Defining Moments

Apparently, we've reached a stage in the campaign where leading presidential candidates are having their "defining moments."

In today's New York Times, one of my favorite columnists, Maureen Dowd, makes a point about Hillary Clinton that is similar to the one I've made in a previous post in this blog. Basically, the thing that Hillary feels strongly about is winning.

Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing for a politician to care about. A politician has to win elections in order to accomplish anything. But that seems to be where Hillary steps off the train. She wants to win. What she wants to accomplish once she wins is really anyone's guess.

Even hers.

In the aftermath of Hillary's have-it-both-ways on illegal immigration moment during last week's Democratic debate, Dowd observes that "there is nowhere she won’t go, so long as it gets her where she wants to be."

Dowd calls it the "Gift of Gall." I call it an absence of vision.

Karen Tumulty writes in Time magazine that Mitt Romney's defining moment actually occurred when he was governor of Massachusetts. And, although he might not embrace it readily today, that defining moment was his health care initiative that transformed the state into an example of universal coverage.

Tumulty says that the people around Romney assumed that his battle for universal health care coverage in Massachusetts, which included reaching out to one-time rival Sen. Edward Kennedy, would be the centerpiece of his campaign for the White House, illustrating his "data-driven, goal-oriented, utterly pragmatic side."

But Tumulty points out that "that other Mitt Romney, the one who wouldn't be satisfied until he found the answer himself" seldom emerges on the campaign trail.

One has to wonder if it will emerge more frequently if he wins the nomination and needs to run more to the center against the Democratic nominee.

For Mike Huckabee, the defining moment may be coming in a series of moments, starting with his surprising second-place finish in the straw poll of Iowa Republicans in August. That's when people really began talking about Huckabee.

Then, polls began to show Huckabee moving up in the standings. And then he made some waves with his speech to the Values Voters Summit in Washington, where he scored points with Christian conservatives, who are looking for the anti-Giuliani candidate who can successfully articulate their values and concerns.

If Huckabee can do well in Iowa, as Pat Robertson did a generation ago, it won't be necessary for him to win. Nor will it be necessary to win in New Hampshire, writes Charles Mahtesian of the Washington Post. After all, another Arkansas governor, Bill Clinton, didn't win New Hampshire's primary in 1992; he merely beat expectations before moving on to a series of primary victories that led to the nomination.

If Huckabee survives in Iowa and New Hampshire, it probably means one of the leading candidates didn't survive, Mahtesian, editor of The Almanac of American Politics, says. And that will mean a huge opportunity in the South Carolina primary, only days before Super Tuesday, when several Southern states with larger numbers of Southern Baptist voters (including Huckabee's home state of Arkansas) will be voting.

That will be Huckabee's time to shine, Mahtesian says. It's a tricky dance for the one-time Baptist preacher, but not one that is out of his range.