Hey, I’ve noticed that there seems to be an election going on. Many months and many millions of dollars after most of the U.S. presidential campaigns were launched, it seems that people are finally paying attention. A couple of bad news days now really hits a candidate where it hurts; a couple of positive news days provides a noticeable boost in the polls. It kind of makes you wonder what the value was of all that money being spent in July and August and September and October, doesn’t it? Well, campaign workers and consultants need to put their kids through college too, I suppose.

So, nobody really asked, but — since this is in part a political blog — I will hereby opinionate: Despite what’s been going on on the Democratic side, I think that Hillary has to remain the nearly prohibitive favorite to win that nomination. I don’t think that Oprah Winfrey will swing it for Obama, though the added media attention will help him. I continue to believe, as I have all along, that if Hillary really falls, it will be John Edwards, and not Barack, who seizes her tiara. The perception of electability always becomes a big factor in the end for primary voters, and I think they will in that event gravitate towards the shameless and tenacious Edwards rather than the lightweight and “too-nice” Obama. (Y’know, the “Republican attack machine” would just eat Barack up.) And indeed I think Edwards could potentially be the toughest Democrat candidate for the Republicans to face. But the nomination is still Hillary’s as of this moment. She now has the opportunity to be able to say she endured some bumps and came out stronger. She certainly has a lot more ammunition (some of it uranium-tipped, no doubt) to use before she allows anyone on the Democratic side to take away the prize she so obviously feels is hers.

The Republican contest is where I’ll be casting my vote, and the situation there is considerably more fluid. In fact, like a whole lot of likely Republican voters (even those who have expressed a preference) I am by no means fully decided as to who will get the RWB vote. So, thinking out loud, and for what it’s worth, this is where I see the main candidates right now:

Rudy Giuliani: His attempt to argue that he has been consistent on issues like gun rights and immigration, while he takes positions very different to the way he dealt with these things while in office, is unconvincing and unsatisfying, despite the fact that he expresses himself very well. He remains probably the most downright intelligent politician I’ve ever personally observed in my handful of decades on the planet. His record of actual and amazing achievements, as mayor of New York City, beats anyone on either side of the race. Beats them into the ground, in fact. It’s why — even though I would like to hold as a personal principle the idea of not voting for anyone for national office who is not pro-life — I can’t rule him out. He is the one candidate who has a history that says that if he makes a strong campaign promise he is very likely to achieve it, or at least bust a whole lot of heads trying. And I can’t discount a kind of visceral affection I have for the guy, as I lived in New York City during his whole tenure as mayor, and of-course through the fall of 2001. If I woke up on a morning in January, 2009, and found that Rudy Giuliani was the President of the United States, I think I’d feel kind of warm inside. Electability, however, is another issue, and there are many out there with both barrels full of dirt ready for Rudy to be nominated. He can answer anything, but the question is if the effect of so much mud-slinging would be to turn off the American public at large.

Mitt Romney: Imagine a 2008 presidential contest between Republican Mitt Romney and Democrat John Edwards. Even if you like Romney, wouldn’t you have to admit it would be a little bit like a contest between, well (as Bob would say), Tweedley-Dee and Tweedley-Dum? Romney wants the nomination more than anyone else on the Republican side. As with Edwards, that hunger seems to be the over-riding element of the man’s nature. What he really wants to achieve as president is harder to see. If you’ve followed the news, you know the way he’s adopted positions on key issues in a way that suited the electorate he was facing at the time. Last week he delivered a nearly pitch-perfect speech on the subject of religious faith in politics; pitch-perfect, that is, for the conservative Christians he wanted to move. Like a lot of other people, I felt like it was a speech for which I could cheer. Its only flaw was failing to properly include agnosticism and atheism in the panoply of American “faiths” which should be respected. But then, Romney wasn’t looking for their votes, on this occasion. Putting religion aside (and sometimes I think his Mormonism is a pretty good red herring), Romney’s health care plan in Massachusetts is not exactly something he should boast about. Still, he remains obviously a pretty smart guy, and his hair is way better than John Edwards’ (and at half the cost, I’d bet).

