A potential death blow has been dealt to the Clinton campaign: George W. Bush has stated that he feels that–of the entire Democratic slate–she has the most experience when it comes to the presidency.
The Obama camp is reportedly thrilled about the vote of confidence, feeling it’s the best thing that could happen to their man. They probably figure that a Bush endorsement of Hillary is like having Morton’s salt endorse slugs.
PAD
• 
Wait, do people still listen to what the goob has to say??
The Bush administration has been very steady about Clinton being the candidate to beat. Remember Rove’s exit interviews? He kept going on and on about Clinton, but when asked about Obama he went quiet.
The White House WANTS Clinton to be the Democratic candidate, and so they mention only her so the Democrats think they’re afraid of her and give her the nomination. The White House also knows that she’s the single candidate most likely to unite Republican voters against the Democratic party, and she’s got plenty of stuff in her background they can point out during the campaign, hardly any smearing necessary.
The White House does not want Obama to be the candidate, or Edwards. Without a boogeyman — sorry, boogeywoman — to scare voters with, they might actually have to run on their party’s merits.
I don’t really see the White House having any fear of Obama. I think he’s a good man, but I don’t think he’s electable.
“The White House does not want Obama to be the candidate, or Edwards.”
Actually, I think they’d be most afraid of Edwards. I think there’s plenty of Americans who, when it comes down to it, won’t want to put a woman or a black man in the Oval Office. Based purely on demographics, Edwards may be the most electable candidate the Democrats have simply bcause he’s a white male.
PAD
I don’t really see the White House having any fear of Obama. I think he’s a good man, but I don’t think he’s electable.
**********
SER: I think he’s more electable than Sen. Clinton, who has way too much baggage and nowhere near the experience she claims. In fact, her experience is more bad experience than anything else — I just finished reading Bernstein’s book about her and it’s amazing how many of the Clinton administration’s biggest fumbles can be traced to her (and Bernstein was hardly inclined to do a hatchet job).
More critically is that she’s never really had to run a real campaign — this is arguably her first. Lazio was a sacrificial lamb. And her current campaign just isn’t that impressive. I respect her but I’m not inspired by her.
I think, big picture, Obama or Edwards can beat Giuliani (the most likely candidate unless he really stumbles and then it’s possibly Romney). Any claim of “experience” will fall flat against “Mr. 9/11.” He also doesn’t even have the baggage of voting for the Iraq War. And I think Giuliani is dangerously appealing to conservative Democrats whereas Sen. Clinton has zero appeal to Republicans (even moderate conservatives who might have voted for her husband).
Edwards, the charismatic white male, has more crossover appeal. Obama, though black, is charismatic and inspirational enough to connect to voters.
Anyway, intuitively, I just don’t see how Sen. Clinton can win. That’s why I’m hoping she’ll stumble at the gate. And frankly, something sort of bugs me about our nation being run by basically 2 families (and very incestuous cabinets) for a quarter century.
Well, Giuliani’s vulnerabilities are being paraded by the press, and 9-11 commission chair Tom Kean just endorsed McCain on security. If Bush thinks McCain is the republican candidate who can keep his secrets best, we may soon see McCain more actively positioning himself as the anti-Hillary. Portraying Hillary as the likely democratic pick helps him while Giuliani is vulnerable.
Based on his pledge to campaign in the general election on matching funds I wouldn’t have agreed with this last week, but now I’m hearing he may be disqualified from doing so, so Edwards is a lot stronger than he’s being portrayed. He’s got the same stand on healthcare as Hillary and a strong campaign, but none of the tired James-Carville-brand of politicking.
The end to this dynastic rule is JUST fine with me. I’ll not vote for a Clinton or a Bush.
If Hillary allegedly has “most experience” of all the Democratic presidential candidates, that doesn’t say much for the Democratic slate, as a whole.
Frankly, as a non-aligned voter, I’m not looking forward to any of my choices from either party for 2008.
