If we launch an all-stops out attack on her right now, she may lose her front-runner status -- which, in my view, would be a good thing. On the other hand, such an attack may simply leave the Democratic candidate mortally wounded as she enters the general election. Everything comes down to the question of whether or not she has already captured the flag.
I don't dislike Hillary, even though I'm not crazy about her. If she gets the nomination, she'll be the only thing standing between Giuliani and his bomb-happy troop of neocons. But if she can't navigate her way around a controversy over drivers' licenses, how will she outmaneuver the swift boats a year from now?
To be frank, I'm leaning toward Biden, especially after his powerhouse performance in the last debate. In terms of demeanor and style, he's probably the most "presidential" candidate in either party, and he would surely clean Giuliani's clock in a one-on-one debate. The good news is that Biden has doubled his support. The bad news is that he has gone from 3 percent to 6 percent.
I agree with Edwards on most issues, and I'm convinced that his sympathy for the working poor is genuine. He has slipped in the polls in the early primary states, but he is still within striking distance, especially if Hillary flails again. Of all the Democratic candidates, he may have the most appeal to red staters and moderates. But he does have a tendency to choke in debates.
Obama? I like the guy. He'd make a good president. But I'm getting the feeling that his campaign truck doesn't have any forward gears.
I like Kucinich on fair trade and many other issues. But let's face it -- he can't debate or give a speech, and he'll never pass Biden's numbers, let alone Hillary's. (Then again, I wouldn't mind a First Lady who seems to have stepped out of a Pre-Raphaelite painting. While listening to Margaret Price sing the Liebstod just now, all I could think about was that spectacular red hair. Yes, I get really gloppy when I form these little crushes.)
So: Edwards or Biden? Edwards, I guess, but just barely. Which means I must favor a strategy of hitting Hillary hard right now, because that's the only way to lower her numbers.
On a related note. MadFloridian is a fine writer, but his latest entry has me puzzled:
...our leaders are running from the anti-war people in the party, from the women in the party who want the right to make their own choices on health care, from the gay community which wants equal rights.Nonsense. No Democratic candidate favors the war. No Democratic candidate favors overturning Roe. While some may not favor gay marriage, in all other respects all the candidates want equal rights. (My own proposal -- that we achieve balance by outlawing heterosexual marriage -- has not caught on.)
6 comments:
I endorsed Obama recently because he has been against the war in Iraq from the beginning. Edwards is good too though.
I didn't see the debate but most observers seem to agree that Hillary did not do well. Probably not as bad though as Ronald Reagan's performance in the first Reagan-Mondale debate and Reagan managed to regroup.
As for Biden--he's a smart guy, no doubt, but one thing is absolutely clear. He has zero chance of ever being President.How many times has he run now?
I guess I should join you in supporting Biden, mainly because he has the same first name as you, but also because in the general election against Don Giuliani, Biden would be the apparently less bald candidate (not to mention being less 'ethnic'). America needs a comb-over showdown! But I don't think you've really thought through a Biden candidacy or presidency. By the time the conventions roll around, and definitely after the inauguration, Americans would be watching Biden on their digital TVs in HD. His comb over will look like backyard lawn thatch and his teeth like the toilet bowl material they're made of. Yet I'm confident, like you, that Biden won't be the showboating schmuck he was when he put on his Yale ball cap during the Alito confirmation hearings, plus he's entitled to find his true depth, which still remains to be plumbed.
Since you didn't mention it, I will: the Republicans' national piranha machine will surely cease and desist, and therefore never mention that Biden's earlier bid flamed out when he was caught inflagrante delicto for his witless plagiarism of someone else's 'speech'.
Hillary can't be wounded or even hurt from now on since she has already suffered enough in every possible way -- except as a mother. The woman is indestructible. So far, she has stayed above attacking her debating terriers, but if they don't learn to heel, they'll wind up with a lot of spilled estrus on their own heads.
You're right about Kucinich, he's not aggressive, and that's because he's not a meateater. And with his wife on board during the general election supporting Hillary's candidacy, the campaign won't need Nicole Kidman again.
Edwards ran well in 2004's early primary races owing to his Two Americas But It Doesn't Have To Be That Way stump speech. This time around, he'll have to campaign in jeans and a t-shirt if he expects to get any cred. His necktie budget could probably provide health insurance for a lot of the people whose lives he genuinely wants to improve. If he's the candidate against Giuliani, it will likely be decided in the US House of Representatives because neither a Brooklyn nor a Gullah accent will muster the needed Electoral College number.
I know why you didn't mention Nader (who says he'll run again if Hillary is the nominee just to spite you with a double whammy). You didn't bring him up because (1) Al Gore in fact won the Florida vote in 2000, and (2) as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Joe Biden had viciously attacked Anita Hill and thereby assured Clarence Thomas a seat on the Supreme Court that decided that Bush should be president by a single vote -- can you guess by whose vote? In any fair and formal debate, it would be too easy to show that Joe Biden -- not Ralph Nader -- cost Al Gore the presidency. I mean, my post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy isn't as weak as yours. So why would you now be supporting the only Democrat who's a proven thief and who helped make George Bush president? Do you know something the rest of us don't know, like he's the only candidate who doesn't use a Mac?
Personally, I haven't been able to stand Joseph Biden since I read about his demagoguing of the Zero Tolerance War On Drugs in Dan Baum's superb history of the subject, Smoke And Mirrors.
That is not a minor point. In fact, that example points up one of the most significant valid reasons why many Americans see so little difference between the two major parties.
But I fear I have spoken a Heresy...
Look, if it's that close for you between Edwards and Biden, you have to go with Biden. The Iraq mess is the single most important issue facing our country right now and he is the only candidate (Rep or Dem) who has the experience and knowledge to have even a shot at fixing it.
And pay no attention to those comments about him having no chance at winning - he has a chance if people like you begin to support him.
You may be right, anon. However, may I ask you not to be anon?
Sorry to be a stickler about this policy. Truth is, I've been getting a lot of "drive-bys" -- comments from people who say "Cannon, you are a poo-poo head" and similar refined statements. A lot of these comments have, I fear, come from an old enemy.
The rally offensive comments are almost always anonymous. So I feel that if I demand a signature, those lunkheads will slink away.
You can still choose "Anonymous" in the check box beneath "Choose an identity," when you use the blogger comments interface. All I ask is that you put some sort of name or nick at the end of your message. An intial will do. Anything.
Post a Comment