America Can't Stand Stomach a Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton Dynasty Succesion
I never noticed America hates dynasties theme in 2000. How come when a Democrat is possibly going to take the White House, all of the sudden we are worried about dynasties? However, when a Republican was, we had no problems and it was seen as a glorious Restoration. America is dying for the loser son of a failed President, but doesn't want the extremely accomplished wife of a flawed but good President? Gotta love those Right Wing talking points the Corporate Media promotes like a Britney Spears gets married to OJ in a Mexican Prison story. What I really don't understand is why are so many Democrats and progressives buying this BS spin that is designed to suppress progressives support if Clinton gets the nomination?
Who do Republicans Really Want?
I did notice this in 2004. The Republicans, especially Karl Rove loved to state that they wanted to face Howard Dean in the general election. For many Democrats this was extremely confusing. When did any Republican, especially someone as odious as Karl Rove ever just come out and state what they really thought or believed? When did we ever accept it as the truth?
Many Republicans stated Kerry would be very tough to beat in a general election. I personally thought this was the Br'er Rabbit plea towards Br'er Fox of, "Please don't throw me in that briar patch". The reverse psychology to pretend you want something, when you really want the opposite. Kerry ended up not being the candidate we had hoped. Would Dean have been a better candidate in a general election is still conjecture (I am too chicken-shit and aware of too many variables to state hell yes).
Now, we have many Republicans and Republican advisors, stating that Barack Obama would be the toughest Democrat to beat and that they would love to face Hillary Clinton in a general election. However, this year we have Rove already attacking Obama, and David Brooks stating on Tim Russert's Saturday MSNBC show that Brooks sees Clinton as the rightful heir of his legacy if a Democrat gains the White House. I find this extremely confusing in terms of politics unless its main purpose is to sow confusion in the Democratic ranks.
I think Clinton in some respects would be their favored candidate, because she would rally the Republican base and flood Republican coffers. However, I don't know if Republicans even know which candidate would be better for their party to face. So maybe some of this confusion, is disension on their course of action.
Which Democratic Candidate Has the Most Upside?
I would have included Edwards if CNN had bothered to include him. For more of this absurd behavior see below.
Another conundrum is CNN's latest poll.
Favorable- Unfavorable- Never Hear of- No Opinion
Illinois Senator Barack Obama
January 9-10, 2008 55% 28% 6% 11%
September 7-9, 2007 49% 27% 10% 13%
June 22-24, 2007 47% 24% 14% 15%
March 9-11, 2007 44% 21% 19% 16%
November 3-5, 2006 36% 11% 37% 16%
Arizona Senator John McCain
January 9-10, 2008 54% 29% 5% 13%
September 7-9, 2007 47% 32% 7% 14%
June 22-24, 2007 46% 32% 9% 13%
March 9-11, 2007 47% 27% 12% 14%
November 3-5, 2006 52% 22% 11% 15%
September 22-24, 2006 50% 25% 14% 11%
April 21-23, 2006 46% 20% 17% 16%
New York Senator Hillary Clinton
January 9-10, 2008 53% 39% 1% 7%
September 7-9, 2007 53% 39% 1% 7%
June 22-24, 2007 51% 44% * 4%
March 9-11, 2007 49% 44% 2% 5%
November 3-5, 2006 51% 40% 3% 7%
September 22-24, 2006 50% 45% 2% 4%
April 21-23, 2006 50% 42% 2% 6%
Definitely/Definitely Consider/ Definitely Not Voting for/ No Opinion
Hillary Clinton 37% 19% 43% *
Barack Obama 30% 32% 38% *
John McCain 22% 35% 43% *
Rudy Giuliani 19% 25% 55% *
Mike Huckabee 15% 31% 52% 1%
Mitt Romney 13% 25% 62% 1%
Obama has very good favorable/unfavorable ratings compared to Clinton, but only 5% better when it comes to the percentage of voters who will not vote for this candidate if the nominee. This is not the same on the Republican side. Huckabee has only 1% worse unfavorable rating than McCain, but does 12% worse on the will not get my vote issue. Giuliani and Romney do even worse.
http://i.a.cnn.net/...
For comparison Kerry was around 28% unfavorables, and those numbers rose to 47% by mid-late October. Not sure what his will never get my vote percentage was.
