While Hillary and Barak have been busily presenting their credentials to the black community and sucking all the oxygen away from the other potential presidential candidates (at least all the Democratic ones), Ann Coulter has been busily trying to breathe much needed oxygen back into the campaign of that little “faggot” John Edwards.
Okay, maybe it was unintentional, but I have to wonder. Ann probably had to have known how her remark about Edwards would have been taken, and how it would doubtless inspire much sympathy towards him from the left. And really, Edwards is trailing the other two candidates distantly in the polls, in fact, according to some, he is actually a distant fourth, behind Hillary, Barak, and-former Vice-President Al Gore.
That’s bad.
Now, I can see the potential for much mischief here. All the major Republican contenders have chimed in with their own various disavowals of the remarks. Yet, Edwards himself has put them on his own web-site. This could actually be a real shot in the arm for him. If it was intentional on her part, the implication is that, of all the Democratic contenders, Coulter considers Edwards the easiest to beat in a general election match-up, while dreading to the point of obsession the thought of a Hillary candidacy, who would draw a campaign war-chest that would be hard for any Republican to match, at least in theory.
For what it’s worth, I think Hillary would be the easiest Democrat to beat in a general election, though I can’t help but feel she is virtually unstoppable in her quest to gain the Democratic nomination. She is too hated by way too many people, at worse, and simply mistrusted by way too many others at least.
Edwards would probably be the hardest of the Democrats to beat. All he would have to do is win all of Gore’s old 2000 states, and add a relative handful of southern states, along with Ohio, and he is is in like Flynn. Still, even this is dependent on who he has to face in the general election.
The overall winner-Giulliani, the man whom I can see no one beating in a general election, but more on that later.
For now, the main area to watch is the fascinating rivalry between Obama and Clinton. The anniversary of the march across the bridge of Selma is just the beginning. Barak, though a relatively inexperienced campaigner and public servant, continues to impress and inspire as he siphons off votes from the Clinton tank, along with money from the Hollywood left, as he plays up his strengths as a Washington “outsider”, a breath of fresh air from the old stale politics as usual, and inspirational minority success story.
Hillary will stop just short of shining Al Sharptons shoes on a street in Harlem to maximize her share of the black vote, and for a while the two will be neck and neck, but about half way though the primary season, look for her to pull ahead considerably. Look for a Democratic convention where all the current contenders stand side by side with Hillary, the I’m sure eventual nominee, as they put on a united front.
John Edwards of course will give his two America’s speech, as he hopes against hope for a seat at the table of a Clinton presidency, maybe as Attorney General, yet another position that would be way out of his league. (To be fair, I think he would make an excellent Solicitor General, however).
Barak Obama will speak of a need to heal the divisions of our country, code for “okay, bothers and sisters, it’s cool, vote for the honky bitch”.
Al Gore will of course have a spot at the speakers podium, and will be hailed as the sort of heroic Christ like prophet that is not without honor save in his own country, while he pontificates on the need for drastic changes in America’s environmental policy. He will doubtless speak at length about the dangers of global warming in the middle of the giant air-conditioned convention center.
John Kerry too will make a speech, but will probably find himself relegated to about twenty minutes somewhere between 1 a.m. and ZZZZzzzzzz.
Bill Clinton will of course be the real star of the show, and I’m sure he will make it worthwhile. He probably knows he had better make it good while he can, because it’s all downhill from there.
The entire Democratic convention will be so staged and artificial it will be as antiseptically perfect as a Stepford Wives toilet seat cover. But there’s a rat making it’s way through the plumbing, and if the Democrats ain't careful, ‘08 will be the year they really get bit in the ass.
Think back to the Coretta Scott King funeral, to the speeches of Bill and Hillary Clinton, who for a time stood side by side on the podium as they addressed the mourners (and the remaining majority of the crowd).
If you are a true Democrat, or at least independent and fair minded, Clinton’s speech would have brought you to tears. He was in turn up-lifting, inspirational, humorous, and heart stopping as he reflected on the very real woman that they were there that day to honor.
Then up came Hillary, who shrilly advised the crowd to “send me”.
That is just the difference in the two. Bill Clinton inspires and uplifts while he tugs at your heart, brings you to tears, puts a smile on your face, and makes you feel that everything can actually be right again, all in the space of one speech. You end up feeling a vital part of something worthwhile.
Hillary just pisses you off and scares you to death. That just won’t cut it in a general election against the likes of “America’s Mayor”, or about any other serious Republican contender, with the possible exception of McCain (whom a large portion if not most of Republican conservatives actually hate more than they do Hillary, if that were possible).
The end result will be the election of Giulliani. The next four years might well bode good for the country. It might seem pretty dreary in most of New York though. If Giulliani wins that state, as I think he might well do (along with, incidentally, Pennsylvania and New Jersey), that might write finis to the political career of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who might pick up Ohio as a consolation prize, and otherwise be relegated to the remainder of the Kerry states, along with possibly one or two southwestern states.