I think the biggest question, not only for the presidency, but for Congress as well, is where have all the leaders gone?
Don’t apply too much kremlinology to this.
I remember the article in which Bush’s statement about Hillary originated. It was about how the administration is preparing for the inevitable transition to whoever will become President next January.
Bush was making no attempt to make an endorsement or poison any candidate’s chances. He was trying to appear “above the fray”. This is a luxury he has because no one in his administration is seeking the nomination.
Ironic that with all the talk about “Dynastic Politics” there is no heir apparent on the GOP ticket. Though its a common assumption that Jeb Bush might take a shot at it in the future. Maybe a 2008 run for Jeb was the presumption behind making Cheney the VP candidate back in 2000.
There are compelling arguments for every candidate in this election as to why they are unelectable… and yet, one of them will be elected.
Ironic that with all the talk about “Dynastic Politics” there is no heir apparent on the GOP ticket. Though its a common assumption that Jeb Bush might take a shot at it in the future.
I think it is safe to say that after the past 7+ years, there is no way in Hades that Jeb (or any other Bush for the forseeable future) will be elected to the White House. His campaign slogan would pretty much have to be “Elect Jeb — He’s the Competent One”, and that doesn’t exactly inspire confidence.
I always felt that Edwards was the best Democrat candidate even back in 2004. He was the one that I, as a Republican, was most afraid of on the ballot.
The electoral college has a very thin margin of error for the GOP. A candidate must sweep the entire South to win since they have no chance in the Big Blue states (CA, IL, NY). Edwards could derail that GOP winning strategy. Democrats have nothing to fear from Giuliani or Romney since they won’t win any Big Blue states and could endanger holding the South.
For the Republicans, Obama would be a godsend. I still think Hillary is very electable and quite honestly I’m not afraid of her. The Clintons always do what’s popular in the long run. Bill was a status-quo keeper for the last 5 years of his presidency.
Sasha wrote: “Elect Jeb — He’s the Competent One”
LOL! I can almost picture it. Amazing how something can be so humorous and terrifying at the same time.
PAD wrote: Based purely on demographics, Edwards may be the most electable candidate the Democrats have simply because he’s a white male.
Agreed. I’d be surprised if the elected candidate is a minority or woman unless there was no other option. Personally, all I ask is that the person be able to handle the job competently and morally.
While I think of it, I think there was an article regarding Mrs. Obama saying how America would be viewed differently by the world if we elected an African-American president – I’ll post the link if I can ever find it again. She has a point, but wouldn’t we also be viewed differently if we finally voted in a woman, a Hispanic, or an Asian-American?
For the Republicans, Obama would be a godsend.
Why do you think that? I’d imagine that Hillary would be much more of a godsend — if there’s any figure that can unite the splintered factions of the GOP, it’s her.
>wouldn’t we also be viewed differently if we finally voted in a woman…?
Not necessarily. Remember the iron-fisted Margaret Thatcher?
http://www.draftgore.com/
Amazing how little confidence some people have in the existing electoral pool.
Bush is so unpopular, it’s pretty obvious that any republican receiving his endorsement would have to cry foul.
And Bush doesn’t have the luxury of being indifferent — his successor will have access to all the šhìŧ he’s trying to keep buried. McCain is his obvious best-option to protect his secrets. The surge is, after all, known as the McCain Doctrine. Bush simply knows publicly supporting McCain will only handicap his campaign.
Based purely on demographics, Edwards may be the most electable candidate the Democrats have simply bcause he’s a white male.
I would disagree. He didn’t impress us much here in NC as a Senator (though he WAS smart enough to leave after one term) and he has not terribly impressed the Democratic primary voters, if the polls are to be believed. If Clinton and Obama destroy each other he might slip in but I doubt that will happen–and if it does it won’t leave him with a terribly great groundswell of support. Better to win than to merely be left standing when the others lose.
