I voted in the Missouri presidential primary today. Turnout was light – I was number twelve at my polling as of 6:55 AM. Given the weather – cold, and road conditions which range from not bad where I live to lousy (as in ice covered) more northerly in the St. Louis area, I wasn’t too surprised. I think turnout will be light overall, as these lousy conditions are statewide.

I have to admit I voted for Howard Dean. Now while I don’t think Bush is the perfect Republican candidate, I do think he would make a better president than Dean. But you get to choose which party ballot you vote in Missouri, and I have a feeling Bush is going to win on the Republican side. So instead of voting for Democrats I would actually want for President (Lieberman, Gephardt if he hadn’t dropped out), I voted for somebody who I thought would do the best job of losing to Bush. I don’t think I’m alone – at my heavily Republican polling place, the stubs on top of the ballot box were overwhelmingly green – i.e. Democratic. Of course it could be that the voters who did brave the elements were overwhelmingly Democratic — the Republicans took the day off confident in Bush’s primary victory; but I think there were more people like me voting for their man by casting a vote for someone else.

I’m partially retracting my prediction from yesterday. Polls mean nothing – turnout is going to be light, and Republicans voters are coming out and voting for Democratic candidates. I wouldn’t be surprised if Bush doesn’t get many votes and his challangers get more votes than expected. And on the Democratic side, I still think Kerry will win, but not by the margin in the polls.

There is a striking contrast between the current President Bush and President Clinton, and it revolves around their character. No, I’m not trying to rehash old scandals, but I want to point out that while Bush has so far been bold and decisive, Clinton was a procrastinator. He got more done in has last week in office than he had in the rest of his presidency prior. Oh, he could move quickly when he had to, when his future was at stake, as he did with Welfare reform, but by and large it’s amazing how little got done during his years in office – especially when you consider that during his first two years the Democrats had majorities in Congress and could only pass a small tax increase – no universal healthcare or any other pet project. After that it was either coopting Republican programs or scrambling to survive. It wasn’t because he couldn’t, it was because he wouldn’t — that’s a procrastinator in (in)action.

I too am a procrastinator, so I understand the long periods of lassitude followed by brief periods of intense energy when a hard deadline looms. How long should it take to clean and staighten the downstairs? 30 minutes. Therefore, I’ll start 15 minutes before my wife gets home and I’ll be just finished when she walks through the door. That was Bill in the final week – desparately trying to cram a four year term into 168 hours.

Now that he’s off giving speaches, he’s apparently giving good ones, even by the standards of Jay Nordlinger and Ralph Peters. Maybe that’s the ideal role for Clinton the procrastinator — a firm deadline, and doing what he’s good at.

Victor Davis Hanson captures my thoughts (yes Virginia, even better than how I thunked them) on the 2004 State of the Union Speach. I think what you say and what you do is important in foreign affairs, but on the domestic front what you do is pretty much all that matters to me. So I listened to the first half of the speach, and when Bush started sounding like Clinton lite, I gave up.

A couple of bloggers I admire, Tom McGuire and Jon Henke, have a similar take on the latest Plame/Wilson development – a spread in Vanity Fair (OK, also Tim Noah, who I don’t admire). And by and large, I think they are right. But I think there is something else to notice, beyond the foibles of human nature. Joe Wilson served our country ably and courageously during the Gulf War as acting ambassador to Iraq for which he got zero public notice; Valerie Plame served our country ably and courageously for years for which she got (understandably) zero public notice. What they are recognized for now has been on his part a willingness to criticize President Bush beyond any factual basis (the more strident the criticism, the greater the recognition); and on her part simple victimization. This is crazy. Talk about your perverse incentives. There is something wrong with the press when real, well, heroism, is ignored and this kind of crap is rewarded.

What has happened to Hillary Clinton? She went from lousy wife of Bill Clinton to a Senator who has, dare I say it, done a good job. The old wisdom was that she was the cool mastermind behind all the money scandals, and he was the randy chump behind all the sex scandals. Could it be that now that she is free of him (yes, I know they aren’t divorced, but still) she’s put her past behind her and is on the high road? I don’t know. It could all be an act, it could all be maneuvering for 2008. But while I can’t know her motivations, I can know her acts, and frankly, I’m impressed. She’s been consistant on Iraq, she’s toured Afganistan and Iraq. If doing the right thing also is smart politically, do I applaud doing the right thing or snark about politics? I applaud doing the right thing, which I think she has done (sound of me clapping). I think it was the right thing for President Bush to spend Thanksgiving with soldiers in Iraq; I think the same thing for Hillary to spend even more time at Thanksgiving.

And yes, she’s criticized President Bush about his handling of Iraq and Afganistan. I’m not one of those who think any criticism in war time is a bad thing. For me, it’s all about achieving the goal, and if the criticism is contructive, then right or wrong, it’s a good thing. Like a lot of others, she thinks we don’t have enough troops in both countries. I think that’s hard for either one of us to judge, but in my opinion she’s probably wrong about Iraq, and possibly correct about Afganistan. Like a lot of others, she thinks the UN should be more involved – and I couldn’t disagree more.Some people are upset that she actually told the troops that while Americans wholeheartedly support them, there are many questions at home about the administration’s policies. I think that is a pretty accurate statement, and the truth is always a defense in my book. Other remarks indicated that we need to do more in both countries and that the outcome isn’t assured. Well, again, true statements. We need to be committed to getting the job done, and not cutting and running. If her criticisms are politically motivated – so what? Let’s judge them on their own merits, and not try to guess motivations. They are at least serious and proscriptive, not just a repetition of Bush Bad.

Do I trust Hillary Clinton? No, I have too good a memory. Would I ever vote for her? Um, probably not. I like to vote for my felons after they’ve been convicted (which I did in the last election), not before. But it depends on who she’s running against.