Mike Huckabee: Huckabee has impressed a lot of people with his likeability, humor and intelligence. Couple that with the fact that he doesn’t have to defend past flip-flops on important social issues, and it’s easy to see why many would gravitate towards him as an alternative to Rudy and Mitt. Now that he’s under the spotlight, though, it’s raising the question of whether he’s really ready for the biggest league of all. Issues of foreign policy don’t seem to interest him deeply, and that’s a significant deficit in the world in which we find ourselves today. And then there are those old comments of his that keep getting highlighted on the Drudge Report every couple of days. The over-the-top harsh remarks about AIDS in 1992. And this from 1998: “I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ.” Now, I have no hesitation in agreeing with Huckabee that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. But, coming from a sitting governor (and one with national aspirations), comments like that are, I think, crazy talk. It is not for governors, let alone presidents, to advocate that people follow one particular faith. If a Christian political leader wants to witness for his faith and for Jesus, he can do so by being a good leader, and he can illustrate by example how his faith guides him towards making good decisions. References to God in an appropriate, restrained and mainly non-denominational way are, I think, good and laudable in a president (and I think President Bush has provided a good example of how to do it, albeit that it hasn’t stopped people from accusing him of being some kind of maniac). It must be allowed that Huckabee was speaking to a conference of pastors — him being one himself — when he made those remarks. But he was the sitting Governor of Arkansas. I also would allow that I don’t believe for a moment that a President Huckabee would start a National Christianization Program in January of 2009. The remarks just seem to indicate poor judgment in an elected leader. But the question remains whether Huckabee is ready to play at this level.

Fred Thompson: Thompson is the candidate who most closely articulates my own views. (I like that about him.) His campaign has seemed to lack spark, and so his poll numbers have declined since he officially entered the race. However, he is not badly placed to pick up conservatives fleeing from Huckabee (if they flee) and unwilling to return to Mitt/Rudy. In fact, the more that things get shaken up in the next month or so, the better it could be for Fred, who might be perceived as being the most solid guy around, which in many ways he is. His lack of executive experience is a concern, and contrasts badly with Rudy. Mind you, if nominated, he will be running against a Democrat (Hillary/Obama/Edwards) without any executive experience either, and with considerably more wacky and socialistic prescriptions for the country. He appears to have the least susceptibility to mud slinging of any of the leading Republicans, carrying relatively little baggage, and this also goes to electability in November 2008. Would he make a great president? Well, how bad could somebody be if they agree with me on almost everything? I think a lot of Republicans have wanted to like Fred. Somehow, the chemistry hasn’t worked, to date. He’s run a different kind of campaign, and it hasn’t caught fire. It remains to be seen if developments will lead a lot of voters to reconsider him.

John McCain: I said he was out long before he was out. He remains out. However, if things get badly shaken up amongst the leaders, and Fred is not seen as the solid alternative, McCain could, in theory, pick up those looking for someone who is something of a known and proven quantity. His views on the war in Iraq have proven to be farsighted and principled, and he deserves credit for that and for other things, although I distrust him on much else.

I think that all of the candidates above are decent and smart guys, and clearly human (as distinct from what Oprah thinks about Obama). Were I to be polled today (and oh how I’d love to be), I would have to answer “undecided.” I am clearly leaning towards Fred, but, by the time my state’s primary comes round, if Fred is far back, I would likely vote for my preferred guy from the top two candidates. I think a lot of people vote that way, and that’s why winning the early primaries provides momentum. The restructured, front-loaded primary season is going to be interesting. It will all be interesting. May the best man win.

...................
Share this!

Posts which might be related to this one based on a mysterious algorithm:

• Debatable
• Keyes to the race
• Campaign notes