<p>“Never been in the ring?”</p>
<p>Never been in the ring other than standing by her man. (ah, yes, there was health care: she folded like the cover of a matchbook before the action even started.)</p>
<p>Going back to where ID started the thread, I think the YouTube effect is going to be interesting. It’s already made a difference in at least one Senate race. In 2008, the public will be seeing a lot more than the carefully scripted sound bites of election years past. The world will be watching almost everything, and one slip could be all it takes to turn a front runner into a no-hoper.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, I think the winner of the next Presidency is gonna have to be a straight-talker, and, Obama and Edwards both being a little lightweight, I’m not sure we see who that is going to be yet.</p>
<p>America’s standing in the world is at the lowest point it has been in my lifetime. Al-Qaeda is gaining ground in Pakistan, and we are about three gunshots away from Al-Qaeda with nuclear weapons. The Taliban is resurgent. Iran is getting stronger all the time. The result of a successful “surge” (where the heck did that term come from?) and the hostile, aggressive occupation is virtually the same as a failed one. Two million would-be pro-Western secular refugees cursing us with every breath. Opinions of the U.S. drop every time Madame Secretary Mendaciousness visits the Middle East. The U.S. dollar is collapsing against the Euro. Oil from Nigeria is on the ropes. Venezuela, Bolivia, Chile, Brazil, Ecuador have all elected leftist governments. CAFTA/NAFTA (thank you Bill and Hillary) are pushing folks over the border. Putin thumbs his nose. Appeased North Korea.</p>
<p>Frankly, I don’t think any of the current crew look up to the task, and a long campaign may reveal their weaknesses more quickly than their strengths.</p>
<p>OK, when I talk about club fighters and heavyweight pros running these campaigns, lets look at the “stories” on the Democratic side from today’s news cycle. The story should have been a successful $1.3 million fundraiser for Obama. What are the bullet points:</p>
<p>a) Obama’s people, who promised a positive campaign, went harshly negative.</p>
<p>b) Obama’s people went harshly negative against, of all people, Bill Clinton – who enjoys a 95% favorability rating among Democratic voters.</p>
<p>c) Obama is the candidate of the “wacko, leftist, anti-family valyoos gay-marriage, abortion-lovin’ Hollywood lunatics”.</p>
<p>d) Hillary is not the candidate of the “wacko, leftist, anti-family valyoos, gay marriage, abortion-lovin’ Hollywood lunatics”.</p>
<p>All because one fighter’s corner saw that the other fighter dropped his guard for a split second and capitalized on that opportunity with a left hook, manufacturing an entire news cycle out of nothing. I’m not sure Obama even knows he was hit.</p>
<hr>
<p>Mini, I actually disagree with your assessment of this year’s candidates. Will any of them be “up to the task” in an existential sense"? Probably not. But, as presidential primaries go, this is a pretty serious, qualified and very experienced bunch.</p>
<p>I think they are mostly Bill Clinton sycophants, who helped cover up his crimes, and didn’t notice how he managed to cook the intelligence books because he really needed cover for genocide, and setting the stage for the next cooked set of intelligence for GWB (presided over by George Tenet and the same folks who cooked the books to begin with.) I’ll clear Obama, Kucinich, and Gravel on these charges, but for the rest, let 'em be consigned to the dustbins of history.</p>
<p>So Obama is still in your corner, Mini?</p>
<p>David Geffen Wednesday (OK maybe Tuesday) with lots of money (billions I think) and past resident of the Lincoln bedroom: “Everybody in politics lies, but they (the Clintons), do it with such ease, it’s troubling.”</p>
<p>And more from Mr. Obama after being hit hard by the Clinton Machine: " It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when he was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln Bedroom."</p>
<p>There’s lots more, but I’m sure you get the gist. Fun, fun, fun. February 22nd 2007 through November (first Tuesday, I don’t have a calendar handy), 2008 - let’s paaaaaaarty.</p>
<p>As usual, James Carvelle had the line of the day on CNN tonight:</p>
<p>“When you are running a campaign, you want David Geffen to open his wallet and shut his mouth.”</p>
<p>Geffen proved that by attacking Bill Clinton, who enjoys a 95% favorability rating among Democratic primary voters. And, Obama gets associated with Geffen, who isn’t exactly an icon of mainstream views to the American electorate.</p>
<p>This thread reminds me of the apocryphal statement regarding the New York critic who said that Nixon couldn’t have won – “I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.” </p>
<p>When one spends all of one’s time reading articles etc that support an existing point of view, it’s easy to forget that not everyone thinks the same way. It’s interesting to debate who might be the Democrats nominee, but 50% of the population may have a different point of view of who should be President. Don’t expect that Republicans will go quietly into the night, so to speak. It will be an interesting election, but a Democratic victory is not a foregone conclusion.</p>
<p>I don’t think there are any foregone conclusions in American politics.</p>
<p>For example, I don’t think it is at all a foregone conclusion that Bush won’t declare martial law, before 2008, and guarentee himself the presidency for the foreseeable future. Obama? Hillary? Even Mitt? We should be so lucky.</p>
