Tuesday, January 22, 2008

The Field Is Narrowing--Thank Goodness

Okay, I don't want to be a spoilsport and pooh-pooh those Presidential hopefuls who threw their hats gleefully in the ring over the past year or so in both parties. But let's be honest, did many of them even bother to gauge their support or chances beforehand? I mean, at least Ross Perot had some support to show for his effort, and stayed with it till the end. But why did Tancredo or Duncan Hunter even bother? And why did Fred Thompson let himself be pulled into it if he didn't want it any more than he apparently did not, if his lackluster campaigning was any indication?

To me, it meant the early debates had to give time to candidates who really had little to distinguish themselves from the leaders. Ron Paul is at least a refreshing and consistent point of view, as his internet fundraising appeal demonstrates to everyone else's consternation. He hasn't a snowball's chance in you-know-where of being his party's nominee, but the others have had to allow and accomodate his debate time. Some, like Governor Bill Richardson, had impressive experience and skills to offer, but couldn't inspire the mainstream to get behind them with the votes or the funds to go very far into the primaries.

Today Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson have thrown in their respective towels after poor showings in the early state primaries. But the race, as Mike Huckabee said in conceding the South Carolina victory to John McCain, is far, far from over. Who will be the ultimate nominee in either major party isn't clear yet, but the time draws near. Florida's ego-driven, ill-advised early primary that got their delegates barred from their conventions as of this writing backfired bigtime, with major candidates refusing to campaign in the state by a like advance date, and then we have Super Tuesday coming, when we'll probably get some sense of who's going to get the prize.

But I wouldn't be surprised if Guiliani, who has pinned all his hopes on a huge Florida victory, comes in second at best or even third or fourth behind McCain, Huckabee, and Romney, simply because they've kept themselves in the public eye and made the headlines and Rudy hasn't. Why he passed on every primary to date is mind-boggling to me, and that strategy alone, the poor decisionmaking, takes the lustre off his once-leading candidacy for me. If I am like most voters I want to hear what the leading candidates have to say about the issues, whether they're in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina, or anywhere else. I don't want to have to wait till they build a base on some state down the road somewhere and not learn their views about the regional issues of earlier contests. Rudy seems to think all those ex-New Yorkers down here in Florida will vote for him. I think they may have if he had shown some spunk earlier. All he's shown me is he won't fight. He wants a sure thing. I want a fighter.

What may happen, if Rudy comes in less than a close second, which I think is likely, is he'll pout and drop out like no-show Fred, and Mike Bloomberg will jump in as an independent and scoop up support from the democratic side primarily, split the vote in that party and hand the election back to the Republican candidate again. He has the potential to be the Ralph Nader or Ross Perot that can't win the election but can make others lose.

On the Democratic side, I must say I was impressed by the well-informed arguments of Chris Dodd and the straight-shooting, direct answers of Joe Biden, though I doubt anyone so little willing to pander and primp to the voters as either of them would have much of a chance for a wide base of support. And Dennis Kucinic is, well, Dennis Kucinic. Good for him, but he's not a broad-appeal candidate for the same reasons as Dodd and Biden. No, the nomination will be won by someone willing to be more patient, considered, political and even-tempered to the sensibilities of the electorate at large. That, after all, is the art of politics. The winner will have that intangible ability to convince voters of almost every constituency, ethnicity, age, race and special interest that he or she will best represent their interests for the next four years.

It wouldn't surprise me if one or even both nominations went undecided clear to their national conventions--something almost unheard of in recent times. But I can remember some roaring ones from the past, let me tell you, and it's probably a healthy thing.

