Chris Matthews predicts Obama/Romney Iowa wins

Matthews tends to shift his predictions a lot but maybe it reflects how the various state electorates shift in this atypical election season. On the other hand, Matthews' well-known dislike of the Clintons might be at play.

His prediction of Romney over Huckabee in Iowa is easy to understand. Romney's vastly larger and well financed organization can spend the money necessary to ensure Romney voters get to the Iowa caucuses.

The predicted Obama win seems more based on Chris's political gut feeling. We've all seen Hillary and Edwards around for the past few years. In contrast, Obama is definitely the "fresh face" for non-traditional Democrats, someone who can best appeal to an expanded voter base of independents and to those looking for something different. The trick is to actually get the new Obama crowd to show up at caucus time, not really a safe bet.

Overall, I think that Joe Biden would be the best "qualified" President. Unlike certain other northeastern intellectual candidates, he has a more feisty yet likeable temperament than prior personality-deficient candidates like John Kerry or Michael Dukakis. However, he would seem to be a real long shot to win the nomination.

Months ago I thought that New Mexico's Bill Richardson had the best experience résumé of the various Democratic candidates. As a western swing-state Governor, he appeared at the time to be most "electable". Since then, however, I have not been impressed by Richardson's debate performances and his rather obvious pandering to the activist left. Richardson's recent very undiplomatic and unrealistic call for the immediate resignation of Pakistan's military dictator Musharraf, without consideration for consequences, is just the sort of knee-jerk "cowboy" foreign policy rhetoric that we complain about with the neoCons.

The top three Dems each have significant strengths and vulnerabilities.

IMO, Hillary Clinton represents the battle-tested, organizationally strong, politically-connected ready-to-govern candidate. That may also be her main weakness to voters: along with Bill Clinton, too much "old school" politics, too ready to manipulate to get her way, and a bit too machiavellian. Like it or not, fair or not, Hillary's perceived television personality is also a big negative factor in terms of "electability".

Barak Obama represents a break with the past - very appealing, especially for younger folks. Unfortunately, the under 30 group rarely shows up in big numbers when it counts - at election time. Lack of direct experience, to some degree, is a fair criticism. However, this can be greatly offset by good judgement selecting good people as advisors and implementers - just ask Warren Buffett. Obama's "can't we all just get along" appeal, however, is not at all realistic since the other side has no intention to "get along".

John Edwards represents more traditional Democratic Party values, a strong advocate against corporate greed, corruption and exploitation of the working class. As a very successful trial lawyer, Edwards should be especially effective putting forth his visions to the nation and attending to the practical craft of making law to implement that vision. The question for me is whether he is tough enough to counter the inevitable smear campaign that the GOP will launch against any Democratic nominee.

To simplify:

Hillary Clinton: readiness, connections
Barak Obama: symbolic change agent
John Edwards: issues advocacy

I think all of these facets are important and I have been going back and forth about which is more important. Surprisingly, I have now shifted to favoring Obama. This is not because he is better qualified (he is not) and not because he is better on the issues (IMO, he tends to be fuzzy on issues). I now favor Obama because that is what would seem to be best for the nation at a time when the world either hates or distrusts us and for good reasons. There are times when symbolism and a spirit of optimism can be overall more effective in achieving one's long term goals than all the best plans and intentions.

Matthews obviously doesn't like Clinton or Huckabee...you can figure that out by just watching his show lol.

as in "why does Hillary represent change?" stopped him dead in his tracks.

No answer. The people running that campaign are confused.

I was listening, not watching. Was that the same interview?

and Wolfson was a deer caught in the headlights. Almost as if, "If I say we'll do this or that differently, Bill will come down on me like a ton of bricks." He never answered.

"Obamaromney" sounds like a dance craze.

http://www.geencommentaar.nl/index.php/2007/08/01/p10486#more10486

Nope, nothing about dancing. :)

I mean really now..what gave it away..
the fact that he spent a week asking if Hillary "was going to smother Obama in his crib"?
or that he goes on rants on how phony she is..or the color of her pantsuit..or her cackle?
I mean..I really AM suprised here..

His bias doesn't allow him to make a level-headed prediction.

He must be bitter because his man-crush Rudy is falling in the polls.

Five years.

Tweety bird is a joke, and doesn't know what the hell is going on when it comes to politics.

mean these two will be both parties candidates.
Obama HAS to win in Iowa to just have a chance.
Romney will not go any further than a win in Iowa.

I'm a big Chris fan and a big Hillary fan and always end up hurt when he bashes her. He was supossed to be Clinton's press secretary? Anything more to this story? What are the details? I have been dying to know why he hates them???

Matthews always makes his prognosis' based on weird data....like on how much he liked Fred Thompson's aftershave.

No kidding.

Matthews is very weird.

Not!

Except that you meant separately, not together LOL

I missed his predictions. Not surprising at all.