<p>What he’s up to is obvious. In bridge, it’s called a “finesse”.</p>
<p>He’s trying to convince the voters than his vote for the Iraq invasion should not associate him with the failed Bush policy, but Ms. Clinton’s vote should associate her with the failed Bush policy.</p>
<p>Thank you, Idad, as I think you’ve hit the nail on the head.</p>
<p>Edwards, knowing that Hillary appears to be his chief antagonist heading into the primaries, is starting to lay the groundwork that she’s not truly one of them - Democrats, that is. Of course, she is, but maybe he can put some doubt into the heads of those who take the policital stuff seriously. </p>
<p>For those who follow the political scene, it’s going to be an amusing time.</p>
<p>I think that Al Gore conclusively proved that trying to run against the Bill Clinton adminstration is a losing strategy for a Democratic candidate.</p>
<p>Edwards can talk all he wants. Bill will hit the campaign trail and gut him like a fish.</p>
<p>It’s amazing to me that the Democratic challengers are helping Hillary Clinton position herself as the centrist candidate. Oh, lordie, don’t throw me in that briar patch.</p>
<p>On the other hand though, if she’s positioned as overly progressive in the primary can she be perceived as a centrist in the general election - a place where most politcal analysts think she needs to be for the general election.</p>
<p>That’s what I’m saying. Having all the Democratic primary challengers painting her as the “centrist” Democrat helps her general election chances immensely.</p>
<p>She’s spent four years trying to grab a centrist position. Now, her challengers are doing it for her.</p>
<p>ID, I agree with you about that briar patch.</p>
<p>Absent a Gore entry…and I take him at his word that he’s not running…I think this is purely a Clinton/Obama/Edwards race. The other contenders get “Thank you for playing!” certificates that they can pick up at any time, and which entitle them to a latte at Starbucks when coupled with a $4 co-payment. I think Hillary wins that three-way battle. Whether she wins the general is another question and may depend upon both the Republican candidate and how much blood is shed in the primaries. </p>
<p>Looking at the Republican field gives me much more uncertainty than does looking at the Democratic field. I’m still not sure that it won’t be Gingrich or Huckabee. I do think that Romney has a busted straight and that Condi’s support will prove to be an inch wide and an inch deep. But if Iraq is still going on at this intensity, or if the Doofus-in-Chief adds Iran to the mix (which will just spark an outright catastrophe in Iraq), I think Hillary beats whomever the Republicans nominate. As dearly departed Brownie was fond of saying, elections are fun. I hope that 2008 has the wingnuts climbing all the way up the wall and half way across the ceiling: complete Democratic control of the White House, Senate, and House. And with it control of Supreme Court nominations.</p>
<p>The other thing to consider with Clinton. I don’t know that any Presidential candidate has ever weathered the relentless 14 year barrage of attacks that she has. They’ve thrown everything they can throw at her. It’s obviously hurt her negatives. But, the flip side is that the ammo is spent. There’s nothing left to attack her with that hasn’t already been tried. She’s still standing. That’s one tough cookie.</p>
<p>She’s also battle-tested to a degree that I’ve never seen from a first time candidate. I think it’s unlikely that she suffers the kind of primary campaign meltdowns that have cost so many candidates a shot.</p>
<p>TheDad:</p>
<p>I think Edwards gets a “thanks for playing and now here are some lovely parting gifts”, too. Obama getting in the race just kills Edwards by pre-empting the “I’m a blank slate with zero experience so I’m just going to smile real pretty and talk about hope” slot in the race.</p>
<p>The Republican race is impossible to call, IMO. First of all, it’s hard to campaign from the deck of a sinking ship. Second, Carvelle had it right on the money when he talked about how easy it is to pop off when you are cold, tired, wet, and hungry on the campaign trail and how the two Republican front runners (McCain and Guiliani) have personalities that make them prime candidates for a meltdown event.</p>
<p>Beyond that, I’m having real difficulty wrapping my arms around a pro-choice, pro gay rights Republican candidate or a general election candidate whose centerpiece is a call for a massive escalation in Iraq.</p>
