Dallas-Mavs.com Forums - View Single Post

jacktruth · 11-22-2006, 02:59 PM

Medved blessed me this thanksgiving with a glimmer of hope for the candidacy of Al Gore. . .

The Democrats' Dilemma in 2008
Posted by: Michael Medved at 2:13 AM
Even while they’re still celebrating their many victories of 2006, Democrats face a daunting dilemma regarding the upcoming presidential race in 2008: everyone expects Hillary to win the nomination, but no one expects that she can actually win the presidency.

The latest evidence of the party’s profound “Hillary Problem” surfaced on the front page of the New York Times today (Tuesday) under the headline: CLINTON WON EASILY, BUT BANKROLL SHOWS THE TOLL. The article quoted a liberal website in noting that Senator Clinton was guilty of “blowing a shameful $36 million on a shoo-in campaign.” She spent more than any other candidate for Senate anywhere in the country, despite confronting an underfunded, unknown opponent who she beat by an overwhelming 30 points. Her profligate spending (including $13,000 for flowers, $746,450 for catering, $27,261 for valet parking, and as much as $800 in a single month for credit card interest) left her with little cash on hand for her upcoming presidential race and, more importantly, showed a sloppy, spendthrift management style that should worry even her most committed supporters.

The doubts about Hillary (all but universal among Democratic insiders) have contributed to a flurry of candidates who seem determined to challenge her for the nomination: Senator Kerry, of course, and former Senator Edwards, and Senator Biden, and Senator Bayh, and Governor Vilsack and Congressman Kucinich and, perhaps Senator Obama.

While the GOP race has already narrowed to just three serious candidates (McCain, Giuliani and Romney—see my blog from yesterday) the Democratic field remains wide open – reflecting the widespread assumption that Hillary may remain the obvious frontrunner for the nomination, but would face a tough time winning a majority of the electoral votes in a general election.

In a sense, she’s in the same position as Bob Dole when he sought the Republican nomination of 1996, or John Kerry when he secured the Democratic nomination in 2004: a drab, safe selection that inspires more respect than enthusiasm among party activists. They assume it’s “her turn,” even though they realize (as with Dole and Kerry) that she carries political negatives that will make it difficult for her to win.

If the Democratic field continues to include a half-dozen (or more) rivals to Hillary’s claim on the nomination, she’s almost sure to grab the delegates she needs against a fragmented opposition. She remains by far the best known candidate, and there’s no state in which her support would dip below 30%. With numerous rivals, that core backing will prove more than enough in every primary: especially if she maintains her status as the only female candidate facing a collection of men. In her campaign, she becomes the issue, and people who attempt to run to the right of her (Bayh, Vilsack) or to the left of her (Kerry, Kucinich) or to beat her from both sides at once by combining a more conservative style with more leftist policy positions (Edwards, Biden) will probably find themselves frustrated by her celebrity status that transcends issues or ideology.

If she weren’t a woman, her opponents for the nomination could question her on the basis of sheer competence: how can someone run credibly for President with zero administrative experience in any aspect of human endeavor (Bush had run several businesses, and served as Governor of Texas for six years) and with a Senatorial campaign that squandered $800 in a single month on credit card interest? In the current situation, however, anyone who questioned her administrative capacity (remember her task force on healthcare?) would be charged with “sexism,” or denigrating the ability of women to serve in executive positions.

The bottom line is that whatever her shortcomings as a public speaker, TV presence, and debater (she’s gotten much better in the last few years, as a matter of fact), her biggest problem remains her hopelessness in administrative expertise. Republicans should continue to relish the chance to run against an administratively incompetent candidate who squanders tens of thousands of dollars on valet parking, $13,000 on flowers, and $800 (in a month!) for credit card bills that no one paid promptly.

The only potential rival who might still succeed in wresting the nomination from Hillary’s grasping, nail-bitten fingers is Al Gore. With his acclaimed documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" poised to win an Oscar, his impassioned popularity on the anti-war left, and the sense that he was horribly gypped in the election of 2000, Gore could enter the race even at a very late date and raise the money and support needed to win.

He remains so quirky and bizarre that one can only hope he will self-destruct as he did six years ago, but Gore’s familiarity to the general public (even his idiosyncrasies have begun to look endearing) might make him a formidable opponent indeed when the key question may be, “Which candidate scares you most?” Al Gore should look scary to all Americans (mentally troubled individuals—nutburgers—ought never be granted access to nuclear weapons), but his sheer silliness(combined with self-deprecating humor) helps to reassure people that he’s harmless. I never thought I’d live to say it, but we’ve reached the point where Republican strategists should fear (and try to block) Al Gore.

