It takes him about 2 sentences to send me into a swearing rant aimed at no one that accomplishes nothing beyond scaring my cats. It is better for me and the kitties not to watch. I see highlights. I watch the "post-game." I read the news stories. I don't watch. The initial reaction of the talking heads was that the speech was pedestrian at best. The words "same old" followed by ideas, phrases, themes, etc. filled the airwaves and early writings on the speech. More war. More tax cuts. I was left wondering who would make the first joke that the speech was so poor because W's speech writing staff had joined the writer's strike in Hollywood. Maybe W should have returned to the original tradition of just sending the Congress a letter on the State of the Union.

More TV commentators wanted to talk about The Teddy and Barack Show from earlier in the day. That event was much more exciting and Teddy, who has been in the Senate as long as I've been alive, was a feisty old liberal today. Teddy is no longer the symbol of new ideas for a new generation. He is still a symbol of the liberal heart of the Democratic Party that dreams of using the power of government to serve the least amongst us. And Teddy mustered some of the old fire today in his speech and be aimed it right at the Clinton campaign and its top surrogate, "The Big Dog."

For those of you who don't know, Bill Clinton is known as The Big Dog among Democrats, particularly among liberal bloggers. It is a term of endearment for the most powerful campaigner in the party. Even Clinton's most vehement enemies admit that he is a powerful force on the campaign. Hillary Clinton has sought to use that force for her presidential campaign. After she lost Iowa, you started see a lot more of Bill. However, the South Carolina primary campaign coverage included a number of stories that there was concern among Democrats that he was being too much of an attack dog against Obama.

Obama has no one to match Bill on the campaign trail and Teddy and Caroline's endorsement doesn't change that fact. I do tend to agree with those who see Teddy as possibly the voice to assure those voters among the Democratic base who have hesitated about Obama. I suspect you will see Teddy's voice in ads and his face at a few events aimed at the older Democrats, particularly women and Hispanic Democrats and those Democrats with less education and less income. These subsets of Democrats have shown more trust in the Clinton name and record to date and have been part of Hillary's winning formula in the two states she has won. These Democrats may have some of their fears about Obama assuaged by assurances from Teddy. Teddy's efforts for Obama will not mean the Big Dog will be silenced or that Hillary is in "big trouble." But Obama does now have a powerful surrogate who leads older Democrats in particular to stop and listen for a moment. Obama will have to follow through on any openings the connection to the Kennedy still provides. He must find ways to adjust his message to fit a short campaign in 22 states. Obama's message and organization has shown power in Iowa and S. Carolina where he had time to build some connections with voters. The campaign over the next week is now about the short bursts of attention of 30 to 60 second ads and TV news stories. Whatever platform of attention a Teddy Kennedy or anyone else can provide must lead enough of those Democrats that have leaned to Hillary to reconsider and then make the change toward him. We'll find out how he's doing on Feb. 5th.

As for the Republicans, Florida appears to be a two-man race between Romney and McCain. I am wondering if early voting could tip the scale. Did enough early voters already choose McCain to keep Romney at bay?

As the temperature here once again heads below zero for several days. I'll use politics and football to distract me from the cold.

South Carolina and Beyond

After a week in which Bill Clinton got as much media attention as Hillary and news organizations tried to turn a primary debate tussle into a permanent rift in the Democratic Party, Barak Obama has emerged with the biggest margin of victory in any contested election so far. Plus, the Democrats once again demonstrated the "excitement gap" over the Republicans by having more voters in their primary than the Republicans could muster. This in a very Republican state. By the time all the votes are counted, Obama alone may top the 290,000 total among all Democratic contenders in South Carolina in 2004.

We have now had 4 contested states with 2 going to Obama and 2 to Hillary Clinton. The campaign now goes to the Supersized Super Tuesday on February 5th where the Democrats have primaries and caucuses in 22 states across the country (Republicans compete in 20 states). Retail politics ends and wholesale politics emphasizing TV ads and targeting states to end up being declared the overall "winner" on that night begins. With this very impressive win tonight, the news media I'm hearing on TV is already lurching back to the power of Obama's message after lurching toward the power of the Clinton machine since the New Hampshire primary. The truth is, either one of these candidates can win this nomination. Nothing is settled, but February 5th will have too many states not to have a lot of say in who gets the nominations for both parties.

