Focus on John McCain

Many months ago, I explained why I'm so gravely disappointed with the veteran senator from Arizona whom I once respected (distinct from supported), so I won't repeat myself. Instead, I'll offer several predictions about John McCain and his likely role during this election season. They may not all prove correct, but at least one of them will come to fruition. That I can guarantee.

• McCain will be the GOP presidential nominee in 2008. Rudy Guiliani's campaign is now a relic because of some profoundly stupid strategies he employed from the beginning of the primary season (more on that in a future post). Speaking of stupid, that's exactly what Republicans would be to nominate Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee. Neither is electable by a long shot. And Ron Paul? He's the only true maverick candidate this election season; too bad he's even less viable than the two aforementioned. So, McCain it is. He's been climbing in state and national polls since he won New Hampshire. Plus, he's the only Republican who wouldn't be eaten alive by the Democratic contender in November.
• Upon clinching said nomination, McCain will make the Iraq disaster the centerpiece of his campaign. This would have been hard to picture just one year ago — indeed, a year ago I said McCain would never be given a second thought — but now, it's a given. In fact, it's already happening. He'll argue unrelentingly that he was "right" about the troop surge — that, simply because violence is down, the strategy can be labeled a success. This, of course, is pure nonsense — a distraction from a much larger problem we've created for ourselves — but, to my chagrin, many will agree with him. If you do, please contact me and we'll discuss over some stiff, strong drinks.
• He'll draw the support of many undecided and independent voters. There are two main reasons for this. One, of course, will be his sales job on his Iraq policy, which subtly if not explicitly equates reduced violence with a solution to our self-created catastrophe. The other will be the fact that he isn't Hillary Clinton. I hate to even entertain this notion, but unless the polls are completely wrong again — we all know they have been in the past — it appears she'll end up successfully purchasing the Democratic slot with her husband's help.
• He'll draw my support...never. I'll consider it a sad day in American politics if I'm forced to make a choice between John McCain and Hillary Clinton as the two viable candidates in this November's general election.

Housing and habits

Lately, I've been doing some apartment hunting in the area. I want to live much closer to downtown Seattle and, well, culture I wouldn't find in the neighborhood where I'm located now — a place where I'm able to hear a pin drop at 9 p.m. on Fridays and where the nightlife might include a trip to Borders Books for a cup of coffee and browsing. Anyone who knows me understands I'm not seeking a loud living environment replete with stumbling drunk people at all hours. Far from it. I simply want a place where there's opportunity to connect with the community — and opportunity to experience unique culture. That means no Red Lobster or Target.

So, I've been purusing Craigslist for listings of apartments, and more specifically, those who are seeking housemates in the area. It's actually been a very interesting process. I've discovered how much you can learn about local flavor simply by looking at these advertisements. In Seattle, there are several requirements for prospective housemates that people post very frequently — in fact, I'd say I've seen at least one of the below in each of the postings I've encountered:

• "Must be herb friendly"
• "Must be LGBT friendly"
• "Must be laid-back; no drama"
• "No drug abuse, but 420 is OK" (there's evidently a distinction made between the two)
• "Preferably artistic/creative/politically progresssive"
• "Clean, but not obsessive"

I guess the whole herb-friendly thing isn't that surprising; what's more so is the fact that it hasn't been limited to early-20s college students. I saw an advertisement from a household of mid-30s professionals who mentioned that criterion. Go figure. When you're searching for a place to live, it seems you learn about a lot more than just the housing itself.

Coffee wars

In the corporate world of coffee, Starbucks once stood alone. Now that it's facing stiff competition from new contenders, the java giant is desperately seeking ways to stay on top. One method being tested in Seattle-area stores recently is $1 cups of coffee that include free refills.

As an avid coffee drinker, I've never cared for Starbucks. Several people have asked me whether I go there more often now that I live near where the global giant originated. The answer is no. The corporation does not represent authentic Seattle coffee culture. Nor, for that matter, does Seattle's Best. Its name is a misnomer, the brews are also uninspiring, and the retailer is owned by — you guessed it — Starbucks.

Clearly, establishments that go corporate tend to sacrifice quality for quantity. Local roasters I've visited around here have been uniformly and drastically better than any of the chains (and they're clearly preferred by Seattleites). Interestingly enough, Starbucks once fit into this category. It began as a local cafe at Pike Place Market in downtown Seattle in the 1970s. I have a feeling its coffee tasted better in those days. I also have a feeling it was populated with more area residents than tourists, who today go there falsely believing they're experiencing authentic local culture. (At one time, it was; but today, the coffee you taste there is the same as the coffee you'd receive at a Starbucks in Shanghai or Paris.)

