With just weeks remaining before ballots are cast in the Iowa caucuses, both of the favorites are struggling, for a reason which will be a huge determining factor in choosing our next president.
New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney led their Iowa races until falling into second place recently. Both are both strong candidates who might just simply be stuck in the wrong election year. The voters want someone who will play it straight with them, be blunt if need be, and not tailor their message for each audience. It's not the year for the traditional politician. Better to be rumpled and speak with clarity in 2007 and 2008 than to have a $400 haircut and be labeled as a flip-flopper.
Clinton, of course, has been the Democratic heir apparent practically since her husband left office in 2001. Romney made a conscious decision to sink his time and resources into Iowa and New Hampshire and hope to catch the same breeze that carried John Kerry to the Democratic nomination in 2004. Both accordingly had substantial leads in the first few months of the campaign before falling behind Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
Clinton's lead has shrunk sharply in New Hampshire, site of the first real primary -- in fact a new poll today shows Obama in front in the Granite State. Romney remains ahead comfortably there in what is essentially his backyard, but is still not gaining much traction with voters elsewhere (which could change as he's done well in his last two debates and gained an endorsement from the iconic conservative magazine National Review).
So things aren't well in either camp.
What you hear about mostly with Clinton is planted questions and whether anyone really likes her, and Romney's battle to get his religious beliefs past evangelical conservatives. But those aren't the problems. Symptoms, maybe, but not the problem itself.
From Clinton and Romney, the feeling too often is that you're getting what they think you want to hear so you'll voter for them. Clinton is famous for taking varying stances on issues depending on the makeup of her audience. Romney comes across as too slick by half and hasn't been able to shake his flip-flops on social issues. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who has some of the same "social issue issues" as Romney, has tackled them straight on from the beginning and has not paid the same price.
Core values. Plainly spoken. That's what people want to see.
Very simply put, they might be the right people for their party, but they've come along at the wrong time in history. Hillary Clinton had two terms of exposure to the White House. Romney had been a blazing success at nearly everything he's attempted. You can't knock either one. But when voters want a candidate who will tell you how they really see it, Clinton and Romney will get left behind.
---
It's so darn early in the campaign season that predictions remain hard to make, but I'll try some.
I think both of the current beneficiaries of the Clinton-Romney struggles, Obama and Huckabee, are flashes in the pan. Polling still shows Hillary with an 18 percentage point lead nationally, so I'm suspecting that she will more likely than not hold onto her claim for the Democratic nomination.
Her key states are South Carolina and Florida, which follow hard on Iowa and New Hampshire. She's nearly blown a double-digit lead over Obama in South Carolina just in the past week or so. She's ahead by 30 points in the Sunshine State. If that advantage starts to crumble, watch out. Remember my post about piling on Hillary? If Florida starts to give way, she's in big, big trouble.
Huckabee has shot into big leads in Iowa and South Carolina, while Giuliani continues to hold a huge Florida advantage. Romney maintains that wide edge in New Hampshire. Certainly a mixed bag. As stated in a previous post, I think the races in both parties will come down to the later primary states, especially on the Republican side.
The mathematical losers in Huckabee's rise have been different in each of the early-voting states. In Iowa, it's Romney whose lost support. In New Hampshire and Florida, Thompson has suffered. South Carolina, Romney and Giuliani about the same. Nationally, the Huck vote has come at the expense of Giuliani and Thompson.
However, things are in flux. The past 10 days have seen a barrage of fire aimed at Huckabee from his opponents and the conservative press. It could take some time for those attacks to seep into the polls. We should know by Christmas if Huckabee has some real staying power with voters.
Dark horse? Thompson. If he's been hurt by Huckabee's rise, he might gain by his potential fall. If Romney fails to turn his recent debate performances and National Review endorsement into solid support, the plain-spoken actor could find himself back on Giulian's heels by the time Super Tuesday rolls around.
---
It's taken a while to make sense of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear aims, but I think some things are becoming clear.
At first, you heard from the left a lot of anti-Bush and "see, Iran never was a threat and, by the way, neither was Iraq!" comments; from the right "no way" and "it must be the anti-war on terror crowd within the CIA at work again."
But thoughtful analysis from some smart people have led to three conclusions about the NIE's judgment on Iran:
1. The writers have high confidence that Iran suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003, but only moderate confidence that such work has not resumed since. It is what it is.
2. Iran continues its work on enriching uranium, for whatever reason. Once it succeeds, then whenever it decides to resume its weapons program, it won't be too far from having a bomb.
3. If the NIE is indeed accurate, then it's actually not an anti-Bush document at all. Instead, highly pro-Bush. The report suggests Iran stopped its weapons program because of international pressure. And what major pressure took place in 2003? The U.S. invasion of Iraq, right next door. The same event that caused Libya to cut ties to terrorism and end its own weapons of mass destruction programs, that forced Saudi Arabia to get tough with al Qaeda in its own country and eased Syria's grip on Lebanon.
The NIE was huge when it first came out. Still is. But in such a situation, best to ignore the immediate hysteria and wait for the cautious analysis to come out over the next few weeks.
The NIE is what it is. No more and no less.