You may have already heard or read how highly unlikely it will be that a candidate for either party will come out of Feb. 5th with enough delegates to win the nomination. Mathematically that is true, however presidential primaries aren't just about math. If one candidate is seen to have a set of victories that represent a "strong win" on that night, it will get increasingly difficult to stop that candidate. Democrats will have 6 more state caucuses and primaries the week following February 5th. The declared "winner" from Feb. 5th should be able to build momentum toward a view that he/she is "inevitable" with wins in most of those 6 states. The other candidates will begin to hear grumblings that they are standing in the way of unifying the party and the primary season would begin to come to a close.

Clinton leads in California, New York and New Jersey which are the only states with any recent polling. Those 3 states have lots of delegates and will get lots of attention, but Hillary's the senator from New York and should be expected to win there very easily. New Jersey may be read the same way, but it does have an anti-New York streak in it that may make it interesting. California is also a states where Democrats loved Bill Clinton and has been seen as a stronghold for Hillary. That state's race is the big prize of the night with the current expectations favoring Hillary, but California Democrats like to consider themselves as leading change not delaying it. Illinois as Obama's home state will be his. Even a big win there won't get him much credit.

That leaves 18 other states in which we have no real evidence on where the race stands. Four states I will watch closely to start will be Arizona, Colorado, Missouri and Minnesota. All 4 will be states the Democrats want in November. They represent a mix of voters that are important to Democrats and where they hope to gain in congressional and state elections this year. Who do those voters see as the best to put at the top of the ticket for taking back the White House and making other Democratic gains? Who's message will reach more voters in these states which have gotten very little attention to date, but will get a lot of attention in the fall? I haven't looked to see which have open versus close primaries. I do know Minnesota is a caucus, but have no idea if that favors Clinton over Obama. I haven't seen much on who has what level of organizing in any of those states. The unknowns make it all the more exciting.

I'll post information I find interesting as I find it. Please pass along anything good to me that I might not see. The political excitement will help me avoid the ridiculous sports coverage that leads up to the Super Bowl. I'll probably post on that this week as well.

Super Bowl XLII

The game is set. It will be the 18 - 0 Patriots versus the red hot road warriors' in the New York Giants. This is a rematch from a more exciting than expected season finale. The Patriots have been expected in Arizona for this game since the season began. The Giants are the surprise. Archie Manning, whom I rooted for as kid as I watched him run for his life on endless bad teams, now has a second year in a row with a son in the Super Bowl. Eli Manning will be a big underdog unlike big brother Payton was last year. I'll root for the Patriots to finish the 19-0 record and silence the 1972 Dolphins forever. I'll also root for a good game to add to the entertainment of my annual Super Bowl party.

Will the New York fans finally love Eli? Will this be Strahan's final game? Will New England's evil genius coach, Bill Belichick, choose to have the team wear its road uniforms to get the Giants out of the road uniforms in which they've won 10 straight? Will Randy Moss' legal troubles be a distraction? How many reporters on media day will butcher the Patriots' kicker's name? Which presidential candidate will make a stupid comparison to themselves and one of these teams or the game first?

These and other inanities will occupy the next two weeks. If it begins to get you down, distract yourself with other news. The Supersized Super Tuesday primary day is two days after the Super Bowl. Plus, it is only a about week after the Super Bowl when pitchers and catchers report for Spring Training.

Sports and politics...my obsessions never let me get bored.

The Night before Nevada (D) and S. Carolina (R)

We've got two more states tomorrow. One for the Democrats and one for the Republicans and I haven't got a real sense who'll win either. My guess (and that's all it is) is Clinton and McCain. Hillary in Nevada because the caucus system is new in Nevada and I figure she has the most experienced hands. However, if Obama has been building an organization in Nevada like he did in Iowa.... I don't know. On "The Colbert Report," Stephen Colbert used numbers from a Vegas oddsmaker and a roulette wheel to pick Obama as the winner. That may be the most accurate prediction mechanism I've seen. I'm counting on the military folks to pull it out for McCain, but if the conservative evangelicals like Huckabee's call to change the Constitution to reflect their view of God's will.... Personally, I'd like Fred Thompson to win just to continue the streak of a new Republican winner in each state. But does anyone know if he is actually campaigning actively? Is he just relying on "Law and Order" reruns to get him through the primaries?

