|
January 1, 2008
– As our nation heads toward the first caucuses of this election
cycle - and recover from New Year's Eve festivities, it is time to
take a first real look at the candidates and determine who might
best appeal to Moderate Independents
Coming into Iowa, Hillary Clinton and
Rudy Guiliani were the untouchable frontrunners, according to polls
and the non-Moderate Independent media. But are they really
going to be the candidates in the end, and, more importantly, are
they each deserving of that mantle? And what about Edwards and
Obama? Romney and Huckabee?
First, let's take on Mr. 9/11, Rudolph
"call me Rudy and don't mention my infidelity" Guiliani. Let's
not waste any time here. Guiliani is this year's Howard Dean.
He is an entirely unelectable early emotional favorite. People
across the country who knew nothing about the man were awed by his
stolid strength during the 9/11 crisis. Nice. But it
won't take them long to realize he's just a cheating, multi-divorced
philandering East Coast ethnic with a bad comb-over who doesn't have
any real relevant experience, economically, diplomatically,
militarily, or otherwise - and he is up to his neck in, as most
politely can be said, New York Italian type inappropriateness among
some of his closest fellows. My fellow Americans, is Middle
America and the South going to so overwhelming embrace this guy as
to overcome the Blue North and West? Not a chance. And
will the Mid-Western and Southern conservative cores overlook all of
this on top of his not being a conservative of their ilk?
Case closed. If Republicans come
to their senses, Rudy's fall will make Dean's seem slow.
Let's finish off the Republicans while
we are there.
Huckabee: Bush without the charm.
All the horrible economic policy and lying - ie a 27% sales tax that
would finish off our nation economically and called by him the "Fair
Tax" because it is a fair as Bushes "Clean Skies" deal was clean.
Once he's out of aberrantly conservative Iowa, look for his
15-minutes to be done and for him to run instead to be Bill Graham's
replacement of the rip-old-ladies off circuit.
Romney: Unless he plans to offer
the men of the nation the right to have multiple wives, he doesn't
have anything to offer at all. If he does offer the multiple
wives thing, he will split the male vote between men who would like
the idea of having multiple women with those who think one wife is
too many already. In the end, the latter group would realize
having a second wife around means they can talk each other's ears
off instead of his, and so Romney would likely get a bump there.
Um, serious side, a man with nothing to offer.
And now for the sleeper: John
McCain. He used to be a Moderate Independent favorite before
he sewed his lips directly the the caboose of the Bush bus with
regard to Iraq and other issues. Yet John is the most credible
and qualified of the Republican candidates, and he is a true
conservative on many issues, and so would have a true appeal to
people on that side. If the Republicans know what is good for
them, they will make McCain their candidate. To this point,
despite many horrid gaffes over the past couple of years, he is the
Moderate Independent choice among the lot.
Now, as Beyonce would say, to the left.
Clinton: Let's start with a
serious point that the non-Moderate Independent media needs to heed:
coverage of Hillary Clinton's candidacy to this point has been
disgusting. Their appears to be an unspoken law against
publishing even a single positive article about her. For
Christ's sake, she is the first female in the history of our nation
to ever lead a presidential poll. But do you get a single
article of awe or praise? No. They only publish
petty nonsense, trying to convince you she is "unlikeable" - wow,
what coincidence, the same label that was slapped on the two
previous Democratic frontrunners, Al Gore and John Kerry. The
conservative domination and ownership of the entire media has this
down to a science. Forget the fact in this case the smearing
of Hillary wreaks of old boy's club sexism - ie fear and hatred of
strong women. Let's just stick with the fact that a fairly
centrist, solid, experienced candidate who has the potential to make
history on behalf of the women of the nation - and who, in case you
haven't been paying attention, has garnered the polish to merit it -
can't buy a single positive piece in the press. It's obvious.
It's disgusting. It's called your conservative
propaganda-dominated media at work, and you should be outraged.
Before we talk more about Hillary as a
candidate, let's deal with Barack Obama.
Great man. Great potential
candidate. Great future president potential.
But in this time of terror and
turbulence, America will want a more experienced, seasoned hand.
Nice to meet you Barack - please come back a little further down the
road. It was very smart of him to run - which shows his
potential. Had he not run, his name would have faded from the
national vocabulary. His rock star status would have been
short-lived. This run expands his name recognition and gets
him a platform which, somewhere down the road, made lead him to the
office to which he now aspires.
But not now.
And before we get back to Hillary, let's
talk about the only other potential winning ticket this election
cycle. It includes a man named John Edwards. And this
winning ticket does not have John on the second part of the ticket
as he was last time.
John Edwards. He is the best
candidate in the mix. He knows how to spin rhapsodic, to
inspire and to touch as Clinton's husband used to do. And he
is at the forefront of what has become the top issue of the day -
the economy, and more directly economic disparity. Only
Edwards really has the focus on and plan for restoring a true middle
class, rebalancing the wealth of the nation. Edwards would
swoop up the women's vote, both because of his looks and charm and
his wife's saga. He comes across as someone who really
understands average Americans and who could be trusted.
Edwards' most obvious weakness lies in
his relative inexperience. But if John were to add as his
running mate Moderate Independent favorite General Wesley Clark,
suddenly he becomes the best, most experienced ticket in terms of
protecting the nation. Clark, who hails from Arkansas, and
Edwards, from North Carolina, together could surely win at least a
handful of southern states. And so both the mix and the math
are there.
Keep your eye on this possibility.
As for "Hillary" - they don't call
Edwards "John" or Obama "Barack" or Bush "George", yet refer to her
in this way - she still has more to show. The race is still
hers. To win it, she has to both continue to present her new,
more refined self, and, as importantly, start taking on the darned
non-Moderate Independent media. It is one of the more
incomprehensible realities of our time - Republicans, who own and
operate the media, make no bones insulting any coverage they don't
like. But Democrats who get constantly and unfairly bashed,
from Gore to Kerry and now Clinton, simply don't make media bias an
issue. She needs to get on it. And if she doesn't, she
is missing one of the biggest, most important, most dangerous issues
of our time - the conversion of the media into a right-wing
propaganda tool - and so doesn't deserve to be president.
So there it is. This race could
end up being not Hillary and Rudy but John and John. And if
that were to be the case, our nation would be very fortunate,
because either would serve well - though each would take us down
very different paths.
Me, I'd like to see the first woman
president. And more importantly, I think Clinton is the best
candidate for Moderate Independents our nation at this time.
. | 
