2 bonus points on the '08 election

I've been wondering now for several months: with all of the macro indicators pointing towards Obama and the Democrats, why does Obama support such liberal economic policies? I think the election was won by Obama (or whoever was to be the Democrats' candidate) before it even started. Running against Bush, a bad economy, and a war is a dream scenario, one where any candidate could have channeled Bill Clinton by making a balanced budget a priority.

Instead, Obama's seeks to expand spending by $4.3 TRILLION, and the rest of his economic policies are also an abrupt departure from centrist policies, such as raising the cap on social security taxes, which hasn't changed in decades. (Not to mention the redistributionist tax policies.)

Obama has good lines in his election ads - "most people will pay lower taxes," but every policy analysis that i've read says otherwise.

I disagree with the Obama policies, but my point here isn't whether his policies are good or bad - I'm asking why with such a favorable election setting did Obama adopt such radical (and bad) economic policies?


Along the same lines, I'm seeing that Obama is projected to win 52-46, which is a nice, solid, no-doubt win, and notable for the margin of victory when compared to the last two elections (and really the last 3 out of 4 have been very close.)

However, I'm stunned that the margin isn't much greater. (And maybe it will be tomorrow.) With the dismal opinion polls of Bush and the Republicans, an economic crisis, several thousand Americans killed in foreign wars, and terrible, unpopular policies in place anywhere you look (from No Child Left Behind to stem cell research), why isn't the margin of victory likely to be larger?

The answer, I believe, is that the Democrats still represent dismal, fringe policies driven by dismal, fringe people.

In my lifetime, the Democrats did best when governing from the center, as embodied by Bill Clinton's adoption of centrist policies such as NAFTA, a balanced budget, and welfare reform. (This agenda was really set by Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress, but credit Clinton for abandoning left-ish roots to jump on a good, centrist thing.)

Today, we've got Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid shelving centrist opportunities like the Columbia free trade pact, and pursuing a very liberal agenda.

Perhaps the Democrats will take the relatively small margin of victory for what it is and make the changes necessary to govern from the center, but I suspect they won't. Instead, I expect to hear later this week what a mandate for Democratic policies was delivered on Election day, and then I expect to see exactly what happened between 1992 and 1994 - the Democrats focused on very liberal policy priorities with little chance of success (like the Hilary Clinton-led heath care plan, and endorsing gays in the military). Between these new policies, and the efforts to overturn Reagan-era decisions and reward key constituents, the Democrats quickly fell out of touch, and were absolutely murdered in the 1994 mid-term elections.

All of the signs point to a repeat, with obviously liberal policies lined up that will naturally offend a good portion of the population. Just like Clinton's campaign promise that his first official act would be to permit gays to serve openly in the military, Obama is promising to enable partial birth abortions. (Or something like that - I really don't pay much attention to reproductive rights. Nevertheless, I understand that such a change would be a very liberal one.)

Following the abortion change, we'll be seeing the Employee Free Choice Act, a new law to overturn decades of Union/management practices to facilitate greater union representation.

Following this script, you'll see a big gain for the Republicans in the 2010 elections, unless Obama tunes out his fringe constituents and very liberal nature and rushes towards the center.

I endorse........

Well, nobody. Sort of (see below).

But first a bit of background: I'm a libertarian centrist living in Virginia. I voted for Obama in the Virginia primary, and thought enough about McCain to go to a campaign rally of his in 2000.

I generally believe that people and markets are capable of amazing things when left to flourish, and that most government initiatives - while well intentioned - typically impinge on liberty, are too expensive and poorly run, and fail to deliver desired results.

(For some examples relevant to these lessons, watch the series of quick vids starting here.)

I believe in flat taxes, school choice, and liberalizing rules, such as in allowing people to buy health insurance across state lines. I dislike farm subsidies, anything that expands the government's powers, and I can tell you from having seen socialized health care first hand that a future where government plays a bigger role in health care is not a future that I want to live in.

With rare exception, I tend to view politicians not as left or right, but as tenured political class, or not. I think many of America's problems are explained not by the policy of one of our two parties, but by entrenched interests. My bias is to "throw the bums out," and, unfortunately, I won't be surprised when Congressional financial regulators like Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd do NOT lose their seats on the relevant Oversight committees.

With that as a backdrop, I would describe our 2 choices for President at equally bad.

