Last year I changed my political affiliation from Republican to Independent. I decided I couldn't sign on to the platforms of either party and in the last several elections I voted for candidates in both parties. Because I'm not a Republican or Democrat, here in Utah I won't be able to vote in the Republican primary. The democrats will let me, however, so I'll be casting a vote for one of the democratic candidates. Below is my take on the race so far:
Hillary
A few weeks ago she was all but the inevitable Democratic nominee. Some of her debates haven't gone so well and her comment on issuing drivers licenses to illegal immigrants caused some concern and as a result she's slipped in the polls. Plus, a high percentage of voters really don't like her at all (some even use the word "hate"), so how she would perform in a general election is in doubt.
She proved herself as an able campaigner and she won over enough skeptical voters in more conservative upper New York to win the the state race for the senate. She also demonstrated an ability and willingness to compromise during her short tenure in the senate and I think she's more centrist than people give her credit for.
Barak
Weak on experience with only one short term in the senate. His comments about how he would handle complicated foreign policy issues have been vague and simplistic. His stump speeches can be powerful, but have also on occasion sounded canned and worn out. He is a breath of fresh air and an interesting candidate. He can really draw the crowds and is a hit with younger, professional demo's. We'll find out tonight if that translates to a hight turnout.
Edwards
His tirades against corporate greed and the insurance and drug companies are designed to resonate with an angry public, but he's only addressing some of the many problems in the health care mess. Coorprations are easy targets but their employees and stockholders are also voters. His other policy positions seem reasonable and well thought out. He's proving to be a better campaigner than I expected, but he's a little too much a pretty boy for my tastes.
BOTTOM LINE: It will be interesting to see what happens tonight in Iowa and next week in New Hampshire in this too close to call race. I could live with any of them as our next president and am leaning toward Hillary.
RomneyReally, how can a Mormon run for the presidency? I'm amazed by the anti Mormon bias being thrown about on blogs and even on national TV programs. That stuff would never fly if directed toward Jews, Muslims, blacks, or even catholics, but because so few Americans say they know a Mormon, it's tolerated.
Mitt is honorable and ethical, but seems a bit testy in his interviews and he does the typical politician dodge when asked an uncomfortable question. He has outspent all the other republican candidates in Iowa combined and is dead even in the polls with Huckabee, but there is some indication that Huckabee's surge is petering out and Romney is gaining strength.
McCain
In 2000, McCain was my man, but since then, his unflagging support for the war in Iraq, his age and crankiness have hurt him in the polls. As the war recedes as the defining issue in voters minds, McCain has been gaining in the polls. He has hardly campaigned in Iowa but is showing strong late support there and is about even in New Hampshire with Romney.
I like his independence and his willingness to take an unpopular stance at odds with his own party. Sticking to your guns however, is a trait he shares with the current occupant of the White House and we know where that has gotten us.
Giuliani
They called him the republican front runner last summer but I expected him to free fall from that position as voters took a closer look. Yes, he reduced crime and restored efficiency as mayor of New York and yes, he was a steadier in the traumatic days following 9/11, but look a little closer and you'll see he was a confrontational bully who was derided by many who worked with him. His judgment of character is in question and his personal life will repel conservative republicans if it hasn't already. I don't expect him to be much of a factor in the race except in Florida and maybe California.
Huckabee
He's funny and a natural campaigner, plays a mean bass guitar, and has made a tremendous impact with very little money and not much of an organization. Evangelicals are more comfortable with a baptist preacher than they are with a flip flopping Mormon but as he has gained strength in the polls, the penetrating eye of the national media has revealed his quirky stance on several issues (abolishing the IRS?) which may make him less of an attractive candidate to mainstream voters. I think he's hit his high water mark.
Thompson
The press has labeled him as lazy and he's having a hard time shaking that image. He waited too long to get in the race and that hurt him. Besides, what does he really bring to the table other than his status as a celebrity? Are republicans that desperate for another Hollywood actor? He's through as a serious candidate.
BOTTOM LINE
It's all much ado about nothing. Unless all the demo's implode there is little chance for a republican to gain the White House in 2008.
