Why Hillary must get a tap on the shoulder

The Democratic race has produced an extraordinary phenomenon. It effectively has two front runners in Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both splitting roughly equal portions of the vote. Aided by the proportional distribution of most of the delegates, neither candidate has made a decisive break. The Republicans have helped too, by closing many of their primaries to independent voters. These independents largely throw in their lot to the inclusive candidacy of Obama.

Because of Clinton's ability to hang on in the key states of California and New York, on the back of her position as junior New York senator and a large swag of Hispanic voters, she has held the tide against Obama's guerilla strategy, targeting caucases, individual voting districts and smaller, less-Clinton friendly states in the south and mid-west. The closeness of the race means it may be decided by the super-delegates, aka party bosses from each state, on the Democratic Convention floor. However, with the Republican nomination all but settled in favour of the combative John McCain, it is in the Democrats' interests to line up behind their best contender and begin the general election campaign in earnest. Otherwise, the Democrats will be like triathletes stuck in the transition zone while the Republicans have swept away in the next leg. The man best equipped to pilot them to victory is Obama.

On paper, Clinton may appear the stronger candidate, but those strengths are either ephemeral or negated by the dynamics of the electoral system. She has won in New York, California and Florida, although New York and California are solidly Democratic while Florida was not contested by Obama. Her core constituency is women and blue-collar Democrats, although none of these groups has delivered her victory in the south against Obama's black voting bloc. It would be even less likely to make a difference against the Republican evangelicals. Whereas Hillary would maintain the base, she has the major drawback of appearing toxic to independents and a motivating force for the Republican machine.

Obama by contrast, inspires large numbers of additional black and young voters to the polls. He does well in the middle ground with independents and may even turn the odd Republican. His victories have come in mainly Republican states, and he may spring surprises in states like Kansas, South Carolina and Louisiana if given the nomination. His big drawback is with the Hispanic vote, which delivered a number of delegates to Clinton in Nevada and California. A ticket with the Hispanic Governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, may cure this defect to some extent. Richardson also has gubernatorial, government and foreign affairs experience, having been Bill Clinton's Energy Secretary and Ambassador to the UN.

Such a ticket would give the Democrats a powerful team, free from the Clinton acrimony of the past yet benefitting from its experience. It would be well-placed to win in Florida, for instance, and encourage a high turnout of blacks throughout the largely Republican-held south and mid-west. With doubtful evangelicals and conservatives offering lukewarm support to McCain, the Democrats have an opportunity to break back in to their old heartland and weave a new coalition between the progressive north and west and the religious south.

Win California, win the Presidency?

California is perhaps the one last key contest of the primary season. Merged into the hyperbolically renamed 'super duper Tuesday', where twenty-two states pledge their delegates, it remains a pivotal state in determining the outcome of the race, particularly on the Democratic side.

Since Bill Clinton's election in 1992, California has moved from swing-state to firmly Democratic. Two factors have produced this change. Firstly, demographic change in the form of a massive rise in the Latino population, who predominantly vote Democrat. This has been butressed by the centralisation of the party under Clinton and Gore. However, the picture is complicated by the trend away from registration among many on the left of the party and by the election of the popular Governor Schwarzenegger, a Republican, taking votes from the right. Even though 85% of voters in the San Francisco area voted for Kerry's Democratic ticket in 2004, only 50% of voters were registered Democrats.

Conventional wisdom says that California should be a Clinton walkover. The big question is will those disenchanted leftists turn out for her, or will they favour Obama. Obama faces a similar quandary as he needs a decent swag of the 35% Latino vote to get elected, and be competitive in the New York primary. Even union endorsement in Nevada did not get Obama over the line as many Latinos broke ranks on racial lines and supported Clinton. Even if Obama can pick up white voters here, his problems with the other, largely unreported racial clash of American society make capturing the nomination difficult.