One candidate is a creature of his party, an old-school machine politician. The other sees an increasing role for the state in every aspect of our lives, from energy policy to national service.

(If you can't tell which candidate is which, you might begin to see another point).

One candidate is pushing a divisive policy to make the majority of America band together to take advantage of a disadvantaged class of people. The other candidate is in a disadvantaged class of people - old folks.

One candidate actively intends to redistribute wealth for no purpose but "fairness" (in his eyes at least). The other thinks we need only continue the Bush tax cuts.

One candidate is actively against free trade. The other candidate is against free election financing.

Both candidates agree on a cap and trade system to help fight global warming. I don't see any way that this turns out any better than Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac - another government program to push policy-driven spending off of the government's books.

I could go on, but frankly it is too depressing.

Current polls suggest that Obama will win this election, probably winning the national vote 52-46. If the race is more competitive, Virginia (where I live) will be a swing state, and it is possible then that I might cast a deciding vote, so though I am underwhelmed by both candidates, I need to hold my nose and choose one of these two. To do that, I've made the following list of pluses and minuses for each candidate:

Obama:
Positive:
-his election would start a new chapter in race relations, and inspire many
-an ability to give a good speech
-the courage to have spoken out against the war in Iraq
-a good brand image, and
-the respect of the world may enable him to set a better foreign policy course

Negatives:
-terrible economic policies, most have which have been stale for oh, 70 years.
-strong statist tendencies (have you seen a government program that he doesn't endorse expanding?)
-a definite lack of any non-political experience. In other words, he's a professional politician. He knows how to read an opinion poll, but doesn't know how to lead.
-Joe Biden as VP/potential Prez. All of the liberalism and party control, none of the dynamism of Obama.
-Congress is controlled by his party. (I like divided government - it forces centrist policies (ask Bill Clinton), and generally spends less.)
-this is not a dealbreaker, but I am deeply troubled by Obama's association with Jeremiah Wright - not just the association, but the "cover-up" so to speak. How does somebody attend approximately 500 services and become so inspired as to donate $500/month to Wright's church expect us to believe that there isn't a philosophical link between Obama and Wright?

McCain:
Positives:
-former military officer means he has had to lead people before.
-he's been a maverick over the years, indicating that he won't always make a decision based on party policy.
-Sarah Palin. I'm not completely sold on her, but I believer to be a charismatic, principled leader. Don't judge her on the pundit commentary - watch her in action.
-the result of his election would be divided government.
-His economic policies are less worse than Obama.

Negatives:
-he's 72 years old. As I've learned all too well from experience, at this age, you can't rely on clear decision making. There's too much going on in the world today which makes me wonder if a 72 year old can keep straight all of the facts needed to make a decision on a particular policy. (I am not saying that 72 year-olds aren't functional, just that they're not suited for the office of President.)
-he's right out of the Big Government Republican wing of his party - he likes to regulate, and likes "national greatness" policies.
-No bold ideas at all, except for the idea to push health care onto the individual instead of tying this to a job.


I really, really can't get excited about either of these candidates. I might have been enthusiastic about McCain if he were 10 years younger, and not following Bush. I could have stayed interested in Obama if his economic policies weren't on the socialist fringe. (Yes, they're way out there, and yes, they are socialist. Redistributing wealth and increased central planning (see the health care policy) does make one a socialist.)

In the end, I have decided the economy matters most and that John McCain stinks less, mostly because the Democrat-controlled Congress would keep him in check, while a Democratic Congress might hand Obama a blank one.

Also, having paid way too much attention to the election this year, Obama's charm has worn off on me, and I now see him for what he is - a classic Chicago politician with a strong liberal bias. I suspect that over time, less people will be excited by Obama, unless he very quickly governs to the center. (See also Clinton, Bill.)

So, consider this a very, very tepid endorsement of John McCain.

(I'm not voting until after work tomorrow, so there's still time to change my mind - leave me a message to set me straight.)

VP choices follow-up.....(Mark Sanford)

Wanna see someone who really should be VP (if not President?)

It's Mark Sanford, Governor of South Carolina (and Darden graad!)

Sanford has a deep, consistent record of fiscal responsibility, promoting liberty through school choice, resisting the REAL ID program, and generally a minimalist approach to government.