It’s still Hillary’s to lose and she has the money to survive any setbacks in the early primaries, which Edwards and, to a lesser degree, Obama, can’t say. I’d still put my bets on her, though she showed a surprising vulnerability when she had a minor stumble 2 debates ago. I wouldn’t have expected them to pull the gender card so quickly and with so little cause. It will be much less effective when she has to do it again, against some real attacks.
And I think Giuliani is dangerously appealing to conservative Democrats whereas Sen. Clinton has zero appeal to Republicans (even moderate conservatives who might have voted for her husband).
I disagree. I think you might be surprised at how many Republicans have looked at her in the debates and seen her as the grownup among amateurs. Her refusal to pander too much to the Dailykos crowd will help her there (and the kossacks will vote for her anyway. Where they gonna go? In contrast, some of the hardcore religious right might be willing to stay home rather than vote for Giuliani or Romney.)
Anyway, intuitively, I just don’t see how Sen. Clinton can win.
I don’t see too many states that have taken a strong tilt to the republicans lately and a few that seem to have definitely turned Democratic. She only has to pick up a few states over Kerry. And I don’t think she’ll make his mistake of not spending millions of dollars on hand in those last few days.
At worst she starts out at a very close tie. What happens next depends on discipline and resources and some luck. Can’t control luck but you have to give her an edge on the first two.
The funny thing is, everything can change once the primaries start.
Going into the 2004 primaries, Howard Dean was the Democratic front runner. Then he lost the first primary and everybody started saying “What a twist!” The big story, repeated not just by the pundits but by every news source, was that the guy who everyone thought would be the Democratic candidate was now in second place.
So when he gave that infamous yell, nobody said he was trying to fire up his people. Nobody said he was crazy determined and everyone should get out of his way. At that point the story was that he was unexpectedly in second place, so everyone looked at the yell and said he was desperate, which made things worse.
That’s the funny thing about primaries. People aren’t voting for who they think would make the better President, they’re voting for who they think can beat the other party on election day. That’s why only the first few primaries matter. If someone can make those first few states think he can defeat the other side, then all the other states line up to back the winner.
Interesting. Two other comments since I submitted have posted, which would indicate that you’ve at least seen mine. How is pointing out there are those who have little faith in the current democratic electoral pool and are trying to bring Gore in somehow malicious?
Or are you simply censoring those whose opinions you don’t like?
Or is it just me?
If it’s in response to the “dren” incident, were you aware that a “dren” is the exact opposite of a “nerd,” hence the spelling? At least, that’s how it was presented in the show “Happy Days.”
Really, I’m a nice guy, and I’m a fan to boot. If I’m doing stuff to annoy you, please, at least have the courtesy to tell me so, so I can stop voluntarily, as opposed to being summarily shut down.
Wow. That one went right through. Good thing I’m acquiring a taste for shoe leather.
Stephen–sometimes having a link included will keep you from being posted. It isn’t PAD or Glen’s doing. Once, the spam filter snagged me for some word that was in my post, thinking it was just spam. Too bad, because it was the best post on the Nigerian Viagra stock market iPod giveaway ever written.
Ah. Quite a fair wonder, this.
PAD, I humbly apologize for any misunderstanding on my part. Mea culpa.
Bill – Did we have to forward the post to ten people to get the offer??
Had to be more than ten. I did that, and I’m still waiting.
Thinking about this whole thing, maybe it’s a simpler explanation. Maybe even Bush wants to get distance from himself.
No, the deal was if you didn’t forward the offer to 10 people something very very bad would happen to you. And your pets.
It’s all part of our “Carrot and Stick” approach to marketing. Apple–No More Mr Nice Guy
Boy oh Boy, any democratic candidate would be better than shrub.
Maybe even Bush wants to get distance from himself.
..or he could be sincere (?maybe?), and as he’s done in the past, said something off the script which has unforeseen (to him) ramifications.
Unless someone suggested for him to say it, then I’d look for the man-behind-the-curtain’s intent.