McCain's libertarian streak and opposition to illegal immigration reform make him a chance to pick up significant crossover support in the general election. However, Republicans will not permit independents to vote in the Republican primary which means this effect will remain camouflaged until November. He will also have Governor Schwarzenegger in his camp, which must surely increase his chances on capitalising on any resentment either across race lines with Obama or party lines with Clinton. This prohibition will increase Obama's vote, but it will probably not be sufficient to carry the day.

Based on a cursory reading of the demographic and political trends in California, this blog suspects that Clinton will win a reasonably close contest, with Obama's support assisted by a large swag of independents. McCain should win the Republican primary with Huckabee splitting the small conservative bloc from Romney. As for November, an early prediction is that Clinton will hold the party numbers, but California will be a closer contest than in the past few elections.

The New Segregationists

Heath Ledger's premature death is a tragedy for his family and for his many fans, colleagues and admirers of his work. Who knows what masterly performances he may have given us, with some acclaiming him to be a young Jack Nicholson. A further tragedy is the bizarre behaviour of the Westboro Baptist Church, who plan to picket Ledger's funeral on the basis that he was a 'fag-enabler' through his role in Brokeback Mountain. These petty-minded firebrands are making a mockery of the American ideals of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. One presumes that when Reagan and Bush went on ad infinitum about 'freedom', that was what they had in mind.

The Westboro insurgents present the Christian Right and those seeking its support for their presidential ambitions with a choice. They can draw a line in the sand and say that these proclaimed defenders of decency are a blight on civil society or they can adopt a craven position of expedient acquiesence. Westboro's rhetoric is reminiscent of the criticism levelled against whites who sympathised with oppressed blacks, a newspeak rendering of 'nigger-lover', a term so loaded in American discourse it can only be printed as 'n*****'. However taking a firm hand against such abuses does not seem to be on the agenda in a political climate where no one even mentions Governor Huckabee's evocation of the Confederate flag issue - code for slavery and all manner of inhumanity - during his South Carolina campaign.

In fact, the entire project of the Christian Right is reminiscent of the old segregationists. Segregationist policy was premised on Jim Crow laws mandating 'separate but equal' treatment for black and white. This fudge meant that as long as one provided facilities for both black and white patrons, one complied with the language of equality. In reality, Jim Crow was a vehicle to hide racist policy behind a legalistic veneer, upheld by the US Supreme Court for nearly sixty years. The Christian Right's shameless manipulation of its churches to deliver electoral success evokes such as a legalistic fudge. Under the Internal Revenue Code, churches can only retain tax-exempt status by not endorsing or opposing specific candidates. To get around this injunction, many churches publish the equivalent of how-to-vote guides detailing candidates positions on a broad range of issues. However, the key vehicle is the use of questions on abortion and marriage. The last US election was held in conjunction with marriage-related referenda in at least a dozen states. The implicit aim was to encourage voter turnout on these issues and hence maximise Republicans chances of re-election nationwide.

Interestingly, the only instance this blog has noted of criticism being levied at a church for involvement in politics was against an anti-war rector. However, not satisfied with this position of formalistic legality, Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma proposed amending the law in 2006 to allow churches to endorse candidates and maintain tax-exempt status. If such proposals were to come to pass, the American political system may look more like the Puritan English Commonwealth of Cromwell than the Jeffersonian Republic.

Republican primaries - a race where the first prize is defeat?

It is now a truth universally acknowledged that the US Presidential election is a race in want of a frontrunner. The Republicans want to find someone who fits their base and electability conditions in the mould of Bush (the Younger), while the Democrats desire a latter-day (Bill) Clinton. The irony is that the very models themselves are the subject of widespread opprobrium.

From Peregrine's distant vista, it appears that American voters favour candidates with gubernatorial experience. Being a governor requires a blend of popular familiarity and demonstrated competence. This dynamic is probably indicative of hardening party allegiances and the role of mega-media campaigning, replete with brief images and soundbite policy snippets. Senators rely on building local rapport within their state, but not so much on the machinery of electioneering. Many occupy their seats forever. Senators read an awful lot of legislation, but do not actually run much outside their own election. Note that two of the Democrats, Obama and Edwards have a net total of two terms of senatorial experience.