Unfortunately, Sanford isn't nearly self-promoting enough to be a national candidate and definiteloy not interested in treading the party line, so we'll probably never see him as VP, but as I've said before, I think he's one of the best candidates out there.

Here's Governor Sanford speaking on the future of the Republican Party:



Hat tip: Club for Growth blog.

Vice Presidential choices out of left field

Anyone notice how as the conventions approach, the buzz around most mainstream VP candidates has lessned?

I'd say that buzz around Kaine, Pawlenty, Jindal, Palin, and Sebelius has quieted. One possible interpretation is that none of these folks are "the" choice. who knows, but it is always more fun to talk about more dramatic choices

Here's three dramatic choices that would make sense (I am mentioning them basically so I can say "I told you so" on the off-chance either is selected.)

Mark Warner: Virginia is a must-win state for Obama, and there's no one who could deliver Virginia like Warner. Warner, though, is a shoe-in for the Senate this year from Virginia - why take a chance on losing?

One reason that Warner is such a shoe-in is that Mark Warner is very popular from his time as Governor. The other explanation is that his opponent, Jim Gilmore, is running a campaign that is, at best, still-born.

My guess here is that Warner could clinch Virginia (and the presidency) for Obama, and that the Dems' 2nd choice (or 3rd, or 4th, or even Doug Wilder) could still beat Gilmore.

General David Petreaus. I don't know Petreaus' politics, but it is clear that he is ambitious, and a climber. He'd be an asset to either the Obama OR McCain campaign. He would provide immense credibility as VP, and whatever position on Iraq that he promotes would instantly have the high ground.

Obama needs someone like Petreaus more than McCain, who already has military cred, but I think Petreaus would still be a good fit for McCain as well.

For many of the same reasons, I could see Obama selecting the less qualified, more political version of Petreaus, Wesley Clark.

Meg Whitman Already a McCain surrogate, and a strategic advisor, Whitman would bring business and economic savvy and managerial credibility. She's one of the few "rock star" CEOs. She'd be an exciting choice, and a great political move for McCain.

Much like Wesley Clark is a shadow of Petreaus, Carly Fiorina could provide the same outline as Whitman, except she's less successful, less talented, and less credible. (But more of a spotlight hound.)

I'm juiced about an Obama-Warner ticket vs. a McCain-Whitman ticket. But don't listen to me - 12 months ago I thought the election would be Gore vs. Powell.

John Edwards going down.....hard

here's an update on the John Edwards cheating/baby scandal, this time from a reputable mainstream press source (The Economist). It's not good, unless you're happy to see this holier-than-thou charlatan/ambulance chaser fall from grace.

Oh, this is scary (Obama policy)

Sen. Obama announced a plan to funnel $25B in low-interest loans to US automakers. Yes, the automakers are in sad shape, and yes, thousands of voters (errr....jobs) are in jeopardy, but this is just a downright bad idea, and more importantly, if this is representative of Obama's administration, we would be taking a seriously wrong turn towards national industrial policy, and state primacy over commerce.

My objection isn't the amount of money involved - through leverage, the cost of the $25B program is only $4B, which really isn't much money in government terms (though, keep in mind, the combined market cap of Ford & GM is only $18B - maybe the government should just buy these two companies?)

What really irks me are two things:

1) the activist notion of the Obama policy that government can and should influence business outcomes. There's a plethora of evidence that government activism is at best a zero-sum exercise. (Which reminds me: why should we want the governement to provide healthcare?) Why would business ever benefit from the participation (read: invasion) of government? How can politicizing commerce be a positive?

Worse, this smacks of industrial policy - in a nutshell, the notion that government can/should pick commercial winners. This was most readily used by Japan during the 1980's, and for a while, pundits thought it might be "Japan Inc.'s" secret to success. Suffice to say, the last ~15 years of Japanese recession have debunked industrial policy as value-creating.

2) that political policies should enforce the status quo. The current crisis - and resulting Obama auto loans - are the latest chapter in a 30+ year long decline of the US auto industry. The problems in the auto industry run deep. They are structural, and based on 30 years of history, not on the verge of being solved. The Obama loans are bandaids, and would likely just prolong the problems of the industry.

There are few industries beyond the auto industry in such dire need for change, and while the loans could fund the development of a few new models, the loans would just continue the status quo. This is quite odd for someone who's political message is change.

