Archive for the ‘2008 Presidential Election’ category

Clinton / Obama Ticket May Spell Dem Disaster

December 19, 2006

With the buzz beginning regarding the 2008 Presidential Campaign, certain candidates are already starting to stand out as “front runners”.  Recently, some liberal talking heads have seemed almost giddy over the prospect of a ticket containing both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.  Even some Republicans admit that the prospect of this ticket has them fearful of Democrats taking the White House in 2008.  But before Democrats parade their anointed ones to the stage at the Democratic Convention, they may want to consult the history books.

 Since practically anything can happen between now and the primaries (character assassination, scandal, insufficient funds to continue), it is virtually impossible to know who will come out ahead after Super Tuesday.  However, recent history shows us that an electable ticket must have a Southern name on it.  Only one ticket since 1929 has succeeded in winning the White House without one.  The exception was Republican Richard Nixon (California) when he ran successfully with Spiro Agnew (Maryland) in 1968 and 1972.  Does this spell doom for a Clinton / Obama ticket in 2008?  Possibly, but arguments can be made for this ticket eluding the history books as well.

Some will argue that Hillary Clinton is from the South.  After all, Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas before earning his ticket to the White House.  However, Hillary has solidified herself as a New York politician with her Senatorial victories; and has primarily been backed by northeast liberal donations.  Others will argue that this ticket will be about breaking more than just one historical norm; as the first Presidential ticket with an African American and a woman on it.  Will the novelty of the ticket be enough to override the influence Southern States seem to have on our electoral process?  Only time will tell.

Should the Democrats decide (due to history or other factors) that a Clinton / Obama ticket is not the best option for 2008, then what would the alternatives be?  Although it seems a bit ridiculous to begin seriously discussing candidates with the election more than 22 months away, the last few elections have shown that those who can get a jump start on fund raising often have the advantage going into Iowa and New Hampshire.  Of course a lot can happen in 22 months, but just for fun let’s use the historical formula depicted above to see who may have good potential for a 2008 victory.  This list was obtained from Wikipedia, and can be found here.

Rebuplican
John Cox – Illinois
Michael Smith – Oregon
Sam Brownback – Kansas
Duncan Hunter – California
Rudy Giuliani – New York
John McCain – Arizona
Tommy Thompson – Wisconsin
Jim Gilmore – Virginia
Newt Gingrich – Georgia
Chuck Hagel – Nebraska
Mike Huckabee – Arkansas
Frank Keating – Oklahoma
George Pataki – New York
Mitt Romney – Massachusetts
Tom Tancredo – Colorado
Democrat
Mike Gravel – Alaska
Dennis Kucinich – Ohio
Tom Vilsack – Iowa
Joe Biden – Delaware
Wesley Clark – Arkansas
Hillary Clinton – New York
Christopher Dodd – Connecticut
John Edwards – North Carolina
John Kerry – Massachusetts
Barack Obama – Illinois
Bill Richardson – New Mexico
Al Sharpton – New York

This may get a bit controversial, but let’s pair this list down to those that I consider to actually have a shot at making it to Super Tuesday.  Based on lack of national name recognition (i.e. lack of funding), we’ll eliminate the following candidates: Cox, Smith, Hunter, Gilmore, Hagel, Keating, Tancredo, and Gravel. Based on idealistic beliefs (i.e. too far right or left), we’ll eliminate the following candidates: Brownback, Gingrich, Kucinich, Clark, and Sharpton. We will also eliminate those candidates who have successfully obtained their party’s nomination before and lost, as very few are nominated again: Kerry, Edwards. Anyone’s blood boiling yet, I told you it would get controversial.

