Shock! John Gibson lies!!!

Like many to the left of the political spectrum, I have a lot of problems with Fox News, but I'll confess I watch it on a fairly regular basis. My Grandfather used to read the right wing papers, because as he said, you should "Know your enemy".

As many of you know by now, the latest conservative attack on Barack Obama is a rather subtle one alluding to his smoking habit, which has been well known for some time now, but will probably resurface again and again, just like the youthful experimentation with cocaine. I'm sure Obama and his team are calculating that it is far better this stuff emerges early and can be dealt with.

But what struck me more than anything else in this interview was the little throwaway line that John Gibson added during the interview about Obama's supposed liberalism.

Gibson states "Obama's formula for success. He has a moderate image, but he has one of the, if not the, most liberal voting record in the Senate. Malia, is that part of the secret of his success, is actually obscuring his liberal voting record?"

Really? According to the National Journal, who measured the entire senate's voting record in 2005, Obama ranks 16th most liberal, which puts him neatly within the middle third of the Demotratic Party. It's amazing how that "the most liberal" title varies at Fox according to the proximity of the individual to power.

Hillary and Guiliani lead the field - Obama and McCain close behind.

The latest Gallup poll shows Hillary Clinton leading Barack Obama by 12 percent among Democrats and Democrat leading independents. To me the most amazing thing about that is that he is in clear second place now, ahead of John Edwards (about to embark on his own publicity blitz) and Al Gore, riding on the coattails of "An Inconvienent Truth".

Given the enormous name recognition advantage that Hillary has in this race, I think her comparatively narrow lead at this stage speaks clearly to problems many Dems have with her. These problems I think are in two broad categories. 1) They percieve her as too polarizing a figure, and worry that she can never be elected because too many people hate her, and 2) They percieve her as "false", someone who will do anything to be elected. As a Democrat friend of mine recently put it - "I wouldn't buy a car from her".

Personally I believe Hillary can win. Bush is I believe at least as polarizing, and "won" twice. Plus if Hillary can hold every state Kerry did (not a difficult task) she only has to win one more (Ohio?) to get elected. In short, no matter who the Democratic candidate is in '08, they should have a good chance.

All that said, it doesn't mean she is the best candidate the Democrats can put forward, and at this stage I believe Obama is. The country appears so dissolusioned right now, that a truly charismatic, open "new" yet smart politician could just be the tonic that the country collectively feels it needs. And despite everything, I even believe there is a chance that Hillary might not run. She has the advantage of not having to enter the race eccessively early, due to her ability to raise money, name recognition and broad assumption that she will enter the race. So if she wishes, she can sit on the sidelines and observe for a while. If the Clintons see the Obama momentum become unstoppable, then she may sit out after all. If she thinks she won't win the primaries, I don't expect to see her at the starting line.

As for the Republicans, don't expect Giulinani (currently leading McCain) to stay in front for long. A party that is so caught up wrestling with its social agenda will not be able to fall square behind such a socially liberal figure. However, if he fails to get the nomination, I wonder if he would think of doing a Lieberman and running as an independent? Intruiging thought.

Pew Research Center on what the midterms mean

Interesting analysis arguing that Independent swung strongly for the Democrats, while the Republicans pretty much held onto its base. It also shows the increasing tendency of less religious people to vote Democrat. Does this mean that non-religious voters are pushed away by the Republicans emphasis on those matters, or simply that other issues decide which way they vote? I'd be inclined to guess the latter, but it would be interesting to see some research on that.

How signficiant is taking two houses?

Interesting article here from Charles Krauthammer in the Seattle Times, equating the recent election to a football game, and showing how small the shift actually was. He also points out how both parties have shifted to the right.

The fact that this has happened shows what a strange and dangerous political place the center can be in terms of job security. The Dems in this election were very smart in their recruiting for battleground states, selecting more socially conservative politicians for states those states they were targetting to pick up. This of course allowed many of those social issues to be taken off the agenda, and allow the voters to think of other issues. Meanwhile, the more socially liberal GOP candidates typically lost their jobs, in some cases pretty much purely because they had an (R) after their name - Lincoln Chaffey being the most obvious example, who lost despite v. high popularity in his own state.

So the Dems target a move to the right to meet the electorate, the electorate moves to the left somewhat to meet them, and the GOP, almost by accident shifts further to the right by losing some candidates at the center. I've seen this happen in the UK as well. For many years after Tony Blair first won election, the Conservative party was effectively voted into irrelevancy by the public, with most of the more moderate elements of the party voted out of office, leaving a ragtag bunch of ultra-conservatives left to fight over their own ideology.

The bottom line here is if you are going to fight in the center, you better win in the center, but you ignore the center at your peril, because you may risk losing it for a generation.

GOP starting to get it?

Here is Trent Lott, talking a good game about where priorities should lie, if the GOP are to remain relevant.

http://www.leadercall.com/opinion/local_story_317093900.html

At least it seems that the Dems and the GOP are reaching some agreement on what is important to discuss.

Role of the net in 2006 mid-terms

Check out this excellent post on Buzz Machine about the role of the net in this last election.

Battle for the soul of the GOP

After this defeat, the GOP is trying to figure out what it stands for. Expect the different factions to come out fighting. Here is the view of the religious right organization - Focus on the Family.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=76034