things aren’t going so well for senator rodham in her possible bid to be our next president. is it possible that she would decide that ’08 is not her year after all? well…no. just because a few polls haven’t gone her way, that doesn’t automatically translate into votes or a nomination for any of the other contenders. that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t take those contenders seriously. there is reason to believe that democrats are not so thrilled about a hillary candidacy, and they are looking for someone else to support in ’08. have they found that someone else in senator barack obama? maybe their savior could be mr. “two americas”.
john edwards and barack obama could pose a threat to hillary’s chances if they can present themselves as that someone else, and perhaps even a more electable someone else. they certainly have the capacity to raise ridiculous amounts of money. edwards is still relatively popular, even though he couldn’t seem to deliver his own state to kerry in ’04. obama has come out of relative obscurity (to the non-political folks at least) to become the next big thing in candidates. i’m always skeptical of that tag because that phrase is used too frequently to have any significant meaning. obama should be wary of all the hype, because eventually the honeymoon will be over and people will start to ask serious questions about his record and whether he has the right experience to hold the highest office in the land.
have we found a worthy democratic nominee in this group? the democrats will get the opportunity to decide that later on this year.
for unabashed mockery of john edwards that you would never find on this blog, enjoy wonkette and scrappleface.
tags: john edwards, barack obama, hillary clinton, ’08 election
For Christmas you’ve got to teach me how to do those ‘tags,’ since I’ve got a compatible Firefox browser for Mac OS X now.
Now, to burst your bubble…Sorry.
Edwards and Obama might very well be formidable candidates in ’08, but neither of them have the insane ‘star power’ of our old buddy Hill. And sorry, but chubby butt Liz Edwards and Mrs. Obama, whoever the hell she happens to be, don’t quite match up to the bathroom-sink-masturbatin’ Bill in terms of ‘celeb quotient,’ no matter what anyone says.
Get the Performancing add-on to FireFox. It has a tag editor.
I didn’t say that they could actually beat Hillary, because the Democrats will probably decide that she’s their best choice if they want to win. I think Edwards is a phony and that Obama might not live up to expectations, but really, Kent…don’t you think that you’re being just a tad mean here? That’s so unlike you.
I think it’s too early to talk about ’08. Though I might be the only person in the country who feels that way.
It’s always interesting that you and other conservatives mention that the media– and the people– should examine Barack’s record before they decide he’s qualified to be president. I’m just curious as to what you think is in his record that is being ignored?
It will be hard for any senator to be elected president. JFK was the last to do so and we all know what happened to him. Before that it was Warren G. Hardin in 1920. So it is a rare occurrence in American presidential history.
As for Edwards, I don’t think he has a chance. I love the guy to death, but he has a lot of work to do and a steep hill to climb.
I still see Al Gore coming back. I know he’s stated that he’s not going to run, but I think he will. I think ’08 is going to take a huge turn and surprise everyone.
I think the real question in all of this ’08 talk is is there even going to be a Republican Party to field a candidate to run? They only have one neocon left standing and he’s one of the most unpopular people in the country.
I guess I’m just going with the flow of conversation in the rest of the right blogosphere right now in talking about ’08. Call me a follower if you want to. 🙂
My point about Obama is that people (however we want to define them – as media, the blogs, the American public at large) seem to be ignoring the fact that both Hillary and Obama both subscribe to the same ideology. What makes Hillary scary doesn’t seem to have the same effect on Obama for some reason. Maybe it’s because they like Obama better on a personal level.
I don’t know if I explained that well enough for you. Maybe I’ll try again later.
I agree with you about Edwards.
The one thing Al Gore has going for him…well, two things actually…is that he has his “Inconvenient Truth” movie and he has convinced quite a few people that he WUZ robbed in 2000. Is that enough? It depends on how powerful the sympathy vote is. Personally, I think his time has come and gone.
Don’t you worry about the Republicans. We will be just fine, thanks.
I’m not calling you a follower at all. I just think it’s way too early to be talking about ’08, especially when it’s well over a year away. I’m not very good at predicting the future, so for me ’08 is like a generation away, and so much can happen between now and then. Anyways.
What is that same ideology that you speak of? I would say that Barack’s stances aren’t all that different than Romney’s– who might be the Republican front-runner at the moment. In fact, Barack has been much more consistent and honest than Romney ever could.
I could be way off on Gore, but if history teaches us anything, then Gore will be back for ’08. Of course the decision is his to make, and he might not want to have anything to do with it. I’m just saying all the cards are lined up in his favor if he wants to do it (historically speaking that is). I don’t think Gore was robbed in ’00, but he for sure did win the popular vote and had they continued the recounts in FL, and the Bush dynasty not been in charge in that state, probably would have won the entire thing.
I’m not so sure the Republican Party is going to be just fine. They are going to have to move way more to the center if they want to have a chance in the future politics of this country. To have been so powerful and so organized just two years ago, the GOP collapse is surely one for the history books.
I’ll be the first to admit that I still have a few questions about Romney. He’s not my ideal candidate, but I think he could be the most electable one in the current field of Republican candidates. Of course Romney has said and done some things in the past that would lead us to question how genuine his views are today. He has had a change of heart on abortion. So did Al Gore. He went the opposite direction.