If you're looking for a break from politics or trying to kill time until the football games start on Sunday (I'm rooting for the Patriots (sorry Dave) and don't care about the NFC), try out this site full of old articles from the magazines that once spread the word on the wonders of science. I played with it earlier tonight and distracted myself for a significant portion of the evening. For a while I forgot that it is going to be below zero here all weekend. I only need to get through 25 more days before I head for lovely Albuquerque. This weekend I'll think warm thoughts and stay indoors.

New Hypothesis

I have been puzzling out a new hypothesis for Hillary's New Hampshire win. The focus has been on how she did better than the polls expected even though Obama did fairly close to what was expected. This fact forgets that there were other people on the ballot. In particular, John Edwards, based on my memory, didn't generate the votes projected for him either. This fits the view that Hillary's unexpected results came from women making less than $50,000, with no college degree and other demographic factors most associated with America's working class. Did these voters finally decide between Edwards and Clinton? The publicly available exit poll data doesn't reveal such a connection, but I believe it to be a hypothesis worthy of exploring, especially by the candidates' number crunchers. Hillary's victory speech sounded much more like Edwards' then she had to that point. Maybe she was already singing to this part of the Democratic choir.

By the way, I can't remember where I read it now, but I understand that pollsters are avoiding the Nevada caucuses out of fear of even greater failure. Unlike Iowa, there is no track record in Nevada for who will caucus and who will not so the pollster would be guessing at who the "likely voters" will be. The last data pollster.com has for its charts is from Dec. 6, 2007. Look for leaked data from the candidates' internal polling, but take all that info with the ton of salt it deserves.

Who Helped Hillary Win

For an empirical look at what happened yesterday in New Hampshire, I'll be waiting for the professionals at pollster.com to analyze the data. I trust them the most to accurately examine the exit polls and see if my current view that pollsters underestimated the number of women who voted in the Democratic Primary in their likely voter models holds up.

The question being bandied about is why did so many women who decided in the final couple of days went for Hillary. Lots of media focus on Hillary's choking up answering a question on Monday. The rightwing that just hates Hillary see it as a successful manipulation of emotional female voters. Much of the traditional media seem to see it as her "connecting" with people for the first time and showing her "human side." Either that or women in a moment of female solidarity rallied to the tearful "sister."

I don't think so.

What the traditional media is missing is their own response to Monday's incident and to Hillary's briefly raised voice during the debate on Saturday. In both incidents they attributed it to her failure to "hold it together" and the word "meltdown" keep reappearing. This wasn't just on Fox News who would hate Hillary if she produced a cure for all cancers. This can be seen in print and TV journalists covering and analyzing the campaign. Glen Greenwald has some media snippets that reflect this as do other media focused blogs. The media first declared her too cold and calculating for the voters of Iowa. Then she was the angry spurned woman. Then the overly emotional woman. Yes I put in "woman"in those 2 sentences on purpose. Is this just misogyny? No. Most of it is lots of reporters don't like Hillary. There are too many reporters who are willing to ascribe the worst to anything she does because they don't like her. But she is the only female in the field and no one else has a nutcracker aimed at the humor level of 14-year-old boys.

My current view, completely without data, is that women Democratic voters in New Hampshire saw the media's reaction to Hillary's raised voice during the debate and "the tears" on Monday and got pissed off by it. I think they decided that she wasn't getting a fair shake so they would vote for her not because they don't like Obama, but because they do like Hillary and want to make sure the news media notices. They didn't rally to a friend just because she cried. They rallied to someone they see as being unjustly vilified for honest human reactions by a press corps they don't trust and see treating the first serious female challenger for the presidency unfairly. The news media may have made Hillary a downtrodden outsider for the first time in 16 years.