Of course, the American course of electoral honours only has so much influence on the voters. Beneath that litmus test of ability come a multitude of other issues. Race, religious persuasion, moral values and management and military credentials all feed in to determine voter allegiance, both for and against. Given the incredible diversity of the US, a race without a clear candidate that fits the profile is bound to throw up all sort of electoral college permutations. Add the issue of fundraising and the picture is further complicated.

The Republican electoral machine relies on a large number of poor whites voting on racial and religious lines against their own economic interests. With the entry of illegal immigration into the electoral mix, race issues are bound to come to the fore in the manner that gay marriage brought religious issues to the surface. Huckabee, Romney and Thompson are in battle for these votes, a battle Huckabee is winning. However, Thompson's presence in the race should dilute Huckabee's advantage and keep McCain's conviction and experience platform running. If Thompson drops out, Huckabee will get a lot more votes from the Republican base.

Romney's strategy to run on the economy (and target the empty fields of Wyoming and Nevada) means his true opponents are probably McCain and Guiliani. Guiliani and Romney have a lot of money to roll into campaigning, whereas McCain is on a tightrope given his poor showing. One thing is clear: Guiliani must get close in Florida otherwise he will simply lack the numbers. McCain needs to capitalise on his media attention to convince enough self-interested Republicans that he is electable.

Following the gubernatorial formula, Romney becomes a dark horse, although his candidacy depends on acceptance of his widely-commented Mormon faith. If he can overcome this prejudice, which is pretty unlikely given the depth of feeling among evangelicals, a Democrat victory would be assured because their energised turnout would easily overcome a lukewarm base. Hence he will not win the nomination. Huckabee's position depends on him winning states like Florida and Texas, because he has not got a candle in the west or north-east.

The big question is will McCain have enough money to take on a fresh foe in Guiliani. Romney and McCain will probably have to win either California or Florida to offset Guiliani's appeal in the north-east. Despite looking for all purposes dead, Guiliani's decision to conserve his energies gives him a good chance to gain late momentum. But he must convert Florida. One suspects that McCain, having campaigned hard and got a lot of attention, will hold Guiliani on national security. A poor finish by McCain in Florida would be dangerous, a poor finish for Guiliani could be catastrophic.

One interesting point is that Guiliani's moral record, Romney's Mormonism and McCain's bipartisanship make all of them dubious propositions in the South, where the majority of Republican states lie. Huckabee's popularist policy makes him a hot potato for Northern Republicans enconscened in Wall Street. Thompson, the other conservative white meat, lacks the vigour for a full tilt campaign. It appears the Republicans best chance lies with McCain: the maverick may finally get to have a tilt at the Democrats.

If McCain is the nominee, he will face hesistant supporters unconvinced on his social and moral stands, and against the tide on immigration. The Democrats will be waiting to avenge the Bush years, typified by the Bush debacle.

None of the above makes a late run to challenge Hillary

The extraordinary machinations that make up the American political system may be about to turn the strangest result of all. In the bid to gain relevance, states have moved their primaries ever forward to the point where practically the entire race will be decided on one afternoon. The piqued Democratic and Republican parties have responded to this by penalising a number of states their seats at the September conferences to elect their party nominees. One such state is Michigan, which being without either historical or democratic reasons for its early primary, has provoked the Democratic party into voiding its entire one-hundred and fifty-six delegate representation. As there are no votes on the floor available, Obama and Edwards have pulled out, while Clinton will not campaign. Voters have the option to vote 'uncommitted', which translates to 'none of the above'.

Obama and Edwards have hit upon the unique idea of rather than handing a cheap win to Clinton, or possibly even a nonentity such as Kucnich (however worthy his programme might be), they are advocating Democratic voters vote 'uncommitted'. Uncommitted seems the perfect word to describe an American polity where the Democrats are locked in an acrimonious struggle, while the Republicans have one frontrunner in hiding hoarding his campaign cash, one yet to win anything beyond the backwoods of Wyoming and two others seemingly at war with the party. If anyone knows how this lot will play out, please give me a call with next week's lotto numbers.