Project the Obama policy forward, and before you know it, there'll be another industry in bad shape, and in line for loans and federal oversight. (My early guess here is the pharmaceutical industry.) Eventually, government participation reduces business performance to mean, and ultimate business success or failure has more to do with the discretion of the government, and less about innovation and hard work.

Hell freezes over and Tim becomes a Clinton supporter?

Tell me what you think of the realization that I had in the last month: as much as it pains me to suggest this, the best thing that can happen for someone of my political leanings (conservative libertarian), and, I'd argue, the country as a whole, is Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee. (Which, I believe leads to her winning in the general election.)

Why? Because I'm hoping that the Democratic party spurning Obama in spite of the vote & delegate advantages would splinter the monolithic African-American voting block. I think the implicit message in an HRC-nomination that the Democratic party isn't any more favorable to African-Americans than the Republicans would allow these voters to consider other options, facilitating both a more diverse Republican party, and perhaps a viable third party.

But more important than party politics, spurned African-American voters could break the logjam on issues that I believe we need to move on to make a better America. African-Americans have been voting for the status quo and against change to their own detriment. (Ironic, eh?) Best example: school choice. I really think the biggest beneficiaries of increased school choice will be the least advantaged students, but African-American voting in support of the traditional Democrat lobbies (in this case, teacher's unions) sustains the status quo. Plenty of polls show that core African-American issues/stances actually match up well with Republican policies, but since buying into the Great Society, African-Americans have been solidly, and perhaps blindly Democrats.


(Counter-interpretation: Party elders (Dean, Pelosi, etc.) realize the long-term stakes, and that's why Obama will be the nominee.)

Biofuels: a political boondoggle

Everyone outside of the beltway and the farm belt could see that subsidizing biofuels to 1) reduce oil imports, and 2) reduce greenhouse gas emissions was value-destructive. Some astute analysts were also vocal in stating the the law of unintended consequences would further tip the calculations against this policy.

There's since been plenty of anecdotal evidence about biofuels leading to food price increases (demand for corn to make ethanol has pushed up the prices of corn tortillas in Mexico, for example.)

It seems that politicians have begun to figure this out, though it would appear that they won't be correcting their mistake anytime soon, if this Congressman is any indication.

from the New York Times, via the Paul Ibrahim blog:

"Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts, said he had come to realize that Congress made a mistake in backing biofuels, not anticipating the impact on food costs. He said Congress needed to reconsider its policy, though he acknowledged that would be difficult.

“If there was a secret vote, there is a pretty large number of people who would like to reassess what we are doing,” he said."


Basically, the political class has whipped up such a panic and frenzy about global warming and alt fuels that reflexive policies born from the frenzy won't be corrected because no politician is willing to take well-meaning public action that might appear contrary to the frenzy. Great. Tell me again why anyone believes that solutions come from politicians!?!

(btw: among the '08 presidential candidates, only McCain has taken an intelligent position on this issue. I may not like McCain's position on Iraq, and I'm scared of his combination of populism and economic ignorance, but I like a guy who campaigns in Iowa and argues AGAINST corn subsidies.)

Hat tip: Club for Growth blog.

Great Barack quote from a rally yesterday

"I'm not running for president because of some long-held ambition, and I'm not running because I think it's my turn." - Sen. Barack Obama.


I'm not sure who my candidate is for the fall, but I'm still firmly a member of the ABC Club - Anybody But Clinton!

Clinton, McCain, or Obama - who's the official candidate of CogentPassion?

A friend of mine asked me who I'm endorsing for President. I answered that I haven't endorsed anybody yet, and that even if I supported someone, I'm definitely not important enough to call it an endorsement.

Anyway....

I supported McCain in 2000, and I think in retrospect, we probably would have been better off with him (or, virtually anybody else!) I really didn't like at the time how the party lined up behind Bush. If you recall, there really wasn't much of a Republican primary, as Bush Jr. leveraged family and party connections to lock up the nomination without any serious debate. I wonder if McCain would have selected Jeb Bush as VP. Would have been a good combination.

I think my interest in McCain at the time was driven not by any particular McCain stance, but rather I thought he would make a good leader, which is still true. But, in the meantime, I've studied McCain a bunch since then, and I'm underwhelmed - not in a Rush Limbaugh/Ann Coulter "he's not a REAL Republican" sort of way. Instead, I'm really turned off by his expansive government/anti-Libertarian views. He hasn't met a problem that wouldn't be solved with more government or otherwise extend government management at the expense of market solutions or civil liberties. I think he'd continue many of Bush's policies, and looking forward, I see him extending government authority in the emerging environment and energy policy areas. (I'm OK with his approach to health care. I may be the only person in biotech that thinks legalizing drug reimportation and biogenerics might be a good idea.)

