Under the Microscope
by Glynn Wilson

Political prognostication is a little like handicapping sports.

The difference is that politics and government matter.

Whether or not your favorite football team wins or loses is rarely a life or death issue.

Of course it is more popular and publicly acceptable in traditional medialand to talk about sports, to be provocative and even to use political analogies in sports commentary.

Political reporting is criticized for focusing on the so-called “horse race.” The idea is that the U.S. news media seems to focus more on who is up and who is down than on the important issues facing the world, the country and people in their daily lives.

But when political candidates on the right and left are largely in agreement with each other on most of the issues, what is a political columnist to do?

When I was able to predict the Kerry-Edwards ticket after the very first debate in the 2004 race, some people who lost that Turbo Dog bet thought I was the modern equivalent of Nostradamus.

But the fact is, that prediction was about as lucky as calling an interception while watching an Alabama football game on TV.

I used to do this all the time back in the day when I cared as much about football as I now care about politics.

Watching a game on TV in a crowd of friends, I would often say something like: “What Alabama needs now is an interception.”

As the ball was snapped, I would say, “Here it comes. INTERCEPTION!”

And every once in a while, in part thanks to the recruitment of great defensive backs by the UA coaching staff, I would be right - and come off looking like Nostradamus.

But this time around, all the surfing around the Web for good polling research and informed commentary leaves me at a loss to be able to predict who the next president will be. It is still not even clear who the major party nominees will be.

I suppose I could go ahead and say who I would like the nominees to be, but the fact is, while there are fine, qualified candidates running, none of them blows me away.

It is encouraging that most of the Democrats are against the Iraq war and for health coverage for all Americans, but I am not convinced that come November 2008, any of these candidates will blow away the Republican competition.

The Republicans are all running to the right of Bush the Hun, so you would think the American public would be turned off to all of them considering the progressive responses of the electorate on the issues.

But deep down in my gut, I worry that what the public ultimately wants is a strong quarterback. And I worry that the corrupt Republican machinery set up by Karl Rove over the past seven years will be able to steal any close election. Which means the Democrats need a candidate who can win hands down.

And none of the candidates on the stage now inspire overwhelming confidence.

While I would be more than willing to vote for a woman or a black candidate for president myself, I just don’t think a majority of American voters will actually pull the Hillary or Obama lever come next November.

And the prospects of a Giuliani presidency leaves me cold and desperate for an alternative. Plus, Giuliani is only down on Hillary three points in a head-to-head matchup, a number that is within the dangerous margin of error. Not good.

A lot of independents, libertarians and progressives are pulling for Ron Paul as an alternative, but considering his radical libertarian views on the Federal Reserve and the IRS and other things, I doubt he has a real chance to win the Republican nomination.

Feds Raid Ron Paul Coin Company

So what is a liberaltarian to do?

I just don’t understand how anyone can think that Hillary Clinton is the most electable Democrat, but that seems to be the current sentiment. Maybe the American people are so mad at the Republicans that they would be willing to elect the first woman president in our history. It could happen, but I have my doubts.

I have no information about how John Edwards and Barack Obama get along, but I think together, they might make a winnable ticket. Obama is young and as vice president for four or eight years, he might be able to make history and become the first African-American president in our history. I just have my doubts that he could carry the country next November from the top of the ticket.

For some of the best commentary on the candidates, turn to a special series of columns by The Nation magazine: Time to Choose.

In the magazine’s online poll, Dennis Kucinich is winning with 34 percent of the vote. There’s no doubt he is the bravest candidate on the stage who has moved articles of impeachment against Cheney in the House. He is educated and smart and has a handle on the issues, but he is such a leftist that it is hard to imagine the American masses handing him the keys to the White House.

I wish I could say it could be so of Joe Q. Public, but the U.S. education system lags too far behind the rest of the world to even dream of a radical, liberal president.

So we will continue watching the game and see who emerges as the voting starts in a couple of months in Iowa and New Hampshire and elsewhere.

The one prediction we can make with some certainty concerns John Edwards. It is likely he will post strong showings in some of the caucuses and primaries, so the Democratic Party presidential contest is likely to be a three-way race by February.

When that happens, the media coverage of this race will take on a different cast. And depending on fund raising and performance, Edwards could emerge from the pack and win by a nose. We will see…

This entry was posted on Sunday, November 18th, 2007 at 10:24 am and is filed under Under the Microscope II. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.