Rebuplican
Rudy Giuliani – New York
John McCain – Arizona
Tommy Thompson – Wisconsin
Mike Huckabee – Arkansas
George Pataki – New York
Mitt Romney – Massachusetts
Democrat
Tom Vilsack – Iowa
Joe Biden – Delaware
Hillary Clinton – New York
Christopher Dodd – Connecticut
Barack Obama – Illinois
Bill Richardson – New Mexico

From the list above, something interesting develops:  there are no candidates from the South remaining on the Democratic side of the list.  If the assumptions made above regarding who will make it to Super Tuesday prove accurate, history would indicate that the Democratic ticket may have some electability problems come election day.  To be fair, this assumes that Republicans have someone from the South on their ticket (Mike Huckabee).  Should the Republicans come away from their National Convention without a southern candidate on the ticket, the election would seem to be a toss up, historically speaking.

Although any of the assumptions made above may become moot as we get closer to the primaries and election day, they are no more unrealistic than those political pundants who are already overjoyed by the prospect of a Clinton / Obama Presidential ticket.  Personally, assuming the Republicans have a Southern politician on the ticket, I would love to see a Clinton / Obama Democratic ticket.  After all, historical data is very rarely wrong when predicting who will win the Presidency.

Should We Stay or Should We Go?

December 13, 2006

In his speech announcing his candidacy for President in 2008, Dennis Kucinich said he was running because the Democratic Party has been ineffective in getting our troops out of Iraq.  According to Yahoo News, Kucinich said “”We Democrats were put back in power to bring some sanity back to our nation…We were expected to do what we said we were going to do — get out of Iraq.”

Even though Kucinich has been in Congress for 12 years, perhaps he hasn’t taken the time to study the workings of American Government.  His party has not yet taken power.  How can he claim this prior to his party taking Congressional power back?  It is an interesting question, however, as Kucinich probably sees the Democrats as unwilling to cut funding for the troops and simply pull out of the war.  If the Democrats do not cut funding, would they be neglecting campaign promises?  Not necessarily.

As is the case with most politicians, many Democrats did not put a time line on this promise.  Therefore any action, including acting only in an advisory role to the President, could be construed as living up to their promise…as long as it leads to America getting out of Iraq, eventually.  Kucinich, and others who demand an immediate withdrawal, can be considered farther left than the mainstream Democrat.  Most Democrats, as well as Republicans, agree that an immediate withdrawl would lead to cataclysmic consequences for the Iraqi people.  I contend that an immediate withdrawal would be the most morally bankrupt action the United States has ever taken.

Those who fail to see what effect an immediate withdrawal  would have on Iraqi’s, not to mention the entire Middle East, are so wrapped up in their ideological beleifs that the probable massive loss of life following such a decision seems of little consequence to them.  Should this extreme leftist viewpoint prevail, the genocide would most likely be blamed on the Bush administration.

The current administration is to blame for the loss of life (Iraqi, American, and others) that has already occurred in Iraq.  Because of it’s previous actions, the administration would certainly share the blame of any genocide that would occur after American withdrawal; but if that withdrawal is immediate, the far left will also be to blame for the political pressure they have placed on the administration.  Although unpopular, the best course of action is to stay until the job is done.  Changing strategy instead of staying the course is a good idea, but that strategy must include Iraqi stability prior to American withdrawal.

Chill vs. Shrill

November 10, 2006

 chillvsshrill1.jpg

Will the liberal Democrat base learn from their Congressional victories in 2006?

With Blue Dog Democrats pushing the party over the top in both Senate and House races, the liberal Democrat base should take note for the 2008 Presidential Election.  It’s better to support moderate candidates who can win, than left wing ideologues who cannot.  Left Wingers like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry do fine in their home districts.  My advice, keep them there.  Al Gore turned enviro-wacko, too far left for most tastes.

As a conservative, the only Democrat I would consider voting for in the 2008 Presidential Election would be Barack Obama.  I know, I know…call me a backwards, earth hating, conservative hate monger, but none of the others mentioned above would even get my consideration.  The real question is, would the extreme left listen to reason and promote a free thinker like Obama?  Someone moderates (and even Conservatives) would consider voting for, or, like they have in the past, only give their 527 money to their ideological puppets?