Second Thoughts on the 2000s
I know I said months ago that Hillary Clinton’s nomination was inevitable, but the more I think about it . . .
That John Edwards sure is a white man, huh?
Is it far-fetched to think that, when all is said and done, the most plausible-seeming white male candidate is going to get the nomination? Cause we always do.
Comment by Doctor Memory —
December 18, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
If that’s the theory and 2004 is the model, then say hello to your candidate: Joe Biden.
Comment by Jim Henley —
December 18, 2007 @ 8:45 pm
Why Biden? I’m sure you have a reason.
Comment by Mona —
December 18, 2007 @ 9:06 pm
Nah, I really think it is going to be Obama. For one thing, a lot of folk want to “prove” they will vote for a black man, but Hillary just has so much baggage, quite outside of gender problems/prejudice. The netroots deeply distrust her, and while they criticize Obama, too, not like they do Hillary.
Comment by bob mcmanus —
December 18, 2007 @ 9:59 pm
The Beltway wants Obama very badly. Not sure yet if it because they think Obama will be a weak President and lose in 2012 or because they think Obama will lose in 2004, but they have anointed Obama. Brooks & Broder Seal of Approval. Yuck.
Edwards bad for bidness & profits. If Edwards wins, it is by running against the Beltway, like Carter. They hate him so much they won’t mention his name. He is, of course, my guy.
Comment by Sasha —
December 18, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
My husband and I joke that Edwards’ motto should be “HE’s White!” Which is actually good enough for me and I write this as a black woman. I will support the Democratic nominee regardless of who it is but I just think that when push comes to shove, Edwards has the best chance of winning the general election and I am not willing to risk that for anything. It probably helps that I like him the best of the top three anyway but even if I didn’t, I would still prefer that he win the nomination.
Comment by Mike Kozlowski —
December 18, 2007 @ 10:44 pm
Obama’s speed and athleticism should help him, but may not be enough against Edwards’ decision-making skills and toughness.
Or wait, they’re not competing for the starting QB job?
Comment by Jim Henley —
December 18, 2007 @ 10:49 pm
BTW, today it was Mike Wilbon who broke the iron law:
Comparing black and white quarterbacks to each other? Does ESPN know about this? Next the sheep will all have two heads.
Comment by Thoreau —
December 19, 2007 @ 1:17 am
As IOZ has pointed out, this is going to be an interesting race.
The 3 leading candidates on the GOP side are a pro-choice guy with gay friends from NYC, a flip-flopping Mormon from Massachusetts, and an Arkansas governor who may not be as reliably pro-corporation as the GOP would like. (I think Huckabee can be brought around, like they all are, but he isn’t their ideal candidate.) Right now, the Powers that control the GOP are scratching their heads like “WTF?”
On the Dem side, we get to choose between a woman, a black guy, and an economic populist. Clinton and Obama can play ball with the elites no problem, and even Edwards can be brought around to some sort of understanding, but Edwards will be tougher for them and the other two are just not the sort that America is accustomed to electing.
Right now, in a smoke-filled room, somebody is demanding to know what went wrong.
Comment by Frederick Paxson —
December 19, 2007 @ 4:27 am
[I tried to spam this site in favor of a specific candidate! What an ass I am!]
Comment by ajay —
December 19, 2007 @ 6:40 am
That was my fault, sorry. I accidentally asked Frederick Paxson if he wanted to play some solitaire.
Comment by Andrew Lale —
December 19, 2007 @ 10:01 am
So, you ready to make a real apology yet for being wrong being discovered to be wrong and making a not-apology apology? Or has too much truth shorted out your 286Sx?
Comment by joe —
December 19, 2007 @ 10:10 am
Obama’s speed and athleticism should help him, but may not be enough against Edwards’ decision-making skills and toughness.
Obama is blesses with incredible natural political skills, while Edwards is a hard worker and very smart.
Comment by abb1 —
December 19, 2007 @ 11:21 am
I usually feel that there is no difference between any of them, but I was listening to the podcast of the Mclaughlin Group a few weeks ago, someone mentioned Edwards and suddenly Mort Zuckerman (he is, I think, the publisher of U.S. News & World Report and a RE billionaire) – he suddenly and, like, in a totally uncalled for manner threw a hissy fit.
Seriously, he hated the guy so much – he couldn’t control himself. That was interesting. So, yeah, maybe there is something in Edwards, but he is certainly NOT the establishment candidate this time around. And they sure know how to defeat an insurgency.
Comment by diana —
December 19, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
I do not believe HRC will win one primary.
Not one.
And I don’t think Obama will be the candidate.
But what do I know?
Comment by diana —
December 19, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
And to complete my sounding like a total fool, I still think Romney’s the Repub. candidate.
When all is said and done.
Comment by Mona —
December 19, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
I hope the GOP nominates Huckabee: (1) because it is time they learned what courting all those religious-right nuts means; that crowd means to be taken seriously, (2) he has some moral center on issues like torture, (3) he despises the Beltway clique, and (4) he would be easier for the Dems to beat than Rudy would be, but safer if for some reason it didn’t work out that way.
Contra Jim, Edwards isn’t going to win just because he is white and male. The Establishment doesn’t like him. It may be in love with Obama, but in my view Obama is the least compromised of the likely nominees on either side.
My motto is: “Anybody But Rudy.” Followed by: “But if Possible, Please Not HRC.”
Comment by diana —
December 19, 2007 @ 6:45 pm
I wouldn’t worry about Rudy. He’s going down. Too flaky and ugly even for Repubs.
Comment by Gsnorgathon —
December 19, 2007 @ 7:51 pm
I (alas) wouldn’t count Clinton out yet. I think she’s regarded as more liberal than she is by a lot of people who want a liberal president. For the Clinton-haters who really don’t want her to be the one, “oh noes! sheez liburl!” will backfire. For the folks who want an establishmentarian demopublican, that’s just the ticket.
Comment by Dave W. —
December 20, 2007 @ 12:19 pm
I’ll say it again
and I’ve said it before
When it is time to say “when”
It will be Al Gore
Comment by RK —
December 31, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
For the record for abb1 20071219 11:21, the transcript of Zuckerman on Edwards 20071103:
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: Question: Was that a cheap shot from Edwards? Mort Zuckerman. 


MR. ZUCKERMAN: Well, I think almost every shot from Edwards is a cheap shot. I mean, I find him absolutely — if he is a breath of fresh air in this campaign, bring in the Environmental Protection Agency. I have so much difficulty with what he’s saying. He talks about lobbying, right? He is the guy who accepts more money from the trial lawyers than anybody else.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: And hedge funds. 


MR. ZUCKERMAN: He’s a total — I mean, in this sense, I’ve always said he’s a flyweight trying to pass himself off as a lightweight. I just simply cannot get — 


DR. MCLAUGHLIN: Is he — 


MR. ZUCKERMAN: If he is the worst she has to deal with, she’ll be fine. 


DR. MCLAUGHLIN: Does he exemplify the old rhetoric that’s about 10 to 15 years old, in contradistinction to Clinton, who is trying to elevate the rhetoric? 


MR. ZUCKERMAN: He represents hypocrisy. 


MS. CLIFT: Hillary Clinton –
MR. ZUCKERMAN: Hypocrisy and glibness; that’s what he represents.