"Electability": Giuliani, Clinton ... and then there's Iraq

NPR's political correspondent, Ron Elving, had this to say about candidates' electability this morning:

...The South is more important now than at any time since the Civil War.  It delivers more than half the votes a presidential candidate needs to win and the Democrats are getting shut out in that region as they were in the last two elections.  So yes, John Edwards has an argument.  The question is whether John Edwards is the answer.

[On the Republican side, electability] is just as big a question in the GOP.  You've got one part of the party saying electability means "keep the base excited and united," but another part says no, "you have to compete for the suburbs and newer voters, or you won't be electable."  So you've got a lot of Republican candidates saying they match up well with Hillary, by some measures, but it's probably Rudy Giuliani who's most capable of competing for big blue states like New York, New Jersey, and California.  In fact, he's so capable of doing that, that it creates and electability problem for him coming around on the backside.  In those big states that he might be appealing to, the same positions tend to alienate conservatives he needs in the Republican base and that could create a third party candidate on the right. 

Whew.  Meanwhile, the New York Times is reporting that Democrats are modifying their positions on Iraq because of apparent "gains" in security in Baghdad.  We already know from reports on the ground that many think these gains are illusory and certainly don't bring with them any political stability. Still...

...The changing situation suggests for the first time that the politics of the war could shift in the general election next year, particularly if the gains continue. While the Democratic candidates are continuing to assail the war — a popular position with many of the party’s primary voters — they run the risk that Republicans will use those critiques to attack the party’s nominee in the election as defeatist and lacking faith in the American military.

If security continues to improve, President Bush could become less of a drag on his party, too, and Republicans may have an easier time zeroing in on other issues, such as how the Democrats have proposed raising taxes in difficult economic times.

Brookings' Michael O'Hanlon, one of those who persists in pontificating in spite of a serious past boo-boos, is a Clinton adviser who thinks there may be trouble ahead O'Hanlon and Clinton -- they kind of deserve each other.  That political viable southerner, John Edwards,  appears to have a more straightforward, rational view -- and maybe a little hopeful.

Mr. Edwards told reporters in Des Moines on Tuesday that there was not enough political movement to justify reassessing his Iraq policy at this stage. “I think the underlying question has not changed in Iraq, and that question is whether there has been any serious effort, serious movement on the political front,” Mr. Edwards said. “Until there is political reconciliation between the Sunni and the Shia, there cannot be stability, there will not be an end to the violence. So I think that’s the ultimate test, and I have seen very little progress if any on that front.”

Obama sounds not only rational but positively and unabashedly progressive.

“We’ve never seen gas above $3 in November,” Mr. Obama told a crowd on a recent evening in Allison, Iowa. “People are working harder for less. Folks are maxing out on their credit cards, trying to stay afloat. People are struggling. And it doesn’t seem like Washington is listening.”

Mr. Obama’s spokesman, Bill Burton, said that the reduction of violence in Iraq was “welcome news,” but he also noted that a record number of troops had been killed this year and that political differences among the Iraqis had not been bridged.

Washington isn't listening, that's for sure.  The problem is that the media speak for Washington and have a well-honed ability to convince people how they should vote -- usually well to the right of center.   That's what makes Rudy Giuliani's chances so good -- so horribly viable.