If I am a Hillary adviser, I'd tell her to run against the news media. Don't run away from them. Run at them. Take their questions but don't be afraid to challenge their assumptions about your actions or answers. Don't be a victim, but the "fighter" you claimed to be last night. The news media is never going to like Hillary so may as well rally supporters to fight the media hordes aligned against her. Go on Chris Matthews and make fun of his obsession with how she looks. Make humor the weapon to mock them and the image of yourself. Oh yeah, hide all those Clintonistas you've had around for 16 years and put out new faces. Those folks piss off Democrats.

If I find more empirical analysis that isn't being widely distrubted, I'll post it. Now I've got to go meet my new public policy class.

Women Carry Hillary to Victory and Hand Pollsters Their Heads

By carrying women by a big number and having those women be about 57% of the electorate, Hillary pulled the upset. The pollsters had it as an easy win for Obama, but the Democratic women of New Hampshire put egg on their faces. The battle is on and with McCain's win on the New Hampshire side there is only one sure thing --- neither side has a front runner.

The Democrats do seem to be down to Obama vs. Clinton. She is the Comeback Gal now but he is still the most dramatic voice for change. There will be lots of analysis of whether he is too reliant on independents and she is now back in position to put it away on Feb. 5th. There will be other analysis wondering if she can sustain this or will the same concerns about her send Democrats reaching for the alternative. Which is it? Don't look at me. I don't know. I believed the New Hampshire polling.

I am hoping this will mean lots more people pay attention and lots more states have a real say. More competition makes for a better candidate. Clinton will like Edwards staying in the race and taking some anti-Clinton votes away, but I wonder how much he'll draw away. The focus will be all on them and I don't see where he gets attention again.

As for the Republicans, McCain may have killed off Romney but I hedge on that because of this year's weirdness. Rudy is happy as his "big state strategy" looks less stupid with no clear frontrunner. I still say he can't just wait for Florida. Huckabee will gladly leave the northeast and head for S. Carolina and his conservative evangelical friends. McCain heads for Michigan. This side is a big mess.

Oh and I give it 24 hours before there is political press speculation of "brokered conventions." Don't believe it. No one even knows how to do a brokered convention anymore. Someone on each side will emerge as a clear leader and stick. Super-sized Super Tuesday still looms on February 5th and there are multiple contest before that day. None will decide it, but "momentum" will be the word going into that day. What will I look for? How much anti-Clinton feeling is there among Democrats or can she sell herself as "real change?" Can Huckabee get beyond the conservative evangelicals or is he just the VP candidate as so many pundits say? Can McCain get back the Republicans in the base who have distrusted him for so many years? Will Guiliani's thin-skinned, authoritarian manner finally be seen by all? Why is Romney named for a baseball glove? Will Fred Thompson be seen actually campaigning again or will he decide he did better when he wasn't campaigning and decide to run a 19th Century style front porch campaign?

Okay, clearly I need to go to bed. Look for more snarky comments as the primaries continue.

The Night Before New Hampshire

I'm back home and seeing the Obama organization continue to grow. After seeing a bit of his extraordinary organization in Iowa, I now see that he's reaching out to North Dakota too by opening 3 field offices in the state. No one else on the Democratic side has bothered with North Dakota and it is unlikely to help him carry the state if he wins the nomination, but it is an indication to me that he is looking well past tomorrow in New Hampshire or even South Carolina later in the month. I have looked for news on organization efforts in the morass of states set to vote on February 5th but I have not seen much. I suspect that the Clinton's and Guiliani's expect to get by with TV ads and some local TV and other media coverage. I am more impressed with Obama's efforts to build something for beyond Super-sized Super Tuesday. Another sign of this was hearing from an Obama worker in his Des Moines office on the day after the caucus say that none of his Iowa offices were closing. Instead they were to become phone centers. The Obama organization is building a truly national organization from nothing. They are not relying on his "rock star status" and the media coverage it generates. Rather they are building what is needed to compete in November.