Oh, and I'm frightened by his professed lack of understanding of economic issues.

But, there's at least one scenario where I'd pull the lever for McCain: an election vs Hillary Clinton.

If I dislike McCain's views due to their heavy reliance on the government, I absolutely HATE the policies espoused by Hil. She really lost me in '93-'94 with her first attempt at health care reform. I'm not upset that she led the effort, or anything like that, but rather that her solution was a power-grab by the government. She's learned to use new terms, but her and her policy haven't changed. Consider her anti-free trade rhetoric, and her bottomless bag of government pablum (like the $5,000 baby bonds idea).

I'm also completely turned off by her distorted campaign rhetoric. 35 years of experience? Are those dog years? (Did you realize, btw, that Obama has more years of elective office than Hillary. Interesting that Obama doesn't really engage Clinton on the issue of experience.)

And, to be honest, I'd really like the Clintons to just go away. They embody a polarizing, cutthroat, unconstructive attitude, and I believe, held back America during the Clinton presidency. (Yes, many have fond memories of the Clinton presidency, but I find it very hard to identify any big and successful Clinton-driven initiatives or advances. The economy generally went well, and as a result government finances were good, but I'm not in the camp that says that whoever is in the White House has a big effect on the economy. The boom of the late '90's was driven by tech spending and increasing globalization, not because of any Clinton wizardry. Don't believe me? Read this great article @ US News.)

Which brings me to my current infatuation with Obama. He's a breath of fresh air, a new attitude, new voice, and a fresh start after 20 years of Bush-Clinton.

I'm a believer, and voted for him in the Virginia primary.

I really, really, really don't agree with many of his policies, but I believe that he'd get a bit more centrist once in office, and I think that he'd have a good, balanced conversation before enacting any of his most dramatic policy plans. (Unlike Clinton, who in her haste to enact her policies would look to steamroll opposition, eventually leading yet again to a polarized polity.)

However, it should be noted that there really aren't many policy differences between Clinton and Obama There is, though a tremendous difference in how each candidate would act on a daily basis. Clinton is first and foremost a manager, while Obama is a leader, and I'll take a leader over a manager for President. (Here's a bit more on the Clinton/Obama manager/leader differences.)


I haven't figured out with certainty what I'd do in a McCain/Obama clash. My current expectation would be to vote for Obama, but this could change pending further exposure to Obama, or if McCain selects a VP that gets me excited. (My favorite, and the guy that I've been touting as a Presidential candidate for several years is Mark Sanford, governor of South Carolina. I've been a fan of his since his time in Congress as one of the "Contract With America" Congressmen.


In the end, my real preference would be to forgo choosing a candidate and instead vote for a result: gridlock resulting from one party holding Congress, and the other in the Oval Office. This result would limit the growth of the size of government, and defuse either party proposing wide-ranging and very wrong solutions for health care, energy, and the environment.

Clinton/Obama::Manager/Leader

Some interesting writings generated by the Clinton/Obama experience debate that riff on the difference between managers and leaders. A commenter on the article linked above ("Katie") offered this very accurate juxtaposition of managers and leaders.

Manager vs. Leader:
A manager takes care of where you are; a leader takes you to a new place.
A manager deals with complexity; a leader deals with uncertainty.
A manager is concerned with finding the facts; a leader makes decisions.
A manager is concerned with doing things right; a leader is concerned with doing the right things. A manager’s critical concern is efficiency; a leader focuses on effectiveness.
A manager creates policies; a leader establishes principles.
A manager sees and hears what is going on; a leader hears when there is no sound and sees when there is no light.
A manager finds answers and solutions; a leader formulates the questions and identifies the problems.

Likewise, Nicholas Kristof in the NYT talks at length about the experience debate. Two points from his article stand-out:

1) generally, Presidents with loads of political experience tend to disappoint (think Nixon), while Presidents with little political experience tend to be great (think Teddy Roosevelt (2 and a half years combined experience as Governor and US VP) or Abraham Lincoln (1 term in the House of Representatives)).

