Thanks a Lot, Early States!

With this being Super Sunday, and Super Tuesday coming upon is in a mere two days, I think that now is a good time to look at just much we have been screwed by the first four states that narrowed down our Presidential choices to two: Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL). When this process started, there were six candidates who were making an honest effort to win the nomination. (I exclude Congressman Dennis Kucinich [D-OH] and Former Senator Mike Gravel [D-AK] because they didn't make an effort to compete in key states, which included Congressman Kucinich sending out an e-mail asking people to vote for him in the MySpace primary a mere two days before the Iowa caucuses.) Iowa, by breaking hugely in favor of only three canididates, ended the campaigns of Senators Joe Biden (D-DE) and Chris Dodd (D-CT), both seasoned Democrats and committee chairs in the Senate, with the former serving 35 years in the Senate, and the latter serving 27 years in the Senate and six in the House, and both doing so with distinction. The 7% he received in the entrance polls and the 2% he received in the caucuses, despite polling at 12% only three days earlier, would turn out to be a fatal blow to Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM), albeit one that took New Hampshire's 5% to deal the final blow for a man who had served 14 years in Congress, four as a Cabinet-level official and five as Governor of New Mexico, the closest swing state of the last two elections, where he won re-election in 2006 with nearly 70% of the vote.

Then, once Governor Richardson was gone from the race, I realized that the best candidate of the three remaining was Former Senator John Edwards (D-NC). He was talking about poverty, and he could do so while standing up to corporations in a way that could lead to Democrats taking a firm stand and winning in November. Not only that, but I thought that he could realign politics in a way that FDR did in 1932, and he was the man who led the field in bold proposals for health care and the minimum wage. (Governor Richardson led the field on global warming and Iraq. See, when Democrats talk about changing the face of politics, we talk about those who did it in a positive way.) However, the lack of money ruined several campaigns, and his funds dried up after disappointing showings in Nevada and South Carolina.

So, we are left with the two worst candidates we could field. One with a tendency to talk about things in a way that hurts the party against Republicans, and one who refuses to apologize for some of the wrong votes that she has cast in the past. One whose supporters insist that his opponent voted for the bankruptcy bill, when he did so as well. The other who will do anything to win, even if it means crippling her opponent should he be the general election nominee. So, thanks a lot, early states! You really screwed us. Let's talk about some of the ways.

Health Care Anyone who read my last post on this blog knows that I am not happy about the language that Senator Obama has used in describing health care. However, it seems to have only gotten worse. For the latest evidence, one needs to only look at this entry from Talking Points Memo shows the new mailers that Senator Obama is using that channel the infamous "Harry and Louise" ads run by the health insurance industry to scare people away from the proposal on health insurance in 1993-94. When reading comments, I have heard such pathetic defenses as "How do we know that this comes from the Obama campaign?" (Answer: when the last page is enlarged, it clearly says "Paid for by Obama for America" and has an address blacked out, so this is legit.) or "He is destroying the argument the right will use against the eventual nominee" (Answer: all he is doing is reinforcing the GOP talking point, which will be used against either Democratic candidate in the general election, which will only be worse because it is coming from a Democratic candidate.) that makes me question whether they are thinking at all about anything other than his ability to give a pretty speech.

For further debunking of the Obama proposal on health care, Paul Krugman gives a nice summary of the recent research that documents the need for mandates if anyone wants to have anything near universal health coverage. Much like why so many Democrats abandoned Senator Joe "Zell" Lieberman (I-CT) for remarks that delegitimized any opposition to the Iraq War, I wonder if this line has been crossed.

Foreign Policy Everyone knows that Senator Obama gave a speech in 2002 opposing the Iraq War while Senator Clinton voted for it. However, their votes in the Senate have been identical since 2005, when both were in the Senate. One point of contention was Senator Clinton's vote in favor of the Kyl/Lieberman resolution last year that declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to be a terrorist entity, which many believe will give President Bush authorization to go to war with Iran. However, Senator Obama was not there when the vote came up on the floor.

So, the differences seem to be mostly about style. Senator Clinton is trying to paint a picture of being tough, while Senator Obama considers talking to foreign leaders without preconditions. We have seen the danger in both approaches. I am not saying that we should continue the policy of only talking to those who like us, but there has to be some way to figure out what the dialogue is supposed to produce before agreeing to talks. Talking for its own sake won't do any good, but neither will isolationism or the go-it-alone style we have been used to seeing.

The Environment Here, you have a case of Senator Clinton virtually copying (once again) the proposal of Senator Edwards. Senator Obama has mostly done that, but he has also capitulated to the coal industry, proposing liquid coal, and pretending that he only wanted to do so if it meant a reduction in CO2 emissions (The Bunning/Obama bill had no such provision), so neither candidate shines through.

Corporate Influence Senator Clinton infamously said at last year's Daily Kos debate that corporate lobbyists were a positive force, and she sat on the corporate board of Wal-Mart for six years. This is where we need a fighter. Once someone insists that everyone can get along, there is no place to negotiate or to push for reform.

So, there you have the case for where we are now. Where is Stephen Colbert when you really need him?