Democrats Debate
October 31st, 2007With Gore AWOL in this race for president, and with the public mostly not watching, I’m reluctant yet to take sides as I watch the Democrats debate.
But I will say this. Hillary looked really firm at times, but she took it on the chin from Edwards and Obama. Kucinich is right on the issues, but since he’s seen a UFO, I guess that knocks him out, according to the national press corps. I like Biden’s experience, intelligence and record, so I’m glad he’s on the stage. Same with Richardson, who has a bright future in my political book.
So, I will sip a Yuengling and drink about it a little more, and wait for the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and Congress. And know this. At least we ain’t cleaning toilets in a Louisiana jail - having seen one big one from the inside.
Everybody just can’t wait to run against Giuliani, but I think that entire scenario is one huge mistake on everybody’s part, including the Dumbocrats.
I didn’t take notes, but I believe it was Edwards who said it best, about telling it straight and standing up against Bush. Obama performed admirably, but seemed to get tripped up again on the name thing.
It was much easier as a prognosticator to see the Kerry-Edwards ticket in 2004 than to decipher who will emerge in this horse race.
I say whoever buys the most blog ads wins. It’s the information superhighway equivalent of the roadside sign. You can reach far more eyeballs for way less money … and have way more fun doing it!
Tags: Elections 2008
October 31st, 2007 at 3:57 pm
From what I see and hear, Hillary Clinton has all but a lock on the Democratic nomination. Hillary is doing the same thing Bill did in 1992 and 1996, and that’s running from a slightly center-right position. She is, on almost every important issue, practically on the same page as Bush neoconservatives, particularly on foreign policy and use of military force as an element of that policy. For those who don’t want to believe that, please consult her webpage, her speeches and her debates.
Moreover, Hillary Clinton is a seasoned political operative, has plenty of cash—more than anyone else, in fact, and is well ahead in the polls. She is a policy wonk of long-standing and does not make gaffes when speaking extemporaneously. For Obama or Edwards to catch her would be a miracle, but it would be an answer to Giuliani’s prayers if one of them did. The probable subway series for the presidency will be the toughest presidential battle in history, and, although the Democrats are still viewed more positively than Republicans, Hillary does not have a similar lock on the general election. Giuliani could beat her.
Consider: the number one reason the Democrats won control of Congress a year ago was the Iraq War. Congressional ethics may have been a second reason, but it was a distant second. Americans were, and still are, fed up with the Iraq War and want us out. What have the Democrats done? They have voted more money for the war, caved in to Bush on timetables and benchmarks, and spent the rest of their time squabbling over issues that pale besides the Iraq War issue. If this continues, and it doubtless will with the Dems led by the feckless Pelosi and Reid, the 2008 general election could turn into a referendum on Congress, particularly since a sitting president or vice president is not standing for the first time in 40 years. In that event, “America’s Mayor” Rudy may well look pretty good to many Americans. Count on Rudy to fan the hysteria of the “anybody but another Clinton” segment of the voting population as well.
That said, Clinton stands a much better chance in the general election than Edwards or Obama would. The latter are too far to the left to survive in November, and Democrat insiders know that. Neither would poll more than 45% of the vote, tops, which would guarantee a Republican victory and might even help restore control of Congress to the GOP.
Democrats should place their bets on Hillary – but the ironic thing is that Hillary is so close on the issues to Bush that the next four years would look a lot like the last four years.
November 1st, 2007 at 6:21 pm
This is out of date analysis, in my view, because I think we live in a different time when the vast majority of people have now turned on the Republicans and moderate politicians who talk out of both sides of their mouths.
I think you will see some surprises in this race in the coming months. Also, these opinion polls now are highly unreliable about what you will see next year, because most people are not paying enough attention to form firm views. Hillary has the polls now because of women and urbanites who now see Bill as the best president in our lifetimes. Even some polls have about a fifth of Republican women leaning toward Hillary.
And, in this election, unless something changes drastically on the Republican side, a good portion of the Christian Right are tuning out to politics altogether, and many of them may just stay home on election day.
A New York subway race would be another reason for the Southern Baptists to stay home. That would help Democrats, but don’t count on the GOP giving it all to Giuliani and don’t count on Hillary being the last one standing come next October.
I say watch for Edwards to take one or more of the early caucuses and primaries, and then it’s a three way race, with Obama dropping but looking like a strong candidate for Veep.
The more I think about it, I like an Edwards-Obama ticket. I’ll have to consult Krystall Ball in the next week or two on that score…
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Edwards yes, Obama no. America is not ready for Obama. If you want to throw red meat to the right wing red confederate slave states just put Obama on the ticket.