The Democratic primary in New Hampshire does not look close at this point. I will be looking for hints from media and blogs on the exit polls during the afternoon from my campus office. I expect Obama to win easily as the "wave" continues and will only watch for the level of turnout and his totals versus Clinton and Edwards. I am more curious about the Republicans as I watch to see if McCain keeps enough independents from Obama to hold off Romney. Huckabee should be much farther down as he lacks the conservative evangelical Christians in New Hampshire that gave him victory in Iowa.

An Obama victory continues the swelling of his numbers in S. Carolina, other primary states and in national polls as well. The campaign will quickly become how either Clinton or Edwards can stop him. Clinton has money but needs to beat him somewhere. Edwards doesn't have lots of money but has already started to try to get voters to push aside Clinton and see it as as a two-man race. Either one will need something to get voters to question their backing Obama. They haven't found anything yet.

A McCain or Romney victory will clarify little among the Republicans. The next stop depends on how you see it. Michigan is first, but has the RNC withholding its delegates for busting past February 5th. S. Carolina then follows and the RNC is only withholding half of its delegates for breaking the alleged rules. It is possible for McCain or Romney to take Michigan and Huckabee takes S. Carolina and it is still all a muddle going into February 5th. Guiliani will think he still has a chance. Thompson may still hang about hoping they all kill each other and he is the last standing. But, again, what it really shows is that Republicans don't much care for any of them. Social conservatives don't trust Guiliani or Romney. Anti-immigrant nationalists don't like McCain or Huckabee and are torn on Guiliani because he isn't anti-immigration enough but they like the idea of "staying on the offensive" against other scary foreigners. The neo-cons who brought us the lovely Iraq War, the Patriot Act and expanding uncheckable presidential power despise Huckabee with a venom usually reserved for Bill and Hillary Clinton. The Democrats are sitting back and loving their pain.

I close with a line that captures the moment better than I can. It is another great line from Keith Olbermann from tonight's show, "Barack Obama is Tiger Woods."

Perceptions

The day after the Iowa caucuses and Iowa has been returned to Iowans. The effect of last night now turns into what perceptions the news media emphasizes and the campaigns manage to use to their advantage. Hillary and Edwards finished almost equally in the caucuses but because she was behind the perception is already set that she was third. She didn't just lose to Obama, but to Edwards also and no one is paying much attention to Edwards. Edwards perception problem is just that. He just can't seem to get beyond being the third wheel on the stage. Obama has gotten lots of positives now but you already see and hear questions on whether he can stand up to the attacks that are expected now that he is the new "frontrunner."

On the Republican side, much of the initial perception is working for McCain as much as Huckabee. There is still serious doubt about Huckabee's ability to sell himself beyond the conservative evangelical faction in the Republican coalition. Romney's best hope might be that this perception holds and he is seen as the alternative to McCain whom many Republicans still don't trust. If Romney cannot gain such traction quickly and loses again on Tuesday, he is probably done for good. The overall perception on the Republican side is that Iowa only mixed things up again. There is no clarity to the race. Name a Republican and the discussion quickly turns to the difficulties he faces rather than how he can win.

Finally, the perception of more highly motivated Democrats has been reinforced by the 239,000 participants in the Democratic caucus. The Republican numbers were also up substantially but were still less than half of the number the Democrats turned out. Such results only keep Democrats fired up for what they hope will be a huge year.

First Take on Iowa Caucuses

My laptop is acting up so I'll keep this short.

The votes are in and the winners are Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama. The Democrats will dominate the headlines with a black man winning an overwhelming white state and having over 230,000 voters participating. The Republican evangelical conservatives demonstrated their power within the Republican Party by turning out to vote for the Baptist preacher.

The big headline is Obama and the Democrats. It will be tough to stop him in New Hampshire and Clinton and Edwards need to find a place to win before February 5th. Obama also took advantage of the attention by giving the most polished speech I've ever seen this early in the process. He took advantage to spread his broad message to anyone who slipped into the news at 11 pm Eastern and 10 pm Central for a look at the winner. He appealed well beyond the next stop in New Hampshire, but made sure he had a few references aimed at the first primary in the nation. It was a very smart move from an campaign that must now deal with the slings and arrows of frontrunner status.

Late Afternoon in Des Moines on Caucus Day

Didn't see any candidates today. They are making only a few appearances. Did spend a little time downtown and tried to catch a few observations of campaigns and media.