Obama has always been who he is. He has always been pro-choice. He may be more consistent and honest than Romney has been. But the changed version of Romney still is a more conservative-friendly candidate than Barack Obama is. It would be too simplistic, I suppose, to classify Obama as a liberal. He has affliated himself with groups that are, at the very least, unfriendly to a conservative POV. His voting record suggests that he is even a little bit to the left of Hillary, even though he was in favor of that earned income tax credit. There’s also the matter of the Iraq war, which I understand that Barack always opposed. That’s the main difference between Clinton and Obama. That’s what I was trying to say about similar ideology.
I don’t have much faith in Gore. Maybe that influences my view of his ’08 chances, but the Democrats don’t seem to have much interest in recycling former Presidential candidates.
I think that the Republicans will move further to the right than they are now, which wouldn’t take that much effort. I’m not sure that having Romney as the Republican nominee would be a positive thing for the party in that respect, but I don’t see a Reagan or Gingrich type conservative (that has a good chance of winning the nomination) currently running for President. Even George Allen was more like Bush 43 than Reagan.
A change of heart on abortion? I would call it pandering more than a change. Romney will pretty much say whatever to get elected, even if it means flip-flopping on every issue he’s ever publicly spoken about. Not only is Romney pro-choice, but also in favor of equal rights for gays, which must mean gay marriage as well. If all that still makes him a conservative, then we’re all conservative and we should just do away with political parties altogether 😉
It is true that Barack has always opposed the Iraq war. But so does 70% of the American population. And those of us who did support the war in ’03, would mostly agree that what we thought we were supporting back then is nothing close to what’s happening now. It appears that those who opposed the war all along were much more right than any of us.
If Republicans move further to the right, it will indeed secure them as a regional party mostly contained to the Southern States. None of that will be good for the future of this country. Republican leadership must come to terms with the reality that conservatism is not about turning the clock back to the Middle Ages, and that the Cold War ended 15 years ago.
It’s possible to be a fiscal conservative and not a social conservative. Romney can make a more convincing case for the fiscal conservatism based on his record in Massachusetts. Romney doesn’t support gay marriage, and I don’t believe he ever did. Somehow he is winning over social conservatives. I don’t understand it either.
My main reason for bringing up Iraq was to highlight the main difference between Barack and Hillary. I don’t know what the best next step is in Iraq. I hope that whatever we decide to do will not be some kind of half-hearted attempt. If it is, we might as well get out of Iraq.
Which conservatives want to turn the clock back to the Middle Ages? The Cold War ended, but we still face the very real threat of terrorism and rogue states getting nuclear weapons. I think that it would be a mistake to ignore those threats. We also need to keep a closer eye on Putin. I don’t trust him.
I agree that it’s possible to be fiscally conservative and not a social conservative. I absolutely agree to that. But I would also add that it’s also possible to be fiscally conservative and progressive if not liberal.
If Romney isn’t in support of gay marriage, then he really has himself in a pickle. In 1994 he wrote a letter to the Log Cabin Republicans claiming that he would be a better advocate of gay rights than Ted Kennedy has been and would seek to “establish full equality for America’s gay and lesbian citizens.” Either he’s in support of gay marriage or can’t tell the same story twice.
I don’t know what to do about Iraq either. But increasing troop levels doesn’t make sense to me at this point in time. We should have thought about sending more troops 3 years ago. I think it’s too late now. But, I’m like you and don’t know what to do either.
I personally feel that a lot of conservatives, especially neoconservatives, would love to turn the clock back to the Middle Ages. For example, Congressman Goode, in a letter to his constituents, claiming that having a Muslim in Congress is going to lead to further terrorist attacks, and Rep. Hayes stating that we need to convert those in the Middle East to Christianity in order to form stability. Very Middle Aged thinking from both of them, hinging on crusadism.
I don’t trust Putin either, but the threats posed by terrorism and rogue states are very different than Soviet Communism. I’m not so sure those at National Review know the differences, or care to take the time to distinguish.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I don’t have a good argument against that. I guess I’m just looking at the big three Republican contenders, and regardless of the polls, I view Romney as the most impressive. Maybe I’m still trying to make myself believe that he’s changed from 1994, or that his definition of full equality didn’t include marriage, only discrimination in hiring decisions based on sexual orientation. I will grant that this interpretation could be a stretch, so I will leave further explanations and justifications to Romney and his campaign staff. Like I said, I’m still trying to figure him out.
I hope someone in charge knows what to do about Iraq.
You said that a lot of conservatives want to turn the clock back to the Middle Ages, and cited Goode and Hayes as examples. I don’t really see much cheerleading for the views expressed by those two gentlemen, and I doubt that this is a mainstream perspective for the majority of conservatives. We tend to be pretty harsh on those we consider to be off the reservation. I can’t recall anyone coming to the defense of Ann Coulter when she made similar statements to those made by Rep. Hayes. I do think it’s troubling to have a CAIR supporter in Congress, even though it’s true that not all Muslims are terrorists or support terrorists. There is reason to be suspicious of CAIR.
National Review does have some very knowledgeable writers on terrorism-related subjects. Everything I’ve read from them suggests that they do understand the difference. But it wouldn’t take that much knowledge on the subject to impress me. 🙂