Atlantis Online
September 15, 2019, 03:15:37 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Update About Cuba Underwater Megalithic Research
http://www.timstouse.com/EarthHistory/Atlantis/bimini.htm
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

How the Front Runners Lost Their Edge

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: How the Front Runners Lost Their Edge  (Read 104 times)
Luke Hodiak
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2585



« on: March 05, 2007, 04:24:21 pm »

How the Front Runners Lost Their Edge Thursday, Feb. 22, 2007 By JOE KLEIN


In the beginning, Hillary Clinton and John McCain were the front runners in the 2008 presidential campaign, and it was good. Two strong, colorful candidates. What could be better? That was a few months ago--pre-surge, pre-Obama. In the party of primogeniture, the 70-year-old McCain was next in line for the throne. He was, and still is, scarfing up the fund raisers, pols and operatives who represent the beating heart of the Republican Party. And Hillary was ... Hillary. No last name necessary. It was an article of faith that because of money and marriage, the junior Senator from New York had it locked up. It still is an article of faith among right-wing talk-show hosts, who tend to believe in their wildest fantasies. "She's got it locked up, right?" Sean Hannity said to Dick Morris during a radio smarm-athon a few weeks ago. Of course, Morris agreed, juicily, but "wait till people see that she's an even bigger flip-flopper than John Kerry."

The odd thing about this conversation is how irrelevant it seemed. For one thing, no one with any sense still believes that Clinton--or McCain, for that matter--has the nomination locked up. And flip-flopping? Wasn't that the last election? So imagine my surprise to learn, in the New York Times, that Clinton was thinking right along with Morris, that she was really, really worried that if she admitted that her vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, she could be accused of being a flip-flopper. "She is in a box now ... but she doesn't want to be in a different, even worse box--the vacillating, flip- flopping Democratic candidate [who] went down to defeat in 2000 and '04," said one of the Senator's apparently limitless supply of advisers. "She wants to maintain a firmness ... That's what people will want in 2008."

No, they won't. Most voters don't care if Hillary Clinton says "I was wrong" about Iraq. They know she was wrong, and they sense she regrets it. After all, she's against the surge and for a phased withdrawal. She knows more about national-security issues than most of her Democratic opponents do, and when she talks about what to do in Iraq, she makes sense. That should be all that matters. But there are about 873 people on the left edge of the Democratic Party, plus assorted anti-Clinton consultant trolls like Morris, who want to torment her over this. And she, inexplicably, is allowing herself to be tormented. One would think that after six stubborn years of George W. Bush, Clinton would realize there is a bull market for candidates who can admit, and learn from, mistakes. When John Edwards simply said "I was wrong" about Iraq on Meet the Press a few weeks ago, it seemed to defuse even Tim Russert, who can flog a flip-flop better than anyone else.

Clinton's sclerotic firmness may be chronic, a consequence of the sort of campaign she appears to be running--which is to say, the sort of campaign in which you put a ravening horde of consultants in a room and have them discuss whether you should say "I was wrong" about Iraq instead of making up your own mind and speaking the obvious truth. In other words, she's running against the Kerry campaign by imitating the Kerry campaign. She's fighting the last war.

John McCain, weirdly, seems to be doing much the same thing--thinking tactically, not strategically, looking backward, not forward. In McCain's case, he's running against ... John McCain, vintage 2000, a terrific candidate who spoke his mind and was, I suspect, eight years ahead of his time. Much has been written about whether McCain's stubborn support of the war is weighing him down this time. I don't think so. He really believes in his position on Iraq. He has favored more troops since the beginning; he was one of the very first Republicans to criticize Donald Rumsfeld. He could get away with this hawkishness--perhaps even be celebrated for it--if he were still the McCain of 2000. But now he's the guy who, yes, flip-flopped on Bush's tax cuts, voting against them in 2001 and for extending them last year. He's the guy who used to criticize telecharlatans like Jerry Falwell, and now he's snuggling up to them. People may assume he's playing some sort of Iraq game too. There is a difference between flip-flopping and admitting a mistake. You flip-flop for political advantage. You admit a mistake despite the political peril. McCain did the former; Clinton won't do the latter. Go figure.