We ate lunch close to where Hillary will have her party tonight. Saw a number of her people walking about and caught one comment that may or may not be significant. Among 3 women who fit the core Hillary supporter according to polls, one said to the other two, "Keep the faith." Now this may mean nothing, but watching the media today and listening to Hillary's folks drop expectations for tonight throughout the day, I wonder if I caught a bit of the worry amongst the Hillary gang.

Obama headquaters had a lot of people going in and out as we passed by today. The campaign is reportedly telling out-of-sate volunteers to go home as they have plenty of people. In fact, they have so many, that we saw 4 Obama volunteers waving signs at passing cars on a street corner far from downtown and the news media hordes. I wanted to stop and ask them who they were, why they were there and how long they had to stay. I wondered how many folks Obama's organization has. There was another report of having 5000 drivers ready to drive folks to their caucus. It is possible that the former community organizer has built the best organization in the state. His people are not on TV, radio or print trying to lower expectations.

The other folks I glimpsed today were members of the horde of news media. The big convention center downtown is their gathering spot. Without credentials I couldn't get much beyond the front doors, but I stood and watched the scene while Justin headed up to where the credentialed media was allowed. There was a sense of privilege and slight disdain among the out-of-state media hordes. This is fascinating since it is the news media that makes Iowa important and yet when you see the working press in Iowa many seem to just want to leave as soon as possible. No one said anything and I only saw a few people I knew by name. The only conclusion I came away with was they should have just stayed home. These caucuses are covered beyond proper proportion and will be over analyzed the same way. Yet each time it looks at all interesting they come in mass. They could misread polls, overreact to small errors and declare various candidates "inevitable" or "dead" from wherever they usually work.

I'm too chicken to make a prediction. I'll mostly watch for how the media spins it all. I'd go to Obama's rally tonight, but the crowd will be massive and I'll see very little. Plus, I'm too much of a news junkie to not have a chance to see as much as I can.

Since I'll be close to my laptop, I'll post again as long as the wireless connection keeps working.

The Night Before the Iowa Caucus

I arrived in Des Moines in the late afternoon and after a dinner at Skip's, Justin and I headed for as many rallies as we could get to. We made it to events for Romney and Edwards. McCain was late in a small space so we skipped it and we were too late for Obama. All the Democrats timed their speeches for live feed that could be picked up on the local 10 o'clock news. Here are few observations from the Romney and Edwards' events.

Romney is from Central Casting. Romney looks exactly like he does on TV. It was a bit disconcerting. You expect someone to look a bit different in person. A bit less plastic. I saw Jonathan Alter, the journalist/pundit, and he looks even smaller in person. Romney looks exactly the same. He and his wife together appear just as you would expect a couple cast in the TV show about a man running for president. He certainly looks the part more than Martin Sheen ever did.

Romney's event was at the Hy-Vee Conference Center and my spot in the back of the room did not afford a good way to judge the crowd. My best guess consulting with Justin and his editor was from 500 to 1000. No one had a good sense of it. The crowd was polite and cheered at all the right times during the stump speech, but not overly enthusiastic. I understand from Justin that Republican crowds aren't as big or as boisterous as the Democrats. That fits the overall view you read and hear about the greater excitement for the election from Democrats.

The Edwards event was very different. It was at a place called the Val Air Ballroom which is a night club space large enough to hold a few thousand and Edwards filled it. He did cheat a bit by having John Mellencamp open for him. Edwards gave the big crowd old time Democratic religion. He was the "working man's politician" who assured the crowd that he would not negotiate with "those people" in corporate America who have blocked progress in areas such as health care and trade policy. For a crowd full of Democrats it was pure red meat. I suspect that the strategy limits Edwards' appeal beyond the Democrats searching for the "fighter" and "warrior" Edwards described himself as.

The media hordes are as impressive as the Democratic crowds. Satellite trucks line downtown Des Moines and print and radio media of all stripes abound. I can't get access to the convention center where they have gathered since I am just a political scientist playing political tourist. I did stand amongst them at the Edwards event and spent most of my time at the Romney event ignoring him and trying to hear or see what the media folks where saying or doing. The candidates smile. The crowds are excited. The media folks are unhappy and just want results to over analyze for 5 days until the New Hampshire results are in on the 8th and Iowa is long forgotten.