The coffee industry needs to follow the lead of the microbrewed beer movement. Local taverns and breweries once nearly rendered extinct by giants like Miller, Coors, and Anheuser-Busch have regained prominence all across the nation — much to my delight. Local coffee shops and roasters can do the same. I'm confident that, at the end of the day, they will.

Terrific weekend, terrible politics

I'm back from another great weekend in the Midwest, characterized by sub-zero temperatures — which, oddly enough, made me feel right at home — and the opportunity to see family and friends. If you're reading this and weren't among them, my sincere apologies. I tried diligently to see as many people as possible, but given the time constraints, I couldn't make contact with everyone. The time I did have, however, was spectacular. It reinforced my long-held belief that the friends I made during my time in Iowa are friends I'll have forever; and, of course, my family members in Illinois are a blessing beyond description. Thanks to everyone for a wonderful weekend.

Indeed, though my short trip was fabulous, the political dialogue I've heard recently between Democratic rivals Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has been anything but. On Jan. 13, when I enthusiastically endorsed the senator from Illinois, I praised him for operating a campaign centered on "unity, hope, and civility." In that regard, I've been somewhat disappointed with Obama lately. He's lowered himself to the level of bickering with his opponent — which, obviously, is par for the course in most political contests. But it causes particular disillusionment among supporters of a candidate who resorts to the very tactic he has identified as a problem in modern American politics. I still believe Obama is the best candidate for the presidency, and I stand by my endorsement as strongly now as I did when I wrote it. Nevertheless, I won't hesitate to criticize him for his missteps. He needs to get back on message and stop bickering. This doesn't mean he should ignore attacks from Clinton. It means he shouldn't allow them to pre-empt discussion of the real issues — or, worse yet, become issues of themselves.

Speaking of Clinton, she's hardly above reproach herself. Sometimes I can't remember whether it's Hillary or Bill running this year. (Have I uttered the word "dynasty" yet on this blog? Or perhaps the phrase "establishment politician?") The former president, to put it bluntly, needs to stay the hell out of Hillary's campaign. It does little for her credibility — or, for that matter, her contention that she would represent "change." This is all especially true considering the multiple outbursts he's had against journalists in the past week. Just stop, Bill. You're not making the discourse any more civil, and your wife isn't the best candidate.

Back home, yet again

...And far sooner than I would have anticipated as recently as last month. I have my parents to thank for their very generous Christmas gift of airline tickets to and from Chicago. I'll arrive there tonight at around 6:30 and take a quick trip to balmy Iowa to see some great old friends. There, I understand the high on Saturday will be...zero. But the real adventure will be Monday, when I'm scheduled to return to Seattle. "Accumulating snow" is forecast for Chicago that day, which never means good things for one of the nation's busiest airports.

Regardless, because of this escapade, my next post won't be until well into next week. Happy three-day weekend to everyone (assuming you have one).

Wow, he actually pulled one off

Mitt Romney won the Michigan Republican primary on Tuesday night and is now speaking as though he just clinched the presidential nomination.

That will never happen, but in a way, I wish it would. His repellent personality and candidacy makes him oh-so-beatable by any prospective challenger.

Barack Obama in 2008

In the fall of 2006, just before the midterm elections, I wrote a blog post blasting George W. Bush for using divisive rhetoric, fear, and antagonism of the opposing political party in his unsuccessful efforts to keep Republicans in control of Congress that year. Likewise, I chided Democrats for their failure to take the high ground and respond with messages of unity and shared purpose. Instead, they simply fired right back with polarizing talk of their own. I remarked about the desperate need for political candidates who demonstrate an ability to bring people together rather than pit one side against another.

That's why there's no doubt in my mind that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama should be the next president of the United States. He's the only viable candidate of any political affiliation in this year's race who has consistently exhibited both an ability and willingness to disseminate messages of unity, hope, and civility. The picture above shows him working on a piece of legislation with Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn — another member of Congress whose name I have justifiably criticized on this blog. Obama has shown a remarkable talent for reaching out to those holding opposing views in a spirit of respect and cooperation. Indeed, his work in that regard has not been perfect — everyone knows there has been more than one round of bickering between himself and his toughest opponent, Sen. Hillary Clinton — but the fact that his campaign has emphasized those virtues with such genuineness and diligence is admirable. After all, America cannot begin to solve its gravest problems until its people learn to accept their differences and work together for once. Obama, more than any other candidate, has demonstrated an ability to facilitate this. He has been praised by Democrats and Republicans alike, including those who disagree with his policy positions.

Clinton represents the opposite of Obama. As president, she would not represent change; she would represent a dynasty. And right or wrong, her name by itself is polarizing. We don't need another president of that caliber; George W. Bush has played the role masterfully for almost eight years. Speaking of, I won't even go into a discussion of why the GOP candidates are all unfit for the presidency — that's another post altogether.