“Based purely on demographics, Edwards may be the most electable candidate the Democrats have simply bcause he’s a white male.”
I’m not too sure about that. Edwards looks good enough on paper, but the man just blands his way down the memory hole. He shows up, he talks, people get behind his words, he leaves and an hour or two later he’s more or less forgotten. Edwards lacks any true charisma and, in the cable TV and sound byte age, that’s not a good thing for his chances. And it doesn’t help any that the news people wrote their “Hillary as Nominee” scripts a year or so back and are sticking to it. The only exceptions to that are the ones who are making this thing the Clinton/Obama show. It seems like 95% of the news, the debates and the discussions on the Democratic prospects has been about Clinton and Obama. And of the 5% that’s left over for all the other guys, a good portion of that is devoted to asking them about their views on Clinton or Obama.
Edwards has one and only one hope of seeing the White House Come January 2009 and that’s being picked as the VP.
PAD, I humbly apologize for any misunderstanding on my part. Mea culpa.
No problem.
This is as good a place as any to post a general note that if you’ve been banned or shut down, you’re not going to be wondering about it. You’ll KNOW. Indeed, if you’ve provoked me to the point of being banned, you’d have been doing it deliberately and for quite a while. So no one should ever worry that some passing jest or simply disagreeing with me about something is going to get them shut down. If you’re experiencing difficulties, chances are monumentally high that it’s a system glitch.
PAD
he leaves and an hour or two later he’s more or less forgotten.
So you are saying he’s like chinese food?
Seriously, his being picked as the VP might not be so far fetched.
Seriously, his being picked as the VP might not be so far fetched.
Indeed. Just a little while ago, I was pondering how powerful and electable an Obama/Edwards ticket would be. (For my money, probably “pretty dámņ”.)
I think it’s less likely that he would be picked for VP than him actually winning the nomination.
There are a few reasons to pick a VP. One is to achieve party unity. Unless Edwards begins to pick up some support that doesn’t seem too likely a reason. It also seems unlikely that Edwards supporters would possibly throw their support to the republican, whoever he may be.
You might also pick a VP to win his or her state. Didn’t happen in 2004 so I don’t think he’ll get it for that reason.
I wonder–has a losing VP candidate EVER been subsequently put on a ticket as VP again?
Obama would be a great VP candidate and if Edwards actually got the presidential nomination I suppose that could happen. If it’s Hillary…me, I think a Clinton/Obama ticket would be formidable but it would be so groundbreaking that I doubt Hillary’s conservative tenancies would go for it. lus, they don’t seem to like each other. Though the same could be said of Kennedy and Johnson–but Johnson had power and a big state worth of electoral votes.
Edwards’ usefulness as a VP candidate depends on who they’re running against.
Despite some of the details of his upbringing, George W. Bush comes across as a good ‘ole boy. He’s very much the kind of guy that the South feels comfortable with. Having a southerner as your running mate won’t buy you much when you’re facing off against Bush.
Rudi Giuliani is a different matter. Southern states aren’t going to have a natural tendency to vote for him the way they do for Bush. Edwards might be more useful for the ticket against him. They might get a Southern state or two that they didn’t get in 2004.
You like to keep saying this, like Lincoln didn’t lose his Senate bid in 1858 after representing Illinois in the House, and like Kerry didn’t win the 2004 party nomination after polling near the bottom the December before. Exceptions to paradigms are the paradigm when it comes to national elections. The “normal model” ticket is never going to work in a national election.
If you read Jung, he talked about how model-adhering personalities like yourself, judging types he called them (and I don’t mean that in an inherently bad way, since I am one also), are vulnerable to overlooking the real exceptions to the principles they see giving the form to their experiences.
I like Hillary and I like Edwards because their nearly identical stand on healthcare is the right agenda at the right time. However, your staking Hillary’s victory almost entirely seemingly on the basis of her fitting some kind of vague model is a red flag to me that she has a vulnerability that can only be intuited at this point that a very successful trial lawyer might well exploit.