Peregrine now believes that Clinton and Obama represent a true generational contest between opposing schools of philosophical thought. Clinton stands for the first generation postmodernist school of feminist power, playing on her standing with women voters and the politics of struggle for minority rights dating back to the Civil Rights era. Obama stands for the second generation, post-identity politics. Rather than run as a black candidate, Obama is running as a Democratic idealist, a self-confessed 'hopemonger'. Interestingly, Obama's reaching across the black-white divide continues a trend begun by Bush, with his open appeal to Hispanic voters and promotion of Rice and Powell to the Secretary of State position.

On the Republican side, Huckabee represents the party's adoption of a predominantly Baptist support base taken to its logical conclusion. Or illogical conclusion if President Huckabee, the Baptist preacher, has to deal with Pakistan. A hokey name may be the least of his worries. McCain has finally begun to mention his role in backing climate change action, which must surely be his best card in being the surrogate Schwarzenegger. One suspects that Schwarzenegger may play a key role in McCain's election chances, particularly with the California primary. As a conviction politician, McCain may command as many votes from respect as outright support, as rivals such as Romney and Guiliani are severely lacking in this department.

Can Hillary Clinton discover her inner Rudd?

The new narrative of the US election is that Clinton is back. Obama's charge has been halted like the Ottoman conquest at the gates of Vienna and all is right with the logic of experience over aspiration. Except that the narrative changes so quickly it would dazzle a chameleon. Yes, Hillary Clinton did narrowly beat Barack Obama. There is much debate in the US over whether this was due to voter turnout among older women (very high for Hillary), much lower among young people (bad for Barack). One interesting stat is that exit polls state men voted 40/29 for Obama, which by my reckoning means that Hillary is going to have a big problem with the male vote.

My argument is that the mechanics of the actual result are less important than the core character of the campaign. Certainly Obama relies on a traditionally flaky set of demographics (young people and black voters), but by the same token he may be able to inspire energy in them to stand up and be counted when the candidacy is in doubt. The worst case for Obama is that his vote in Iowa was simply an echo of the Oprah effect, in which case he is in deep trouble against Clinton. Obama's big test will come in the Southern primaries and also depend on the involvement of Bill Clinton drawing on his traditional support from black voters.

There is an understandable tendency in the Australian media to compare Obama's campaign with Kevin Rudd's. Both on paper look like a serious of well-meaning, heartfelt statements centering on key themes. However, what comes across from the limited sampling of Obama's policies is that, even for an American audience, they are thin on the ground. Obama characters simply do not exist in Australian politics, because parties must at least run on something to gain election. Obama runs on hope, reclaiming the American dream and other appeals simultaneously to national pride and pesonal circumstance. It is reminiscent of 'the glory of Rome', although unlike Rome's clear pursuit of glory through military conquest, how Obama can lead America to that juncture remains unclear. Obama's success depends on no one actually questioning his credentials on issues such as Iraq, running as the anti-war candidate, or his comparative lack of experience in contrast to his opponents.

The real relevance of Rudd's success lies with Hillary Clinton. This blog last month described Clinton's candidature as like a Kevin07 reinvention without the self-deprecation. Faced with polls predicting oblivion (and a 10-15% loss would be oblivion), Hillary showed enough emotion to start rumours that she is actually a human being and not a political robot. Clinton is in an unusual position of being both the alternative and the figure of division. Turn her candidacy one way and she is the experienced, moderate force for change. Turn it the other and she is the reviled figure of Whitewater and Lewinsky, a sign of everything wrong with the morals of the nation. At the minute, Clinton's campaign is about the Democratic party base's belief in her electability. If she wins the nomination, the election could easily become a referendum on Clinton herself and the legacy of Bill Clinton.