<p>After all, Bush has already laid the groundwork for martial law, in a private signing in October. It will be very easy for him to declare ML, if and when he decides to do so. Too bad only Patrick Leahy seems a little concerned:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>AM, don’t you think that’s a little silly? I can see instituting martial law during a terrorist attack or natural disaster i.e. Katrina. I seem to remember some concern that there wasn’t more military support right after the hurricane. If NY had had more than the two planes on 9/11, maybe it would have been necessary to put US troops in the city. What about a nuclear attack or dirty bomb?</p>
<p>But you can’t really think he’d disregard the Constitution he loves so well to annoint himself dictator!</p>
<p>This is actually a political thread on CC that has had interesting discussion up to this point. Please, everyone, keep to the topic and do not degenerate into yet another Bush-Bashing-What-About-Clinton thread.</p>
<p>So far, I’ve really enjoyed reading the opinions. It <em>SHOULD</em> be an exciting time ahead.</p>
<p>Dig, do you think this thread has been interesting because it’s been almost exclusively liberal in it’s outlook? Have there been any conservative voices? Do dissenting opinions make it less interesting or civil? If that’s the case, maybe people should title their threads “For liberals only” or “For conservatives only.”</p>
<p>sjmom:</p>
<p>I think this thread has been interesting specifically because it’s more of a “horserace” thread than a partisan whizzing match.</p>
<p>The underlying premise of this thread has been that they are all empty vessels, filled with platitudes, and perfectly willing to prostitute themselves to the biggest donor.</p>
<p>I concur with Idad. I’m still looking for the differentiation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What makes you think that generations of presidential politics would suddenly reverse course this year?</p>
<p>I think the winner will have successfully presented a well-crafted illusion of straight-talk, but that’s about as far as I would go on that one. The only way to be a straight-talker in presidential politics is to not say anything at all. Obama’s going to give that his best shot, but a year is a long time.</p>
<p>Speaking of Obama: He picked up the public endorsements of David Geffen and Tom Daschle yesterday. Is that considered a good day or a disaster? Who knows, maybe he’ll go for the big Mike Dukakis endorsement today!</p>
<p>Speaking of horse races, I heard that the latest polls have Giuliani beating Clinton. A lot could change, but I think this race is going to be very, very close, no matter who the nominees end up being.</p>
<p>Almost all presidential races are “very, very close”. Sheesh, it doesn’t get any closer than Gore/Bush.</p>
<p>It’s kind of built into to the system.</p>
<p>The polls this far out are totally meaningless, especially polls concerning hypothetical general election matchups. Not just because they are so hypothetical, but because both the nominations and the general election are decided on a state-by-state basis, not a national raw vote total.</p>
<p>For example, nobody in their right mind would actually believe that Clinton will end up with a 20-point lead for the nomination a year from now.</p>
<p>At this stage, Guliani is a “mythical candidate”, not even really in the race in any meaningful sense. Mythical candidates always look better than real candidates.</p>
<p>sjmom - maybe you are Right, but I agree with IDad, that it’s a horserace, with a lot of strong horses in the race, on both sides. I welcome discussion of the current Republican candidates. For example, it seems that there is a definite shift in the policies of these guys to the right, now that they’re candidates.</p>
<p>digmedia:</p>
<p>It seems to me that the Republican race really hasn’t begun. The Democrats are generating all the buzz at this point. Not much in the way of punditry, or even meaningful activity, on the Republican side. </p>
<p>I think part of that flows from the dynamics of the situation. Iraq is the defining issue at this point and there really isn’t much motivation for Republican candidates to talk about that, certainly not Republican candidates who have pollsters. Nor is there much motivation for them to publicize their behind the scenes efforts – establishing their anti-abortion bona fides, the obligatory audiences with Jerry Falwell, etc.</p>
<p>I watched a McCain campaign rally last weekend. He seemed rusty to me. My overriding impression was that he looked old. His message was really depressing, not one of inspirational hope for the future.</p>
<p>I’ve watched a couple of Guilliani appearances in New Hampshire. Really tentative, almost like an NFL running back coming off knee surgery and afraid of taking that first big hit. I don’t think his heart is in it.</p>
<p>Political campaigns are all about generating electricity. The Democrats have two, maybe three, candidates who are plugged in and generating buzz.</p>
<p>It doesn’t feel like there’s an energy source for the Republican campaign yet. It’s tough. All the traditional Republican talking points – tough on national defense, fiscal policy, etc. – are things the Bush adminstration has screwed up and the specific reasons for a “throw the bums out” sense in the electorate. The Republican strategists are going to earn their money this year.</p>