I wonder–has a losing VP candidate EVER been subsequently put on a ticket as VP again?
I couldn’t find one in the history of the Democratic or Republican parties, although there are a couple cases of successful VP candidates going on to become unsuccessful VP candidates, and at least one unsuccessful VP candidate becoming President (FDR). (I assume you’re referring to major party candidates who had at least a chance of being elected; if you broaden the field to everyone who’s ever had their name on the ballot, I’m sure there have been some repeats among the minor parties.)
I’m sorry, Mike, if pointing out Edward’s vulnerabilities upsets you but the facts are what they are. He did not impress greatly in his one term. He retired and endorsed Erskine Bowles, who was clobbered by the singularly uninspiring Richard Burr. The Kerry/Edwards ticket did not, in fact, carry North Carolina.
He has also not done great in the polls. He has not raised as much money as the front runners. If he loses Iowa it is most likely over. This is not true for either Clinton or Obama.
I suspect that Jung, a very bright fellow, would not find too much in the above to disagree with. As I am freely willing to contemplate the possibility that Edwards could still pull this off–indeed, I even proposed a scenario with just that outcome a few posts above–I don’t know if he would actually consider me one of those model-adhering personalities you mention. But I’m sure he could find someone around here worth analysis. Yes indeed.
Although I’m flattered that you find my support of Hillary to be indicative of some mysterious vulnerability on her part, I hardly think of myself as any kind of oracle on these matters. The fact that I’ve been predicting that Hillary would be formidable in this election for some time is nothing to get overly excited over; lots of folks have been making the same prediction for some time, based on entirely logical reasons.
“Almost entirely seemingly”…wow, that’s some mighty bold talk….
that was such an awesome line
…I’m STILL voting for Colbert.
It isn’t your pointing out any vulnerability of Edwards that requires a reply, but the detachment from reality your notion that the least vulnerable candidate — the safest candidate — wins elections exhibits. It’s perhaps the justification Kerry had for his inactivity in campaigning that lost him 2004. He was the least vulnerable candidate and look how that worked out for him.
I’m going by you explicitly referring to conformity as the standard of mental health. You didn’t disagree when I emphasized this and explained Jung’s challenge to that notion.
I have no resolve to be an indecent person and attribute things to you you haven’t said, which is what I would have to have to do so.
Posted by Doug Atkinson at November 21, 2007 06:46 PM: I wonder–has a losing VP candidate EVER been subsequently put on a ticket as VP again?
I’m not sure, but let’s not forget that VP Nixon lost his bid against Kennedy in 1960, and miraculously reappeared in 1968 as President, and we all know where that went.
My only problem w/ Obama is he’s too good – there’s got to be another shoe to drop, there’s ALWAYS another shoe, and I fear another mess the Republicans will tear into like Pirhanas. I’d rather see a Clinton/Obama ticket, myself – sometimes the juxtaposition of two people who don’t see eye to eye brings out the best, a devil’s-advocate situation that keeps cool heads.I have no problems voting for Edwards, either. While I respect Giuliani’s leadership abilities, I’m not sure I could vote for him.
I dread the backstabbing and BS we’ll have to suffer in the coming year. After all the lies we’ve endured in the last 7 years, can’t anyone run on an Honesty ticket?
You’re right, Bill, I don’t think he would. Jung based his typing on the subject’s conscious focus on the function, but said he could have easily inverted his studies to focus on the unconscious. He decided not to because it was too easy to base typing on external observation (which seems to be what Freud does), discounting the subject’s own account of his own experiences which he wanted to avoid. The model-building I cite from you seems to be unconscious, as you give no conscious account of any of it.
I feel compelled to point out that Lincoln’s Senate loss is a poor example in that Senators were not directly elected by the people then. He lost because the other party still controlled the Illinois legislature, and the state legislature were the folks who decided who to send to the Senate.