As the campaign slogs on the unfavorables will rise for both Clinton and Obama. I think Clinton's will not go up as fast as Obama's, but they probably have a higher range. However, her support is stronger than Obama's, at least at this moment.
Coverage
Ewards is not given serious coverage, because he doesn't do well enough in the primaries and caucuses. Yet, Giuliani and McCain are given more coverage even though they don't do as well.
This was certainly true after Iowa. Edwards finished a stong 2nd in Iowa and a solid 3rd in New Hampshire. In Iowa alone, he got more votes than McCain, Giuliani, and Thompson combined. However, he didn't get as much coverage as either of those candidates individually, after Iowa. This is self-fulfilling prophecy. No coverage and less votes each election. Edwards does better in national polls, the more coverage he receives. I realize the corporate media is quite hostile to Edwards message, but the lack of coverage he receives is astounding compared to other "fringe" candidates like Giuliani and Thompson.
Populism that Doesn't Attack Wall Street
I am only 40, but my understanding of American politics and the elections of the past 30 years, cause me to question Edwards non-existent attack of the culture of Wall Street. I think it really weakens his message to never mention the corrupting influence that Wall Street has middle and lower class Americans. There is a disconnect that raises too many questions in voters, IMHO.
Can Hillary Clinton Win with High Unfavorables?
Bill Clinton now has favorables/unfavorables that match his approval rating as President, but that wasn't always the case. During parts of his first term and for a year around the impeachment proceedings his fav/unfavs were relatively equal, but he still always mainted high 50s-low 60s job approvals. I wonder if this effect will transfer to Hillary who the media at least regards as being a polarizing figure. Bill certainly was at times during his presidency, but was always able to maintain solid numbers in the job approval rankings. Hillary Clinton's high unfavorables may not impact as much as other candidates.
Obama, Clinton, Edwards Can Be the Next FDR or JFK
I hear this mostly with Obama, but I have heard it about the other candidates in this race and I heard it about Dean and some Kerry supporter in 2004. That once candidate x sweeps into office he can do so much that he wants, with that kind of mandate. They won't be able to do as much as JFK, and FDR were allowed, because of the Dem majority in Congress.
Dem Majorities
1933- 59 Senators, 313 House Members
1961-63 Senators, 263 House Members
2007- 49 Senators (2 that caucus), 232 House Members
You need large majorities, not the fragile one we currently have in the Senate. I think we can get these up into the 55 Senators 250 House member range, perhaps even higher, but we don't do any of these candidates any service if we raise our expections to unrealistic levels.
Do Endorsements from Established Politicians Hurt Candidates Endorsing Change?
I thought they were great in 2004 when Dean got them, especially from Gore. Then he started dropping in the polls. There were other factors, but I started reconsidering their impact. If you were running on change, to have your supporters remain silent on their support until late in the nomination process or after the nomation was secured, might be the better campaign strategy.
However, does it actually become a problem when all the people who many voters blame for the problems of today endorse you? I don't think Kerry's endorsement is good for Obama and his message. I think it causes the voter to reasses the candidate if they are promoting change and it seems like the entire "tired old" establishment is behind that candidate. The disconnect becomes too great.
Conclusion
We have to fight for all our candidates, not just our favorite ones. I like Clinton, Edwards, and Obama in that order and about that close at the moment. If I was listing those three, then the next best Republican it would be pointless. I am not voting for any Republican Presidential candidate. Obama can be the phoniest corporate sell-out I could imagine, have ties to radical IHOP employees, think Carrie Underwood and Dane Cook (nothing against either one, I just think you should have some talent to be succesful entertainers, must just be me) should hold cabinet positions and I am voting for him. May not campaign has hard for him, but I ain't going anywhere.
However, if any media outlet states anything against any of them we need to raise a storm. For too long the liberal blogs have let the media define Clinton in negative sexist terms, Obama in racist and inflamatory religious terms, and basically ignored Edwards when he is not grooming himself. They have come to the defense of Obama at times, but are too lethargic in Clinton's defense, most likely due to trepidation and ambivalence towards her candidacy. The only way to take Democracy back is to take the White House and neuter the media. If our candidates are seen as not viable by 51% of the electorate we can't win. The media destroying Obama for the benefit of Clinton and staying quite, because it helps your candidate, is the road to a McCain, Huckabee, or worse White House.