<p>Rice is a non-starter. They’d just paint “Iraq” on a cement block, tie it to her ankles, and dump her in the East River. She gets a free pass for being an articulate black woman in Oscar De la Renta suits. But, that get out jail free card would end the minute she entered the race. And rightly so. She has been the top national security advisor and Sec State presiding over the most disasterous foreign policy debacle in recent memory. She can’t hide from that. Forget a campaign. If there were any justice in the world, she should be worried about war crimes charges.</p>
<p>Am I the only one who sees Edwards as a phony, opportunistic, divisive (“Two Americas”) sleazeball? </p>
<p>As for Republicans supporting a pro-gay, pro-choice candidate–they will if their alternative is Hillary, since the President does not decide the fate of these issues anyway. And Giuliani is capable of beating Hillary in the general election, unlike your dream candidates, Huckabee or Gingrich.</p>
<p>Oh please ID, you are worrying about Edwards experience in foreign policy? As if Hillary or Obama have more, not to mention our silver spoon President. If I recall, you didn’t like Kerry either and he had more foreign policy experience than any of them. </p>
<p>Hereshoping, somehow I get the feeling that you haven’t seen Edwards recently. I saw him speak in the flesh during the last election and felt he was too slick and repetitive - more of the genuine John Edwards is showing through this time. He’s got a grasp of the issues and knows how to present it to the public just like Bill Clinton. Americans are going to be looking for some old fashioned leadership qualities and among them will be someone that is genuine and telling the truth. Somehow, last time around people confused “plain talk” with “someone like me” which somehow correlated to honesty- what a joke. </p>
<p>Hillary equivocates too much to be the kind of leader we need right now.</p>
<p>HH–I agree that Giuliani will be a far more formidable candidate than either Huckabee or Gingrich–and, ultimately, a stronger candidate than McCain. I disagree with you regarding Edwards. I see him so differently than you do. He comes across to me as smart, deeply concerned for the less fortunate, and not at all sleazy. So, perception of a candidate has everything to do with one’s own politics.</p>
<p>I consider myself a moderate/conservative and Giuliani appeals to me (at least what I know at this point). He is pro civil union, anti partial birth (unless mother’s life at stake), fiscally conservative (I think), tough on crime.</p>
<p>I am a North Carolinian and after seeing Edwards close up and in action I fall in on the phony, camera loving, sleazeball side.</p>
<p>You haven’t seen sleazy until you’ve seen Giuliani “up close and poysonal”.</p>
<p>McCain is licking his chops, and the Swift Boat ad agency is already hard at work, and they have A LOT to work with.</p>
<p>I rather likle the other mayor.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton has eight years in the White House and six years on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Arguing against her qualifications is a dog that won’t hunt.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He’s a like a TV preacher without the bible thumpin’. Politicians as a group are as vain as it gets…witness some of the world class combovers and rugs in the US Senate. But, pretty-boy Edwards takes the cake.</p>
<p>mini,</p>
<p>What’s the sleaze news on Giuliani? The divorce stuff, or something else? I was leaning towards him because of the fiscally conservative/socially liberal combo.</p>
<p>
That’s exactly why I have become interested in him.</p>
<p>The pre-second-divorce stuff. Using Gracie Mansion as the scene of his extramarital trysts, having a judge ban visits with his daughter while the squeeze was present; hiring his personal bodyguard and chauffeur as police chief (Bernie Kerik) who then used contributed 911 funds to rent an apartment for extramarital affairs with, among other folks, Judith Regan (O.J.'s editor); the fire system alarms that didn’t work during 911 because Rudy refused to allocate the funds to get them working.</p>
<p>Rudy’s approval rating in NYC prior to 911 was extraordinarily low. Lots of reasons will come out in the wash.</p>
<p>Before y’all rag on Edwards too much, reflect upon the fact one of the most dangerous places in America to be is between John McCain and a camera or microphone.</p>