The expectations for turnout are soaring for the Democrats. Sen. Kent Conrad, who endorsed and campaigned with Obama, was on the radio today claiming at least 160,000 would turn out for the Democratic caucus. That would blow away the record. A local TV news station called 160,000 as the "expected turnout" and stated there is talk of 200,000 or more. For the Republicans the "expected turnout" was 95,000. This will still be less than 25% of the total voters in Iowa, but if that many Democrats actually head out for a lengthy meeting on a January night the view of highly motivated Democrats will be resoundingly confirmed. If such a level of attraction between the Democrats and voters could be sustained thru November, the Republicans would be wise to just nominate a candidate they don't mind seeing lose.

That's all for tonight. I'm quite tired. I'll post as I can tomorrow as I look for more candidates during the day and into the evening. Not sure yet who or what I'll see, but I'll take notes and post a few observations.

Happy New Year

In observance of our species annual celebration of hope for the future, I offer a few thoughts on 2007 and 2008.

2007 was generally a bad year for governance in the United States. W's continuing attack on our system of checks and balances was not slowed much by the new Democratic Congress. With this weak effort, they earned an approval rating below his, but unlike him they will face the voters again. 90+% of those unpopular members of Congress will return after the 2008 election, because as any political scientist can tell you, Americans love their own representative and senators, it's just the other 434 and 98, respectively, that they think should be removed. In my state, the government continued to pretend it wasn't really the 21st Century and government action wasn't needed. We continue to follow the idea that change is too scary for us. I hope your state did better.

My own year was more good than bad. Truthfully, my life has been blessed so often that I really should never be allowed to complain. My greatest joy was to hear that my oldest nephew would not be deployed to Iraq with this Army Reserve unit. I don't know why he was so lucky, but I'm glad he continued my family's luck of avoiding combat. My family and friends are well and those who are battling health issues are doing so with success. My favorite professional sports teams need help, but the Missouri Tigers made up for it with the best season of my life.

Looking toward the new year, a political geek like me is thrilled to see a new election on the horizon. I am heading to Des Moines tomorrow to observe the odd ritual of the Iowa caucuses in person. I will try to get a glimpse of the top candidates and spend much of my time watching the news media hordes. As a political scientist, I usually spend this time of year yelling at the television "experts" making ridiculous statements for which no one will hold them accountable. This year I hope to observe them in their natural habitat of a Des Moines hotel bar and see where they acquire these "insights" on the American electorate.

I am not a big fan of the Iowa caucuses or the way the event is covered. Much too much will be made of the "entrance polls" the traditional media conducts and no one pays much attention to anything else. The night will be a battle of "spin" and who is seen as "up" or "down" based on the instant analysis of men and women who a few weeks or even days prior probably told us the exact opposite was happening. For example, I recall Chris Matthews not long ago declaring Barack Obama to be "at Jesse Jackson level" based on a single national poll. I am sure he is well prepared to declare Obama the Democratic nominee on Thursday night if he does well in the entrance poll. I'll try to blog from Iowa on anything I observe as interesting and maybe even post a picture or two.

After Iowa, New Hampshire and the super-sized Super Tuesday of February 5th, our political parties will probably have a good idea who the nominee will be. By March 5th, various political pundits will already be bored or disappointed by the choices the parties are offering us and wish for some mystical days of great men that never really existed. As a Democrat, I'll hope for a winning candidate in the general election who I can vote for with pride. As a political scientist, I'll look for clues for what might happen that lie beyond the control of any campaign or candidate. As a "political expert," I'll continue to use my obsession with following politics to sound quite good on radio, TV or print. It is my small contribution to the political system.

As for the non-political parts of the year, I hope for success in a new research project, an easy time formulating our department's 6-year review, improvement from my favorite professional sports teams, a marvelous trip to England with my sister and step-sister, and for something pleasantly unexpected.

I wish all of you the best of blessings for the new year.