2) there is tremendous irony that as Bill Clinton campaigned for President in '92 he made a point of highlighting his lack of experience in DC, in contrast to GHW Bush, saying '“The same old experience is not relevant.” He suggested that the most useful training comes not from hanging around the White House and Congress but rather from experience “rooted in the real lives of real people” so that “it will bring real results if we have the courage to change.”'

One more appeal for Colin Powell

Jim Lehrer (PBS) interviews Colin Powell sometime in the last year or so. Powell speaks eloquently about the US presence in Iraq (and very politely separates himself from GW Bush), reminding me of just what a solid candidate for President Colin Powell would be.

Give this a listen to hear what an erudite leader sounds like, and also what informed, but apolitical opinion sounds like.

One last try, before the primary season slips away: Powell for President!



as a side note, when did generals stop running for higher office? Sure, Wesley Clark tried in '00, but he's a flake. We've had guys like Ike, Grant, Jackson, and Washington. In general (pun intended), I'd much rather have a President who's background was leading troops than someone who's background follows an arc from lawyer to politician (Biden, the Clintons, Dodd, Edwards, Guiliani, Hunter, Obama, Thompson) (Or worse: theologian to politician (Huckabee.))

%$&*%^ you, Iowa!

Apparently, the thoughtfulness and wisdom that you Iowans applied to the Democratic Caucuses was all used up by the time of the Republican Caucuses. I can't believe that after all of the scrutiny during the last few months, you decided upon an ineffective shyster who's primary selling point is his relationship with God.

All exit polls suggest that the Iowa Caucuses was simply an endorsement of Huckabee by evangelicals. What a horrible way to select a President!

I understand that it was a vote for commonly held values, and I appreciate the sentiment, but what about the candidates' capabilities, and intent (policies)? What about the policies that resulted from the current President's reliance on his relationship with God?

In selecting Huckabee, you've voted that you believe that the typical social debates (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) are more important that more tangible debates (Iraq, fiscal sanity, etc.)

While I may share some social policy positions with the Iowa evangelicals, I'm less interested in trying to break un-breakable deadlocks like the abortion debate, and more interested in addressing the issues that affect me and most Americans on a daily basis, and which definitely have a more tangible impact on the future of America. (Perhaps I'm underselling moral imperatives, but I believe that imposing some gay marriage solution (of any type) means less to America's future than, say, a free trade agreement with South America, solving the pending social security insolvency, or reforming the tax code.)

Any casual analysis of Huckabee's record indicates its' as thin as his veneer. But even if Republican voters see through Huckabee, they are still setting the party up to lose in '08 unless the primary election is less focused on God, and more focused on the tangible issues of today. (Though I can understand why the party is reluctant to spend any time talking about the issues of today. After all, is there ANYTHING good to be said about the involvement in Iraq?)

Thank you Iowa!

Thank you, Iowa, for your loud vote for change, and for validating a promising Presidential candidate in the Caucuses earlier this week. Your vote for Senator Obama anointed a dynamic candidate as a welcome agent of change, and in doing so, made a bold statement that makes me feel good about America (and the dynamic candidate isn't even someone I expect to vote for!)

With your selection of Senator Obama, you voted against the politics of the last ~15 years - confrontational, partisan, bitter, spin-filled, and largely vacant. You voted for someone who understands that the President should be a leader first, and a policy wonk second. You voted that good personal traits, charisma, and a positive vision trump "experience*," connections, and a slick political machine.

You didn't vote for someone who thinks they have the perfect resume for the job, because you know that President isn't a job to be applied for. You know that great Presidents aren't elected based on their resume (think Lincoln).

You weren't afraid to ignore the party machine - perhaps you were motivated to vote AGAINST the machine.
You weren't afraid to ignore the candidate managed by consultants and pollsters in favor of the genuine agent of change.
You weren't seduced by a disingenuine Washington-insider railing against lobbyists and corporate interests.

Because of your vote in the Caucuses, the primary is now less of a coronation, more of a contest to pick the better person, and happily less of a contest of dueling policies.



* Sen. Clinton loudly trumpets her experience, even saying she has 35 years of public service. (Anyone think working at a corporate law firm is public service?) But seriously, can anyone point to one significant success associated with Sen. Clinton? Feel free to list 'em in the comments section for my benefit.