In order to win this referendum, Hillary needs to show she has changed. She needs to demonstrate she is not the cold, calculating figure who apparently lacks the common touch of her husband. Rudd was similarly derided by his own party as someone the punters did not want a bar of. Now he is seen in the bar itself, partaking of a XXXX or two. The question remains whether Clinton's will for the presidency has clouded her intentions. If she can translate that will into a positive programme that can demonstrably illustrate how people's lives will be improved, she will go a long way towards curing the concerns over her past voting record and previous incarnation as Bill's wife. Clinton needs to demonstrate her private self-deprecating style in public, otherwise she runs the risk of becoming an American Simon Crean. Alas, poor Simon, was a personable man in person and in private, but in the glare of cameras came across like a rabbit in the headlights. Worse, a smarmy rabbit.

Crean engendered such desperation in his party that they replaced him with the risky and risk-taking Mark Latham. It is not beyond the realms that disenchanted Democrats would desert in droves to Obama. He would at least give them hope.

Wheels within wheels

Hillary Clinton's candidacy relies on the inevitability effect. It is the force by which a behemoth suffering from structural weakness relies to crush the hope of its opponents. Clinton has constructed this effect by a careful stage managing of her character, employing weather-vane voting behaviour in the Senate and occasionally relying on the star power of her tainted husband. She has seen the field cleared by sacrificing John Kerry in 2004 and now is her hour to triumph.

Except no one told Barack Obama. Obama is profiting from the fact that all modern campaigning is about image and perception. He is the candidate of change, not just from the Republican fiasco of Bush and his Caligulan extravagance, but from the Clinton-Bush/ red-blue polarisation. His transformative campaign has a second layer: running as the great unifier, he is seeking to reconcile the fissures done between traditional Democratic southerners and their northern counterparts over civil rights. Whereas Nixon and Reagan fashioned the Republican political realignment from the late 1960s onwards via harvesting evangelicals, Obama is seeking to bring back those lost souls and capitalise on the national disenchantment with the Bush regime.

Obama's win in Iowa at least proves that his brand of rhetoric can translate into votes. With non-compulsory voting, getting the vote out is about inspiring people to turn up, not just agree with the policies presented. Obama is already being compared to the Kennedy phenomenon and his credentials are pretty much on par with those mythological figures. It remains to be seen whether rhetoric alone can still win elections, but the flux on the Republican side means Obama has a strong chance if he does maintain his momentum.

On the other side of the fence, the Republican machine is heading for a crisis point. Its man appears to be Romney. Or is it Guilani? Does anyone know? How the Republicans thought backing a man from Massachuetts might be a good idea is anyone's guess, while Guilani is a polarising one-trick pony who alienates the bedrock 'Christian Right' support base. If he ran against Clinton, he would seriously dilute the anti-Hillary factor with his record of indiscretions. Romney is the slick campaigner whose very slickness highlights precisely what is wrong with a lot of modern politics. He has recanted on almost every position while he was governor and is throwing more mud than an errant four wheel drive. Given his inconsistency, he would be crucified by Obama, who at least is consistent if nebulous in his positions. Clinton's experience would probably outweigh Romney's lukewarm support among Republicans.

The Republicans have a machine designed to win power. They use religion to turn poorer evangelical voters against their own economic interests and support low-tax, pro-business policies. Edwards, the third candidate on the Democrat side, has picked up on the mass of underprivilege and run on improving the lot of these people. Huckabee, the self-propelled Republican governor, has picked up on this groundswell and is seeking to change the party's orientation from a pro-business to a pro-people party. His focus would be on small-town America. One suspects Huckabee would at least be competitive against Clinton and Obama, unless he comes across as a divisive figure. He would appear superior to Obama on his long serving record as Arkansas Governor, and is more likable than Clinton.

