I have seen the early (very, very early) polls that show either McCain or Guiliani beating any Democratic challenger. That is well and good except for one minor hiccup, there is no way either of those two gets out of the primaries. In the case of Guiliani, he is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage and anti-gun. Anyone that thinks that is going to sell to the Republican base may as well start their Draft Rumsfeld movement for the Democratic ticket. Guiliani is a very interesting, very moderate Republican candidate, but he won't play to the right and the right will pick the nominee.
As for McCain, he is tacking hard to the right and stood foursquare behind the President for as long as was necessary. Since there are only about three people left in the country that are still standing behind Bush, it seems safe enough for the Straight Talk Express to jump those tracks. This rightward shift and his years of loyal service may be enough to get McCain the nomination (though the right still doesn't trust him). The only problem is that the McCain that gets the Republican nod will not be the straight talking maverick that independents love so much. Instead he will be a very damaged, very exploitable candidate that has trouble against a moderate Democrat.
Which brings us to the Democrats. The only three worth mentioning as I write are Hillary, Obama and Edwards. To be sure there will be a dark horse or two along the way to stir things up and the media will no doubt anoint some mid-southern Governor as the second coming along the way. However, when all is said and done, one of those three names will be on the podium in New York/Denver accepting the Democratic nomination.
Hillary is obvious, she has money, she has credentials, she has organization and a host of favors to collect from within the party. Most importantly she has one of the most effective campaigners in modern history in her husband Bill. Don't discount for a moment how attractive eight years in the White House looks to Bill Clinton and don't discount for a moment how attractive having Bill Clinton in the White House appeals to rank and file Democrats. If for no other reason, that makes Hillary the favorite on the Democratic side.
Many are touting Obama as the anti-Hillary of choice. His charisma and star power are undisputed and he has that certain air that speaks of a man going places. The downside is his utter lack of accomplishment. The screams of "empty suit" have already begun and will only get louder as time goes on. Now in 2000 that may not have mattered, but in 2008, with America involved in at least two failing occupations they just might stick. Also, the cynic in me (and nearly thirty years of watching politics), says that Barack Obama has at least one skeleton in the closet. How he handles his inevitable first scandal will say a lot about what kind of candidate he can really be.
Finally John Edwards, at first glance some may wonder why he has made the short list. In a word, organization, Edwards has used his time wisely in the last two years. He has put together a first class organization in Iowa and that state is all about boots on the ground. Name recognition doesn't get it done there and Edwards is the likely beneficiary of Hillary and Obama's absence in Iowa. A win there puts John Edwards in the front rank, a decent showing in New Hampshire and Nevada gets him to his home state of South Carolina. Winning two out of the first three keeps John Edwards in the game until Super Tuesday, where as an articulate Southerner with a populist message he has a very good chance to show well.
Of course this is all just rampant speculation and there are a slew of factors that could render all of this blue sky wondering moot. It is a fun way to pass a cold December morning though isn't it?
Published by Dean Shutt
I have been a writer for most of my life, mostly short stories and poetry as a youth. A few years ago, a friend and I started SCROOMtimes, an online magazine. I was a main contributor to that for over 5 year... View profile
John Edwards Admits He is the Father of Rielle Hunter's BabyFormer Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards has admitted that he is the father of a baby that was conceived while he had an affair with a videographer back in 2007.
John Edwards Baby - Edwards Admits to Love ChildAfter previous denial of a love child John Edwards with Rielle Hunter he now claims the baby that came out of his affair. Why?
John Edwards Rising in Polls in IowaCP Connie Wilson, above with John Edwards in Iowa on Friday, writes about Edwards' rise in the polls and his reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.- Party Crashers Breach Security at Obama White House DinnerAn investigation is underway to determine how two uninvited persons slipped past security and crashed the elite White House party.
- Anita Dunn is the Latest Radical in the White House to Be Uncovered by Glenn BeckThe White House communications director, Anita Dunn, sings the praises of Chairman Mao Tse Tung to a high school audience in June
- Bill Clinton at Democratic Rally in Tempe, Arizona
- Being a Republican at the Maine Democratic Presidential Caucus
- Barrack Obama in the Democratic National Convention
- Is it Too Early to Think About Presidential Running Mates?
- Transformational Leadership Times 1.7: Spousal Roles and Responsibilities on the P...
- Can the National Enquirer Really Win a Pulitzer Prize for the John Edwards Scandal?
- John Edwards: Cut from the Same Cloth After All

3 Comments
Post a CommentUmm, he never resigned and the impeachment failed. What is wrong with you that you care so much about a 60 year old's sex life? Get some therapy, deal with your daddy issues and then come back and attempt an informed comment.
I believe Hillary for Pres had been going on long before 2006 and the 2008 election. Interesting point having Bill Clinton as, um First Man in the White House. Do people really want a man living in the White House that resigned (or was he impeached, I forget) from the Presidency? Everyday people, for the most part, did not care about Monica, but think about it, he gets a second shot of playing around while Hillary is busy running the country?
Good article. Yes it is early to talk about 2008. But do you think that the Democrats could have been thinking about 2008 in 2004? Did the Democrats throw the 2004 election? http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/130878/did_democrats_throw_the_2004_presidential.html