Finally, I've repeatedly heard arguments that Obama is an inexperienced candidate who represents fluff more than real policy. I'm thoroughly unimpressed with both contentions. Truthfully, he's held elected public offices longer than his senatorial peer from New York: Obama was elected to the Illinois Legislature in 1996; Clinton, to the U.S. Senate in 2000. Regardless, as a voter, I don't base my decisions on a trait so superficial. I'm far more interested in the ideas that the candidate brings to the table. Oddly enough, even in a time when America is undeniably polarized, some people would dismiss campaign messages of hope and unity as "fluff." If that's the case, I respectfully disagree. I'll be supporting Barack Obama in 2008.

Luckily, I'm not a gambling man...

If I had been, I probably would have lost a generous sum of money on Tuesday night. In the two days preceding the New Hampshire primary, I didn't see a single poll that indicated Hillary Clinton within five points of Barack Obama's suddenly commanding lead in the Granite State. In fact, the major polls all showed the Illinois senator with a 9-10 point advantage over the New York senator and former First Lady — well beyond any margin of error. Following his decisive victory in Iowa — and the excitement it generated for his campaign — Obama appeared to have New Hampshire locked up. Not so.

I would have been far more cautious and less confident in my prediction if I had seen even one poll that was within the margin of error — or one that still showed the two candidates tied, which is what we had been seeing in the days immediately preceding and following the Iowa Caucuses. I don't know; maybe such polls were out there and I simply didn't see them. More likely, the polls I did see were too reflective of Obama's post-Iowa high and not reflective enough of the people who actually showed up to vote on Tuesday. I'm already reading that Clinton captured the women's vote — something she failed to do in Iowa — and that young voters represented a much smaller contingent on Tuesday than they did last Thursday.

Interestingly enough, I also just read the following results from a CNN exit poll: 50 percent of New Hampshire Democrats believe Obama is most able to unite the country, versus just 29 percent who believe Clinton can. Even more tellingly, 46 percent believe Obama is the most electable Democratic presidential candidate, compared to 36 percent who feel that way about Clinton. If that's all true, I guess the burning question would be: Why, oh why, did they choose Hillary?

I will withhold judgement against New Hampshire's voters for now. After all, we just learned on Tuesday night that polls can be inaccurate. And another lesson about politics was reinforced. I'll give a hint: That lesson is the title of the preceding post on this blog. It's precisely why you should not despair if your candidate was not victorious. Iowa, New Hampshire, and each state to follow are all mere steps in a journey that has just begun and probably won't end the way anyone would predict.

A week is like a year

I trust I wasn't alone this past week in anxiously anticipating the results of Thursday night's Iowa Caucuses. They've been a long time coming — national dialogue regarding potential 2008 presidential candidates was already going strong at the time of the 2006 midterm elections, which are now already more than a year in the past. So is former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack's decision to seek the Democratic nomination. Remember that? It was before he realized he lacked money, name recognition outside his state, support within his state, and, oh yes, a personality. A mere four months after declaring his own candidacy, Vilsack announced his backing of Sen. Hillary Clinton. Clearly, the endorsement has done wonders for her thus far.

No one reading this from outside of Iowa has probably heard of Tom Vilsack and probably wonder why I brought him up now. (I only know of him because I went to college in his state — and, I suppose, because I'm a political junkie.) Well, Vilsack made the same mistake that so many people make in the world of politics — he became too confident in a perceived outcome and failed to recognize how quickly a campaign can be built or destroyed at the hands of unpredicted factors. That's what appears to have happened with the 2008 presidential contest. Indeed, there was a time when it all seemed a foregone conclusion. Barack Obama? Maybe in 2012. Huckabee? That's a 2004 comedy starring Dustin Hoffman and Lily Tomlin, right? And Fred Thompson? Once he throws his hat in the ring, he'll surely be the candidate that Republicans finally get excited about, yes? And give Rudy Giuliani a run for his money? All that said, though, it's about time to prepare for the second President Clinton, isn't it?

Of course, Obama and Huckabee dominated on Thursday. No one would have expected that just a few months back. And Thompson tanked, typical of a remarkably lackluster campaign despite all the hype he once received. Perhaps most surprisingly, Clinton took a mediocre third place on the Democratic side — hard to believe possible for a candidate who once had a double-digit lead in Iowa over the senator from Illinois. Granted, Iowa is hardly the tipping point in the presidential nomination process — in fact, it's just the beginning. But a powerful lesson can be learned from the 2008 first-in-the-nation caucuses: A week is like a year in the world of politics, and this time around, it's way too soon to make any definitive predictions about next fall's election.