McCain has his own failings. A good old-fashioned conviction politican, the times do not suit him. He is not particularly enamoured with the CR base, who prefer candidates such as Huckabee and the positions stated by Romney and "Blokeman" Thompson. McCain could capitalise on his support for climate change action if he can gain traction, having supported a major bill on the issue. However that may only serve to remind Republicans of their wish to have Schwarzenegger as their nominee, whose profile, command of a traditional Democrat state and major status as a climate change statesman make him an imposing figure. As it is, McCain is best known for advocating an invasion of Iran. Having said that, his comments on increasing troop numbers in Iraq have been borne out over time, and if he can regain credibility with donors and the media, his campaign may yet make him competitive. A strong McCain candidacy is dangerous to both Clinton and Obama. McCain has the benefit of being a conviction politician against Hillary's hesistancy in the Senate, while he would look Obama look like a college sophomore.

On the basis of the above, Clinton's juggernaut needs to recover its momentum. However, her non-committal record and residual unpopularity from the Clinton years are major weaknesses ripe for exploitation. Obama sits in the middle of three political figures in the US Pantheon: Robert Kennedy (calls for idealism), George W Bush (next-door guy appeal) and Ronald Reagan (remaking old alignments, reaching out). Which one of those he ends up closest to in the American mindset may determine how far his campaign goes.

Trend still missing in campaign blizzard

Following on from this blog's recent reviewing of the US Presidential candidates, the situation is no more clear a month later.

Given the need for early momentum, it is imperative that candidates do well in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries. Except if you are Rudi Guiliani, who has figured that he has zero appeal in the smaller states and is better off pursuing a winner-take-all strategy in California, New York and Florida. Guiliani, while a formidable opponent does have a plethora of skeletons on public display and may be a tempting target for Democrats. Following his own tradition, John McCain is attempting to repeat his primary success over Bush in New Hampshire. However McCain has to have a win or a highly competitive second here otherwise other states may be less keen on him.

Competiting for the 'Christian Right' mantle are Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Romney and Huckabee have overwhelmed Fred "Blokeman" Thompson, but effectively split the CR vote three ways. Romney looks the more polished candidtate, but his campaign may be just a little slick and convenient given his 2007/08 conversion on big conservative issues like gun control and abortion. To evoke Holden Caulfield, Romney wants to be real careful those folks don't think he's a phoney. Otherwise he is roadkill. One would suspect that Romney will probably win in Iowa, picking up a fair swag of Guiliani's support while Thompson takes enough CR votes from Huckabee to push him down to second. Expect to see a lot of Huckabee - Romney or Huckabee - McCain preferences, given Huckabee is probably viewed as a wishful thinking candidate rather than a genuine election chance.

On the Democrat side, John Edwards represents the ideal candidate with Barack Obama running as the Kennedyesque counterpoint to Hillary Clinton's establishment figure. To elude to Le Tour, Clinton's breakaway campaign is getting reined in in the mountains of the Mid-west. Iowa is likely to give Edwards a large number of supporters due to his Southern charm. I suspect that Clinton will probably win with enough of Edwards' idealistic supporters swallowing the realism of Clinton's ticket and giving her their preference. Obama is a very good chance in New Hampshire, but the race remains very close with the presence of two front runners in Clinton and Obama drawing Edwards back into competition.

Bald eagle flys blind on election choices

Having seen the demise of the deputy, the quest (and it is a long and arduous journey, one half expects it to be directed by Peter Jackson) to find the global sheriff's replacement is on in, well, stage-managed, media confected earnest. Unlike our wonderful system of internal machinations, Americans are rather fond of ritually electing every position possible. Which brings us to the primaries.

Owing to the malignant albatross around Bush's neck, Dick Cheney, being the Vice-President and Condoleeza Rice showing no current interest in higher office following the 'pick up seashells' adventure in Iraq, the Republican candidature is about as clear as the chowder unfortunate candidates get served up on a myriad of campaign stops. So we have both the Republicans and Democrats running competitive primary races.

Both sides have apparent front runners. The Democrat juggernaut-in-chief is attached to one Hillary Clinton, Senator for New York. Curiously, the putative Republican frontrunner is former New York mayor Rudi Guiliani. Has some odd revolution occurred where people suddenly listen to the Yankee states again? Probably not, but the mid-term elections demonstrated the visceral hatred held for the Iraq deployment and disapproval at the abject presidency and behaviour of Congress.