In point of fact, it was Lincoln’s strong performance in the 1858 debates with Douglas that got him the presidency in 1860; the debates themselves were just part of a longer-term strategy by the era’s Republican party to gain in such ways.
It isn’t your pointing out any vulnerability of Edwards that requires a reply, but the detachment from reality your notion that the least vulnerable candidate — the safest candidate — wins elections exhibits.
Well, it just shows how far we’ve come as a country that, to your thinking, a woman is a “safer” less vulnerable candidate than a white male lawyer. I guess it just illustrates the difficulty still faced by White male lawyers in this world. John Edwards is to be congratulated for defying the odds and making sure that the heretofore silent voices of our White Male lawyer brothers will be ignored no longer!
I keep hoping that *someone* in the running will announce that they will ask General Wesley Clark to be their VP. Yeah, he’d be Swiftboated but I’d like to think that people wouldn’t fall for it again. Then again, I thought that George W. Bush was obviously, completely untrustworthy from day one, so I don’t claim to represent the majority.
That’s a very mild non-disagreement to the observation elections don’t go to the safest and least vulnerable candidate.
Re: Edwards as VP. In addition to not picking up his own state in 2004, he did at best lukewarm against Chaney in the VP debate, something that was unexpected due to his litigation experience. Personally, I thought Chaney narrowly won the debate…and I was not a Bush supporter.
Re: Obama. On the one hand, I was impressed by his visit to Google (available, as are the visits by Clinton, Edwards, Richardson, McCain, Gravel, Paul and maybe one I’m forgetting, at YouTube; search for “candidates Google”). But on the other hand, he mentioned having previously visited Google a few years ago and writing it up in his book.
I looked up Google in the index, and was somewhat dismayed to find that the majority of his account had to do with race. Yes, it’s a shame that the Geodisplay is primarily dark for Africa (not a pun; the display shows via points of light how many search queries are coming from all over the world and there are few if any points in most of Africa) and there are few black or hispanic computer types at the level Google hires, but his whole take on the visit seemed to be viewed through a racial filter rather than the tech and business aspects.
Nice conversation in this string, but how does everyone think the Republican Caucus in Iowa will go. Why?
Because I think Governor Mike Huckabee will take Iowa by at least 5 percentage points–but probably more.
Further I think Obama will take Iowa by between 2-5 percent.
What does this mean for NH and then Super Tuesday?
A Whole New Ball Game. Outsiders win going into NH.
–Captain Naraht
P.S. It’s nice to be back.
In addition to not picking up his own state in 2004, he did at best lukewarm against Chaney in the VP debate, something that was unexpected due to his litigation experience.
Yeah, which is why I am amused to hear anyone talk about how he could use his scary debate skills to exploit any vulnerabilities, real or imagined, in Hillary. He’s had how many debates to do so–500? 12000?–it’s hard to keep track, they seem to have a debate every time I turn my back. So far Hillary has won almost all of them and even when she loses it isn’t so much from anything the other candidates do, it’s just that she does a sub-par job on her own behalf. At any rate, edwards has had plenty of chances to dazzle and is either unable to do so or is saving his brilliance for some later date.
Being a champ debater in college or a succesful trial lawyer does not automatically translate to being able to dazzle in the very different arena of TV appearances.
Captain Naraht–nice to have you back. Momentum certainly seems to have shifted to Obama in Iowa. Should he win…watch it get real ugly, real fast.
America has not seen Edwards in a real debate under his own agenda.
Debating is what turned Edwards from a hillbilly into a millionaire. If you want to see a real fight in the general election, the democrats can’t go wrong with Edwards.
Going into the 2004 Iowa Caucus, Dean had the money and was the expected winner, but he was fighting with Gephart, allowing Kerry and Edwards to sneak in ahead of them. The reports I’m hearing are that Barack and Hillary are very busy fighting each other for first to show much hate to the Edwards campaign.
I like Edwards and Clinton on healthcare, but people are saying Iraq is their first concern in a candidate, perhaps making Biden the surprise upset in January.