Nonetheless, I think if I had to bet on the nominees today, I'd bet on Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Hillary will finally win the Democratic nomination based on her greater national experience despite Barack Obama's inspired idealism and excellent speaking skills. The perception that he just doesn't have enough experience for the job will return at day's end, and all the idealism in the world won't overcome it. Hillary will run against John McCain, and McCain will win the election in a tight race, because, ironically, he will not have Bill Clinton, who will turn out in the end to be Hillary's greatest liability rather than her greatest strength. As the system showed when their roles were reversed, when he was in power and she was trying unsuccessfully to influence health care legislation, Americans don't want a shared Presidency, or even one which appears to be strongly influenced by a non-elected spouse of either gender. They want a single, clear, unequivocal leader. Well-meaning but outspoken spouses sank John Kerry and will sink Hillary also. In today's egalitarian mood between the assertiveness of spouses and the candidates themselves, the spouses would do well to remember the role of the vice president--golden silence publicly--and the fondness the country felt toward supportive but nonassertive first spouses of past Presidents: Mamie Eisenhower, Barbara Bush, Ladybird Johnson, and Nancy Reagan come to mind. Each championed noble causes effectively but non-politically and did not try to upstage their President in national affairs.

As the country slips into recessionary hard times, the economy will upstage Iraq, immigration, and every other as the deciding issue of this election, and will propel Mitt Romney to frontrunner status for a time because he will appear to have the best remedies and managerial skills. But ultimately John McCain will beat him for the same reason Hillary Clinton will get the Democratic nomination: experience, experience, experience. It's the intangible people consider in that moment they cast their ballots. For in that brief single moment they set aside personal preferences, prejudices, affiliations, special interests, and all the emotional clutter of the campaigns totally and vote their consciences: Who would be the best President for the next four years? Who would do the best job?

It's going to be interesting.

3 comments:

Big Penguin said...

- I'm glad to see some dropping out too. Lets get this election over with

- Rudy will win FL because his name is 1st on the ballot... brilliant brilliant politics

- I like McCain personally, but he's a career politician who will say anything to get elected and has no chance against a straight talking Clinton or Obama

- I think Obama hit the nail on the head when Hilary challenged his experience; When people ask for "experience" what they really want is someone who can make good decisions...not someone who sat in the same chair for 16 years.

-Huckabee better get some $$ or his campaign is gone (A shame too 'cause he is very interesting to listen to)

-Richardson was a "yes man" from the start. He ran for the VP job, but I hope he doesn't get it.

-

Big Penguin said...

Tom Brady for President.... after all, he's a REAL Patriot!!!!

Carol Anne said...

My gut reaction is that I absolutely DO NOT want Hillary as president. It wasn't just her Hillarycare fiasco during Bill's first term ... I'm scared, and I can't completely say why. Unfortunately, it seems fairly likely that she will be the Democrats' nominee.

I have to disagree with Big Penguin about Bill Richardson. I've been watching him for decades now, since he was a first-term Representative. He's smart, and he's especially good at thinking on his feet -- something that unfortunately didn't show during the debates. Back when I was a journalist, I interviewed him for the newspaper I worked for, and I was always impressed with how hard he worked, especially how he took care to study the issues in depth and come out with a well-reasoned solution to problems.

He has also always been a people person, and his ability to negotiate is a great strength. He has made world headlines with negotiations to free hostages here and there around the world, but he has also been able to work with the state legislature to get more done than any other governor in recent history.

Yes, he does have his character flaws. But being a "yes man" isn't one of them -- more the opposite. Here in New Mexico, we often refer to him as "King Bill" -- he wasn't this way when he was a Representative in Congress (he and his administrative assistant traveled around the state to town-hall meetings in a ten-year-old Plymouth Reliant), but after he spent time in Washington in Bill Clinton's Cabinet, he seemed to expect some privileges, such as all his office's documents being protected from public scrutiny, and a new state government-funded jet so he could get to all corners of the state quickly.

But all in all, I believe Richardson could be an effective vice president. I especially believe he would be the perfect vice president for Obama -- the experience to compensate for Obama's lack, the savvy in foreign policy, the knowledge about how Washington works.

That much said, actually, I don't want any of the Democratic candidates to end up as President, but I don't see anybody in the Republican field who has a chance -- I like McCain, but there are too many people who don't like him. Ron Paul comes closest to my ideal, but he doesn't stand a chance. Huckabee and Romney could easily win the primaries, but they're too far to the right to win the general election. Giuliani might have had a chance, but he blew it -- and he's too close to the center to win the primaries anyway.

Really, this whole system is broken ... in the primaries, the candidates are selected on the basis of party orthodoxy rather than general-election electability. Then in the general election, voters are left with a choice between somebody too far to the right or somebody too far to the left.