11-22-2006, 02:59 PM	#27
jacktruth Golden Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: TX Posts: 1,868	Medved blessed me this thanksgiving with a glimmer of hope for the candidacy of Al Gore. . . The Democrats' Dilemma in 2008 Posted by: Michael Medved at 2:13 AM Even while they’re still celebrating their many victories of 2006, Democrats face a daunting dilemma regarding the upcoming presidential race in 2008: everyone expects Hillary to win the nomination, but no one expects that she can actually win the presidency. The latest evidence of the party’s profound “Hillary Problem” surfaced on the front page of the New York Times today (Tuesday) under the headline: CLINTON WON EASILY, BUT BANKROLL SHOWS THE TOLL. The article quoted a liberal website in noting that Senator Clinton was guilty of “blowing a shameful $36 million on a shoo-in campaign.” She spent more than any other candidate for Senate anywhere in the country, despite confronting an underfunded, unknown opponent who she beat by an overwhelming 30 points. Her profligate spending (including $13,000 for flowers, $746,450 for catering, $27,261 for valet parking, and as much as $800 in a single month for credit card interest) left her with little cash on hand for her upcoming presidential race and, more importantly, showed a sloppy, spendthrift management style that should worry even her most committed supporters. The doubts about Hillary (all but universal among Democratic insiders) have contributed to a flurry of candidates who seem determined to challenge her for the nomination: Senator Kerry, of course, and former Senator Edwards, and Senator Biden, and Senator Bayh, and Governor Vilsack and Congressman Kucinich and, perhaps Senator Obama. While the GOP race has already narrowed to just three serious candidates (McCain, Giuliani and Romney—see my blog from yesterday) the Democratic field remains wide open – reflecting the widespread assumption that Hillary may remain the obvious frontrunner for the nomination, but would face a tough time winning a majority of the electoral votes in a general election. In a sense, she’s in the same position as Bob Dole when he sought the Republican nomination of 1996, or John Kerry when he secured the Democratic nomination in 2004: a drab, safe selection that inspires more respect than enthusiasm among party activists. They assume it’s “her turn,” even though they realize (as with Dole and Kerry) that she carries political negatives that will make it difficult for her to win. If the Democratic field continues to include a half-dozen (or more) rivals to Hillary’s claim on the nomination, she’s almost sure to grab the delegates she needs against a fragmented opposition. She remains by far the best known candidate, and there’s no state in which her support would dip below 30%. With numerous rivals, that core backing will prove more than enough in every primary: especially if she maintains her status as the only female candidate facing a collection of men. In her campaign, she becomes the issue, and people who attempt to run to the right of her (Bayh, Vilsack) or to the left of her (Kerry, Kucinich) or to beat her from both sides at once by combining a more conservative style with more leftist policy positions (Edwards, Biden) will probably find themselves frustrated by her celebrity status that transcends issues or ideology. If she weren’t a woman, her opponents for the nomination could question her on the basis of sheer competence: how can someone run credibly for President with zero administrative experience in any aspect of human endeavor (Bush had run several businesses, and served as Governor of Texas for six years) and with a Senatorial campaign that squandered $800 in a single month on credit card interest? In the current situation, however, anyone who questioned her administrative capacity (remember her task force on healthcare?) would be charged with “sexism,” or denigrating the ability of women to serve in executive positions. The bottom line is that whatever her shortcomings as a public speaker, TV presence, and debater (she’s gotten much better in the last few years, as a matter of fact), her biggest problem remains her hopelessness in administrative expertise. Republicans should continue to relish the chance to run against an administratively incompetent candidate who squanders tens of thousands of dollars on valet parking, $13,000 on flowers, and $800 (in a month!) for credit card bills that no one paid promptly. The only potential rival who might still succeed in wresting the nomination from Hillary’s grasping, nail-bitten fingers is Al Gore. With his acclaimed documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" poised to win an Oscar, his impassioned popularity on the anti-war left, and the sense that he was horribly gypped in the election of 2000, Gore could enter the race even at a very late date and raise the money and support needed to win. He remains so quirky and bizarre that one can only hope he will self-destruct as he did six years ago, but Gore’s familiarity to the general public (even his idiosyncrasies have begun to look endearing) might make him a formidable opponent indeed when the key question may be, “Which candidate scares you most?” Al Gore should look scary to all Americans (mentally troubled individuals—nutburgers—ought never be granted access to nuclear weapons), but his sheer silliness(combined with self-deprecating humor) helps to reassure people that he’s harmless. I never thought I’d live to say it, but we’ve reached the point where Republican strategists should fear (and try to block) Al Gore.