But it will be a wash, I’m sure. Why? Because most Republicans seem to have learned their lessons from the ’06 debaucle. Democrats, most of them, still haven’t really learned the lessons from ’72. Or ’80. Or ’84. Or ’88. Or ’94. Or 2002. Or 2004.
As for the 2006 victory, they are to some extent busily trying to silently bury the architect of that victory, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, now the head of the DNC, who instituted the 50 state strategy that won them the last election. That, and the more time goes by, the more obvious it becomes that it is rapidly going back to Democratic Party politics as usual. The list of examples is way too many to list here in this already way overly long post. Besides, they deserve a post of their own.
For now, I’ll just leave you with the mental image of Hillary shining Al Sharpton’s shoes on a Harlem street as I bemoan my lack of ability as an editorial cartoonist.
6 comments:
*snicker*
I dont' care what anyone else says. I like Ann Coulter. I don't always... oh hell, I rarely agree with her, but I love her writing. It's so over-the-top that I can't help myself.
Tom Accuosti
The Tao of Masonry
I feel exactly the same way Tom. I just love that malicious little gleam in her eyes when she's talking and you just know she's getting ready to verbally plunge the knife in-and twist it. I'm probably one of her biggest fans, at least among those she would ironically probably consider in some respects at least to be seditious.
Most of this I agree with, but I find this line "Because most Republicans seem to have learned their lessons from the ’06 debaucle" to be downright baffling. You don't think you're giving them a bit too much of the benefit of the doubt there?
Rufus-I wasn't meaning they are changing their positions, only that they are to some extent facing up to the reasons of their loss, and are now determined to demand accountability in certain areas, such as the Iraq War, and most especially in the runaway spending which has turned so many conservatives off in droves.
That's not to say I find their positions agreeable in all cases. And they are not all acting like grown-ups, to be sure. But compare how they are to a degree looking seriously at their failures to the myriad of excuses Democrats typically offer when they lose, while typically not changing anything (Bill Clinton was an exception to this).
The fact that most Republicans for now at least seem willing to overlook Giulliani's differences with them on some key social issues and are appreciative of those areas which they see as his strengths, that tells me a lot. Like, they know what they have to do to win, and are willing to do it.
Democrats use to pride themselves on being the party of "the big tent". But anymore they have become as stale and rigid in their thinking as the Republicans used to be, while the Republicans seem to be the party that is growing and evolving. Of course, that is for now, it could definitely change back. But I don't see it happening this next election.
But there's a big difference between coming together around a less-than-ideal candidate because you think he can win, and evolving in your thinking. In fact, what's startling about the Republicans is that we're living in a time in which they're failing so spectacularly in dealing with reality. In just about every area I can think of, you have empirical reality, and then you have Republican ideology, and never the twain shall fucking meet. Their strategy with Guiliani is the same as their strategy everywhere else- ignore the real problems and smear the Democrats and hope things come off well in the end.
As for the Democrats, their problem, for my money, is that they're too flexible in their thinking- Hilary is a liberal who pretends to be a conservative to get elected. If people have to choose between another idiot republican like Guiliani and an idiot democrat who pretends to be an idiot republican, they'll probably choose Guiliani. But, if the Democrats drop her for Obama, it'll at least be an interesting race. I mean, the DNC's biggest problem is that their party elites are way the fuck out of touch with their party base. I don't know one progressive who likes Hilary. But we're still chained to her stupid ass. But, the Republicans have the same problem. Guiliani is a perfect example of the base eating shit because the party elites tell them to. And so is Hilary.
Politics is never about dealing with reality, except maybe in emergency situations, until such time it's dealing with a lot of wishful thinking. Neither party is sufficiently grounded in reality to suit me. My main point about the Republicans in dealing with their last loss is that, for the most part (and there are definitely some exceptions to this) they seem to have a clear grasp on why they lost, are openly expressing it, and seem determined to deal with it. And like I said, this might amount to a mere short term solution. Things can get turned on their heads real quick, but for now, Republicans are determined to get back to their core issues, especially pertaining to government waste and excessive spending.
Also, for once-finally-they seem determined to insist on accountability in the Iraq War fiasco. While a good many of them are, it is true, continuing to beat the drum, at least to a large extent they recognize the legitimate concerns of most Americans, and have openly expressed some of the same concerns themselves.
Again, I was not speaking of them changing their positions. Republicans will never be Democrats, nor vice versa. But they can and should both be grown-ups. And yes, they both have a long way to go, but at least the GOP knows why they lost.
When Democrats lose, it's one excuse after another. "Diebold did it". Or "people are lying about us". Or "our people weren't allowed to vote". It's always something besides the most obvious, which is, "we pissed too many fucking people off."
Post a Comment