9 Responses to “Question of the Week”

1. ro Says:
   November 5th, 2007 at 10:56 am

   Tough, tough question Bill. I predict Hillary Clinton will win the nomination and she might win the election, but I want to make it clear that this is not my preference.

   I think the GOP race will be tight and it might be Giuliani getting the nomination. This is also not my preference.

2. Neel Mehta Says:
   November 5th, 2007 at 12:47 pm

   And America asks in response, “Is it already time to care about that crap?” I mean, Fred Thompson was the so-called savvy latecomer, and even he declared about 3 months too early.

   I’m still waiting for Richardson and Edwards to show signs of life. If the Dems were planning ahead, they’d go with the moderate candidates most likely to win the general election. (Depending on the Republican candidate, Obama would have a chance; Clinton would not.)

   What liberals need is their own Karl Rove. You know, someone evil, who’s willing to consider and do the nasty, illegal, unconscionable thing to get their side elected. Were I in that position, and this is purely hypothetical, I’d wait until mid-October and do what was necessary to “inactivate” an oil refinery or two.

   Drive gas prices up exponentially before the election, and watch the moderates veer left in droves. Because it’s the highway, and they roll like that.

3. Bill Says:
   November 5th, 2007 at 9:18 pm

   I think a year is a fair amount of time to start thinking about who is going to be the next leader of the free world. After all, if Bush has taught us nothing else, it’s that it matters who the president is.

   For the Democrats, Hillary looks strong. But I wonder if the cowardly Democrats have the guts to actually nominate her. Howard Dean was soaring in the polls, but when it came time to vote, Democrats went for the person they saw as the safer choice, John Kerry. Who’s safe in the current field? I’d have to go with John Edwards. He’s charismatic, strong on the issues, and has a trial laywer’s fighting stance. Last time, he came in second for the nomination and did get the VP nomination, so he does bring some serious credibility to the table. He even won an electoral vote in the general. I mean, he wasn’t even running for president, and he came in third! He’s strong in Iowa, and that’s important as well. Those who “dated Dean and married Kerry” may very well be dating Hillary only to marry Edwards.

   For the Republicans, I thought Fred Thompson would have legs, but he seems to be turning out to be this season’s Wes Clark. Giuliani’s not strong enough with the base. The evangelicals, if they vote at all this time, will likely back Huckabee. McCain’s broke, and can’t really put up much of a fight anymore. Ron Paul seems to be getting a surge, but the media won’t let him get very far. My guess is that Romney will cinch the nomination for the Republican side.

   So if it’s Edwards vs. Romney, who wins? Since I’m making all this up as I go along, I think I’ll go ahead and imagine it’s Edwards/Richardson vs. Romney/Frist. Well, the Republicans have to run on Bush’s very unpopular record. But Edwards, who is using public financing, will be vastly outspent.

   With a year to go, I’m guessing our next president will turn out to be John Edwards.

   But, you know, I could always be wrong.

4. UnixMan Says:
   November 7th, 2007 at 2:51 am

   Well an observation from the other side of the globe. We have an election here in three weeks so it is on my mind a little.

   Firstly I quite Like Edwards he seems very strong besides I did a survay and that is who came up as my prefered President.

   It seems to me that moderates will win the day so I see Clinton V Giuliani as the probable out come. The Republicans Can not really nominate any one else. In reading information on issue positions I think Giuliani would make a good democrat nomination.

   Both Clinton and Giuliani would not seem out of place in either party on declared Issue positions.

   We all watch with Interest to see who will be the Leader of the “Free World” .

   Did you realise that in Australia we have Mandatory Voting if you do not attend a Polling Booth and have your name marked off you will be fined !!

5. Bill Says:
   November 7th, 2007 at 8:49 am

   UnixMan’s scare quotes got me wondering if the term “leader of the free world” has any meaning after the breakup of the Soviet Union. It’s really more relevant to the Cold War, when all geopolitics was expressed in binary terms, much more than it is now.

   President Bush has made the term even more meaningless. He has proven that the US can act unilaterally to do whatever it wants to do. And he has alienated so many allies that most of the “free world” would shudder to think of him as our leader.

   So, now that “leader of the free world” is out, what would be a better term to describe the President of the United States? Until we come up with one, I guess we’re stuck with “The Decider.”

6. DeLisa Says:
   November 10th, 2007 at 2:00 am

   I’ve been using “Western World” in place of “Free World” since 1988. I recommend it.

   You have NO idea how happy your “Edwards will win” argument made me. He’s absolutely the strongest candidate in my opinion and would make the noblest candidate (compared to Hilary) with the shortest “ramp-up” time (compared to Obama)….

7. DeLisa Says:
   November 10th, 2007 at 2:02 am

   Oh and don’t forget the wild card: Bloomberg as an Independent. (See current cover of Newsweek). How depressing would it be if Clinton, Guiliani and Bloomberg were the nominees – I love New York, but seriously a NY Sen and two NYC mayors?

8. DeLisa Says:
   November 10th, 2007 at 2:03 am

   Oh yeah – and Guiliani’s problem with the base just got solved by Mr. Robertson, no?

9. Bill Says:
   November 10th, 2007 at 6:57 am

   Bloomberg as an independent would help the Democratic candidate immensely, even more so if the Republican is Giuliani. And I agree that this seems somewhat more likely now that Robertson has endorsed him. I wonder what that cost.

   I’ve been warming up to Edwards. I like him a lot more now than I did in 2004. He does seem a nice alternative to Sen. Clinton, who will say anything to get elected, and Sen. Obama, who won’t say anything to get elected. Edwards is the porridge that Goldilocks ate. But can he stand up to the bears in the woods?

Leave a Reply

Name

Mail (will not be published)

Website