The Iowa Caucases: What do you think?

[misterd]

And for the record, I'm a moderately conservative GOP voter and New Yorker. I like most of the GOP field (or at least those left - I never liked Brownback or Tancredo). I lean towards Rudy, but would be happy with McCain and Romney. Paul is not well tethered, and Huckabee just seems like Bush with a better tongue.

Romney is the one I feel is the most competet, the best problem solver - if he can get elected. A more savvy version of Kerry, but with many of Kerry's weaknesses too (flip-flops, money, Massachusettes "liberal"). Add in the Mormon thing, and I'm not sure he'd be able to beat superstars like Hillary or Obama (though he'd eat Edwards for lunch).

Fred? I like him when I see him, but am not sold on his ability to be an effective leader. He manages to appeal to the religious base without really alienating those of us who are more secular. But being a good spokesperson is just not enough.

Rudy is the wild card - he'd chase away many traditional GOP voters (though they may return to the fold if he ran against Hillary), but he'd also put California, New York, Pensylvania, and New Jersey into play (among others). Win just one of those,and the election is likely over. (As for experience, some denigrate him as "just a mayor", but remember that NYC has a larger population than a great many states).

But McCain is the guy who would be toughest for the Dems to beat. He's done some things I disagree with (notably the campaign finance reform bill), but he's too established as a bipartisan guy and too respected as a veteran for the Dem candidate to attack effectively. He very much seems to be most GOP voters second choice (and his opponents go out their way to salute his service in the debates), and so as the "least worst" option could easily take a convention fight. Either Rudy or Thompson would make a solid VP pick (Rudy for the electoral strategy, Fred because he has broad appeal to the base, even if they aren't sold enough to give him the top spot).

As for the Dems, I respect Hillary's abilities but dislike her and her policies (though thats' going to be true of most of the Dem policies). I was impressed with how quickly she learned the issue in NY for her Senate run, and don't feel she's been a terrible sentaor. However, I don't see that she's actually done much in the Senate (that is, if another Dem were in her seat I don't believe the state or nation would be any different), and really has not be challenged in an election (Rudy dropped out the first time due to health issues, and this is such a Dem heavy state she was able to win without much resistance. And she really never got grilled by reporters either). It seems to me that we have been conditioned to think of a "Clinton Legacy" presidence as far back as 1992 (yes, people were talking about President Hillary then, though in more joking terms), and it seems her entire candidacy is based on inevitablity. If she falters in Iowa and New Hampshire (as seems more and more likely, though the Bhutto assassination may inadvertantly help her), the justification for her support disappears, and I'm not sure she will recover. Moreover, she is just too dominant a person, with too many negatives, for a strong candidate to name as VP.

Edwards rubs me the wrong way, though he would actually be the candidate I'd most want to face as I don't think he's half as slick as he appears. He was supposed to be the "not Hillary" candidate, but he's lost that vote to Obama, and I'm not sure his blue-collar support will be enough to carry him to the nomination unless both Obama and Hillary falter substantially. And after Kerry (and what was said about Edwards after that campaign ended), I don't see him getting the VP nod either.

Obama is a star, and I can see his appeal. Unlike Hillary or Edwards, I wouldn't hate losing to him in a general election - though again I would likely disagree with many of his policies, I can respect him personally. I just think he's not ready for the big stage yet. Had he not done so well, this could have been a good platform to VP or at least for a future Pres run, but now he becomes a dangerous VP pick (risks overshadowing the nominee), but if he wins and falters in the general election (which again I think is likely due to his inexperience), he may never get another shot. Then again, if there is anyone out there who could go from State Senator to President in just 4 years, it would be Obama. My question is who would he take as a VP pick? Edwards and Hillary are out IMO. Richardson seems to have spent all his sucking up chips on Hillary. Get someone too experienced and he risks being overshadowed. Strategically, Ohio governor Strickland would have the best chance to tip the electoral scale (most other big states are already blue, or hopelessly red), and he has a reputation for pulling republican support, which would tie into Obama's "heal the divide" theme.