As a result, both of these front runners seem slightly dated. McCain has lost more altitude, trailing Rudy Giuliani 29% among Republicans in a CBS poll last week. Clinton maintains her 20-point lead among Democrats, but her Iraq empretzelment may be a leading indicator of a stiff, consultant-swarmed campaign that will come across as clanky in 2008. It is still early, of course. Both McCain and Clinton will have a chance to reinvent themselves several times between now and Iowa. "I'm a little rusty," McCain said, wading into Iowa crowds last week. All right, but he, and Clinton, should hope that it's only rust--and not mold

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1592851,00.html?cnn=yes
Giuliani Is In and Becomes the Immediate Favorite
Posted by JOHN MCINTYRE | E-Mail This | Permalink | Email Author | Sphere It!
There is an assumption by many that Giuliani is un-nominatable as a Republican for President given his less than conservative positions on many social issues. Charlie Cook summed up the conventional Washington wisdom on Giuliani's chances with his statement in the Washington Post several months ago that he'll "win the Tour de France before Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination."

But the conventional wisdom on Giuliani's ability to capture the nomination is wrong. Not only can Giuliani win the GOP nomination, but as the Republican field sits today he has to be considered the favorite.

As Republicans look to their standard bearer in what will be a post-9/11 and post-George W. Bush world, the usual handicapping yard-sticks that may have worked in the '80's and 90's won't work this cycle.

Leadership is going to be the single most important issue to Republican voters and this is almost certainly Giuliani's strongest asset. As long as McCain remains Giuliani's chief rival for the nomination, Rudy will hold an advantage for the simple reason that conservatives like Rudy Giuliani and do not like John McCain. Leadership and the conservative animus toward McCain are why Giuliani has the edge.

The strategic box Giuliani puts McCain in is significant, especially since one of McCain's selling points to Republicans was always going to be that he could deliver a win in the general election. But the obvious tactic to employ against Giuliani, trying to undermine him with conservative base voters by attacking him on social issues, also undercuts McCain's ability to win the general election, which in turn, undermines his strongest selling point to Republicans.

The McCain campaign is going to have to a find non-social issues path to taking down Giuliani and they can't commit the same mistake they made in 2000 by going after independents and Democrats before capturing the nomination. McCain has to find a way to energize Republicans behind his candidacy. Robert Novak's column from earlier this week where McCain is playing up his supply side credentials may provide an early direction of where the Arizona Senator's campaign may be going.

Strategically, McCain would be well advised to position himself as the pro-growth, supply-side conservative in the Republican field. While Giuliani may be the favorite today, McCain should not be underestimated, especially if he were to get behind a bold pro-growth, economic agenda like a flat tax and private accounts for Social Security.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who had risen up into the "Big Three" with McCain and Giuliani after the implosion of George Allen last year, has struggled the last couple of months and is going to have to figure out a way to appeal to conservatives without it appearing like obvious political pandering. The recent You Tube video of his '94 debate with Ted Kennedy and the focus on his well-documented recent conversion to pro-life from pro-choice smacks of obvious political opportunism and tarnishes what is otherwise a compelling case for his campaign. The Mormon issue will also complicate his ability to get traction in the race.

Gingrich may create a few sparks if he gets in the ring and could generate a decent amount of support in the polls, but he is a sure loser in the general election which in the end creates insurmountable problems for his candidacy.

The others are all running to improve their name ID and for potential VP slots.
A couple of months ago I suggested to look out for McCain/Pawlenty in 2008. Today Giuliani/Huckabee may be the better bet.

But everyone should remember it is February 2007, not February 2008, a lot can change.
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/02/giuliani_is_in_and_becomes_the.html

Report Spam   Logged

Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #1 on: March 15, 2007, 09:04:13 pm »

It may be...

Democrat vs. Libertarian

or

Democrat vs. Green

by the time the primaries come.   Cool
Report Spam   Logged
Mark of Australia
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 703



« Reply #2 on: May 14, 2007, 01:30:22 pm »

Hi Luke ,Volitzer

I am a little out of my depth here and I usually stay away from politics but I am curious how things are going over in America with the presidential nominations.

Is Obama still just ahead of Hillary?

And what's going on with the Republicans?

I don't think she is even in the race ,but for some reason I am a fan of Condaleezza Rice  Roll Eyes Grin
Report Spam   Logged
Luke Hodiak
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2585



« Reply #3 on: May 17, 2007, 11:41:52 am »

Mark, 

Actually, the latest poll has Hillary ahead, but Barack Obama has more supporters and contributors.  Hillary is ahead on this point on name recognition alone, and because people remember Bill Clinton's administration more fondly.

