Romney Knows the Future

Via Media Matters:

An ABCNews.com article quoted Mitt Romney attacking Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's health care policy, but did not note that Romney was attacking a plan that he had not yet seen, nor that as governor of Massachusetts, Romney endorsed a law requiring residents to purchase health insurance.

Romney attacked the plan on the 16th, but the plan wasn't released until the 17th (today). Ms. Clinton's plan is posted on her website. Many of the leading republican candidates know that Democrats will try to move the debate in '08 to domestic policy instead of focusing purely on foreign policy (like 2004). This could be a good thing for Democrats, as Republicans have been focusing their efforts on weakening their opponents arguments instead of making any definite plans for themselves. Republicans, focus on yourselves, leave the Democrats alone until after the primaries. Build a strong stance on the issues that voters will deem important instead of merely choosing to side with or against Bush on his Iraq policies. Voters have started to care less and less about Iraq as it seems to make no progress in any direction. Voters will begin to realize that Republicans are going to need to bring a thought out domestic program to the table before they will be able to persuade anyone on their foreign policy's merits.

Experience or Change?

Via NY Times:

Voters are almost equally divided over which is more important, with 41 percent citing fresh ideas and 44 percent citing experience.

But, the survey also indicated that voters think Mrs. Clinton is “more qualified” and “has a much better chance of becoming president.”

Mr. Obama has been trying to capitalize on his fresh-thinking approach, hoping it will resonate with voters. [...]

Six of the Democratic candidates took part in a forum organized by the Iowa Federation of Labor in Waterloo, Iowa. The Quad-City Times reports that the Democrats spoke about issues important to American workers and “stayed away from personal attacks”

It almost makes you think that democracy could work, doesn't it? The biggest difference between the democratic front-runners is not race or gender despite what the media wants; the biggest difference is experience against change. Ms. Clinton has touted her time as first lady and tenure in the senate as her main examples of superiority over the other candidates, yet she has not seemed to take a strong stance on many of the issues that so many progressives want her to take. Obama, on the other hand, is much less experienced in federal politics, having joined Congress in 2005 (elected in 2004). Obama, however, has used that to his advantage by pointing that he is not a "normal" politician, but an agent of change from "business as usual". This country has been harmed deeply by Bush and his administration's "business as usual" take on government.

This could be accomplished by someone with experience in the system that knows how to change things, or this could be accomplished by an agent of change who is knew to the scene. We'll see which one the American people want once the primaries finish. (...go Gore!)

The Nuclear Option

Via NY Times:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has criticized Senator Barack Obama for saying he would rule out using nuclear weapons to root out terrorists in Afghanistan or Pakistan, made a similar comment regarding Iran last year, before she became a presidential candidate.

“I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table,” Mrs. Clinton told Bloomberg Television in an interview in April 2006 [...]

Phil Singer, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, said she was responding to a specific news report at the time that the Bush administration was considering nuclear strikes on Iran. The context, he said, was different than the scenario raised last week by Mr. Obama.

“Senator Clinton was not talking about a broad hypothetical nor was she speaking as a presidential candidate,” Mr. Singer said.

Well, the "flip-flop" and double standard comments are sure to come soon. While nuclear weapons cause horrible consequences, it surely stops pretty much any nation from doing what they're doing. As much as I dislike saying it, Hillary Clinton is wrong in both of these cases. In Obama's circumstance, it is not a nation we would need to attack, it is a group hiding in mountains. Even a well aimed nuke would not stop a group that is not necessarily reliant on a command structure. If anything, an attack like that would show desperation and embolden our enemies. With Ms. Clinton's situation it is a nation, and I believe nothing should be removed from the table in that situation.

Negative Clinton

Via Media Matters:

...NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell referred to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finding that 39 percent of respondents said they "feel positive" toward Clinton on the issue of her "warmth and compassion," while 30 percent said they "feel negative." Saying that Clinton's "negatives are still so high on warmth and compassion," Mitchell asserted that Clinton "has to show some personality and some likability, because she really has to show that she's approachable and a little bit softer than she's been in the past."

Well, I guess that's reasonable, and, obviously, it is something candidates have to pay attention to, but I guess it's just disappointing that this kind of thing is so important to a campaign. I would rather see a president that I can respect from a distance and that I feel will be authoritative than someone who I want as a friend.