Hillary's campaign is based around the idea that she is the professional, assured and experienced candidate from central casting. Peregrine's distant observation here is that it is Kevin07 without the self-deprecating humour. Hillary's rivals are Barack Obama, who seems to be trying to be the postmodern Kennedy with his appeals to a hope for a better America while being tough on terrorists, John Edwards, whose candidacy is towards the left of the US spectrum is the other frontline contender. Behind them are Bill Richardson, former energy secretary, US Ambassador to the UN and governor of New Mexico and Joe Biden, senator and haunter of foreign policy committees. Hillary's fanbase constitutes a solid bloc of Democrat voters in the larger states, but she has to rely on enough generic Democrats to feel she will provoke the Republicans marshalling to prevent her return to the White House. Hillary is viewed in the traditional Livia mould of the scheming hand behind the throne by her Republican adversaries.

In order to get the nomination, candidates need a coalescence of fundraising and consequent advertising capability and the ability to carry voter support in various states. On paper, Clinton and Obama are competing for the same solid Democratic areas on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, Edwards should pick up support in the Mid-West and the South and Richardson should do well in the South-West. Interestingly, Obama is doing better than Clinton in the Iowa polls. Peregrine suspects that the key factor will be whether nagging doubts about Obama's capability or concern over the polarising Hillary phenonmenon win the day.

On the Republican side...oh dear, oh dear. The party is wedded to bringing out the 'Christian conservative' vote for it to carry the day. The only reason the Republican party can ever even win a presidental election these days is because it relies on a lot of voters voting against their own economic interests. A big factor may well be the pain Iraq is causing to small town communities voting Republican. Early leader John McCain really won't do it again because of his hawkish attitude to Iran. After recent intelligence revelations, he is not likely to improve his ground. Rudi Guiliani has the 9/11 gravitas angle to run on, but has been accused of exploiting it. Not to mention his curious way with women (including one he announced his separation from via a press conference) which is not likely to endear him as a champion of family values. Still Guiliani does remain competitive as a moderate candidate with national security credentials.

Behind these two is the strange case of Mitt Romney, the Mormon who dare not speak his name about anything. On values, it is as though he took his paintball gun loaded with enlightened positions on abortion, gun control and taxation and traded it in for an NRA rifle, fully loaded with the views of the 'Christian Right' (or as Perergine prefers 'the Unchristian wrong'). Compared to Romney, the hapless Kerry was a model of consistency. Mitt might have a name for baseball but it is only the sheer apparent hopelessness of the Unchristian wrong's prospects that even led to his candidacy being taken seriously. What the Republicans really want is to have Schwarznegger run for president.

In the meantime, another Unchristian wrong pretender, Fred Thompson, was drafted to run. Fred reminds me of Comedy Inc's superhero Blokeman, who saves the day but doesn't work Sundays or me day off. Fred has a youthful wife who is a high powered operative, and is probably hoping to run as Messalina to Fred's Claudius. Only Fred seems by his lack of enthusiasm to be doing the pumpkinification for his opponents, even walking out of a campaign stop to eat a burger on his bus.

The search for a credible contender has led to Mike Huckabee, a hoky multi-term Governor of Arkansas. Huckabee is playing the Bush Trojan horse game of appearing folksy, conservative and ingenue. No he is not. A former Baptist minister, Huckabee espouses rejection of evolution and a flat tax policy. Huckabee has flown under the radar but one does wonder what the media might do with him once he gets into their sights.

Huckabee is going to do pretty well in the southern states. The critical question is whether he can eliminate Romney's plastic challenge and get into a direct fight with Guiliani. If he can, he has some hope of getting the nomination. If not, Guiliani has to be a strong chance.

When America finally votes, we will have some idea of the conviction the various campaigns have instilled in the voters.