The Republicans aren't too satisfied with their choices, but Rudy Guiliani (mayor of New York during 9/11) is ahead at this point, with 78 year old John McCain the runner up.  A third, Mitt Romney, has a lot of money, but is also a Mormon and that might hurt him cause Christian evangelicals are in control of the Republican Party.

It's hard to see who the next President will be, I'm betting that a Democrat will get in there, though, because people have grown tired of Bush's policies, and all of the Republican frontrunners are still supportive of the war in Iraq.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark of Australia
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 703



« Reply #4 on: May 18, 2007, 03:24:11 am »

Hi Luke,

it looks like it will be a Democrat win either way ,I agree. 

But you never know what can happen,it will be very interesting.
Report Spam   Logged
Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #5 on: May 18, 2007, 04:22:31 pm »

If a Democrat gets to be President and more get elected to the Legislature and they still pander to the Corporatocracy then they'll find themselves replaced by other parties.

One thing about Clinton is that at least he tried to look out for America despite higher pump prices and guerillonomic nations.

Unless Barack proves himself somehow my money is on Edwards.

Maybe an Edwards/Obama ticket.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2007, 04:24:23 pm by Volitzer » Report Spam   Logged
Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #6 on: June 28, 2007, 05:29:17 pm »

They all better jump off the Illuminati bandwagon if any of they want to have a political career.
Report Spam   Logged
rockessence
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1688


Using rocks and minerals to heal the earth and us.


WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 28, 2007, 07:15:38 pm »

I've been reading Obama's 1st book and it is so good! 
Report Spam   Logged

ILLIGITIMI NON CARBORUNDUM

Thus ye may find in thy mental and spiritual self, ye can make thyself just as happy or just as miserable as ye like. How miserable do ye want to be?......For you GROW to heaven, you don't GO to heaven. It is within thine own conscience that ye grow there.

Edgar Cayce
Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #8 on: June 28, 2007, 07:38:32 pm »

What's it about and does he have any Illuminati links?Huh?
Report Spam   Logged
rockessence
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1688


Using rocks and minerals to heal the earth and us.


WWW
« Reply #9 on: June 28, 2007, 09:39:59 pm »

Hi Voli,

You might really like it.  I am a third of the way through, to his college years.  The book is basically about race and human relationships.  So far.  He was raised in Hawaii and Indonesia and began college at Occidental in LA and has just transferred to Columbia.  I would vote for him in a minute.
Report Spam   Logged

ILLIGITIMI NON CARBORUNDUM

Thus ye may find in thy mental and spiritual self, ye can make thyself just as happy or just as miserable as ye like. How miserable do ye want to be?......For you GROW to heaven, you don't GO to heaven. It is within thine own conscience that ye grow there.

Edgar Cayce
Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #10 on: June 29, 2007, 12:32:22 pm »

I like Barack as well.  I just want to be assured that the Illuminati don't buy him off.   Smiley
Report Spam   Logged
Luke Hodiak
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2585



« Reply #11 on: June 29, 2007, 07:26:53 pm »


He's my first choice as well.  I have the "Audacity of Hope," haven't read this one yet, though, although I do understand it won a Grammy for best spoken album.
Report Spam   Logged
Luke Hodiak
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2585



« Reply #12 on: June 29, 2007, 07:33:07 pm »

Hi Luke,

it looks like it will be a Democrat win either way ,I agree. 

But you never know what can happen,it will be very interesting.

You do never know what will happen, Mark, and the U.S. government is just as corrupt as any other around the world, i.e., winning sometimes isn't enough.

Gore won the popular vote in 2000, for instance, and didn't become President because the Supreme Court stepped in and stopped the recount - even in the disputed state, Florida, he was only down by 537 votes, which would have been easily made up, had the recounts proceeded.

Since that time, Bush has ruled as if he was elected with a landslide, stolen a second election, and managed to alienate everyone in the country with the exception of the religious right.  Apparently, we are now a theocracy, little better than Iran. 
Report Spam   Logged
Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #13 on: June 29, 2007, 11:31:35 pm »

A theocracy at least worships God.

What we are in is a Molochracy, whereas worshippers of Moloch run the country.
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy