With Hillary Clinton and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson indicating their intentions to run for president in recent days, I have been thinking a bit about their chances. While noting Mrs. Clinton’s missteps, Dick Morris thinks that if she gets “used to the pace of politics in 2007,” she has a good shot of becoming the nation’s next chief executive. Ed Morrissey thinks that “Richardson could be ’08’s most dangerous candidate” (Via Instapundit).
Noting Richardson’s experience as U.S. Ambassador to the UN as well as a governor of a state, Morrissey believes he’ll be formidable candidate. Not only that. Richardson worked “with President Bill Clinton on bolstering the party’s credibility with centrist voters.” That line made me realize that success in 2008 may well depend on a candidate moving to the middle without losing his party’s base — as Clinton did in 1992.
Given that the past two presidents (either by design or default) have been polarizing figures, I think the American people will opt for a less divisive candidate next year. That attitude could really help Richardson. Whenever I see him on TV (he frequently appears on FoxNews), he comes across as a level-headed man of the center-left, occasionally willing to praise the president, never baiting, always civil in tone. He seems to prefer argument to attacks.
But, will his reasonable attitude sit well with Democratic primary voters?
By the same token, should my man Rudy prevail in the GOP primaries, he’ll be a strong candidate for the general election. A Republican Mayor of one of the nation’s most liberal cities, he has shown the capacity to reach out beyond his partisan base. But, he’s going to have a challenge winning over that base.
Let’s hope that the next president will be better able to unite the nation. And that one party, preferably the GOP, can choose a candidate who can hold on to his party’s base and reach beyond it.
I believe that you are right in that both nominees will need to adopt a more centrist, less polarizing approach than Clinton or Bush. That would seem to bode well for candidates such as Bill Richardson and Rudy.
Rudy is also my candidate — the only Republican in the race I can support in ’08. If he doesn’t make it through a nominating process controlled by the Republican right I hope the Democrats do nominate Bill Richardson.
Boy, do we have poor memories. Bill was knee deep in Clinton White house scandals. Bill was in charge of the dept of Energy and allwed the Chinese to get the technology to shot light years ahead in there nuclear and rocket program.
I agree that Richardson isn’t perfect, but in general democrats seem to get a pass on most of their scandals. He also isn’t as polarizing.
I think Rudy would be a good candidate, but he has a lot of baggage to overcome, and he also has to appeal to the GOP base-I think he has a tough row to hoe for a GOP primary season, but if he manages that, he could be a very formidable candidate for the general. For Rudy it really is all about winning the primary.
It’s cute the way you guys think the party bosses haven’t already chosen the nominees for 2008, and that the primary process is anything but a well-choreographed show to put a sheen of democracy on a process by which a handful of elites pick one of their own to run as “the people’s choice.” The primaries also provide a narrative by which the front-runner overcomes opposition to create the illusion of a strongman or strongwoman. But it’s all just a show. No one who would really shake up the system is ever allowed anywhere near real power.
I think a Rudy vs. Richardson race would be awful interesting to watch. Much more so than anthing Hillary is involved in.
A Richardson vs. Guiliani race would be interesting. Yes, Guiliani has to overcome the protestations of social conservatives (& it will be quite vicious), but once he gets through that (hopefully), the nomination will be within his grasp. As far as Richardson goes, he is still somewhat of a blank slate (which can be a good thing). He has the added cachet of being Hispanic (despite his Anglo surname). He’s also managed to be one of the Clinton administration’s people not to get splashed by scandal.
Richardson is one of the few Dhimmicrats I actually find palatable. He has the requisite foreign policy experience (UN Ambassador), domestic policy experience (Secy. of Energy) and a touch of dual federalism (NM Gov). Plus, as noted above, he is not tarnished with any Clinton-era scandal.
Of course, wait till Shrillary’s people start combing through their pilfered FBI files from her years in the White House and try looking for dirt. It will happen, trust me.
As for the tinfoil crowd and their conspiracy theory that “this election is already decided” – well, here are some tidbits for you to chomp on:
In January 1999, two years before the 2000 presidential election, the leading Republican candidate in New Hampshire was … Liddy Dole (WMUR-TV/CNN poll, Jan. 12, 1999).
At this stage before the 1992 presidential election, the three leading Democratic candidates were, in order: Mario Cuomo, Jesse Jackson and Lloyd Bentsen (Public Opinion Online, Feb. 21, 1991).
Only three months before the 1988 election, William Schneider cheerfully reported in The National Journal that Michael Dukakis beat George Herbert Walker Bush in 22 of 25 polls taken since April of that year.
Checkmate.
Regards,
Peter H.
Funny how much the pimary results differed from the polls, isn’t it?
Almost as funny as your attempt at serious dialog, Beanie baby.
Regards,
Peter H.
Dan, I think you overestimate the value of “run to the center” in general elections for Prez… by then, the candidates are well stamped as conservative or liberal or moderate by the likley voters and MSM. An attempt to backtrack on positions staked out in the primary to secure the respective party bases will be portrayed as flip-flopping… and they have to take those positions to win the base or look like boobs in state after state primary debates. Remember the folks who show up on primary day? It’s the base with a small portion of independents and equally small portion of spoilers from the other side, if allowed.
Run to the center was a great strategy in the days of Nixon… but has there been a prez candidate who’s done that lately… I know, Pres Clinton comes to mind but I doubt he was ever solid with the party’s left base… his skill was image management. He energized the DLC to strengthen the party’s center/moderate core. He was the center, if that isn’t blasphemy here.
Bush 41 and 43 ran to the right. RR was, well, just RR and defining the right and what was right. Carter and Ford, it seems to my reading, stayed in the center throughout the primaries… even tho’ Reagan and Kennedy tried to press them toward the base.
Maybe it’s that the “center” is no longer center and moderate? Maybe the center has become whatever base of independent voters the MSM can swing on issues important in the news cycle?
I strongly doubt Giuliani or Richardson can win their party’s nomination over the “likely” nominees –McCain and Clinton… and both of them have a lot of work to do with their respective base.
#11: M-Matt, your post reminded me of the era in French history under Robespierre, when “the Mountain” as they dubbed the Third Estate after the execution of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, started to move further and further to the left until they were all guillotining each other. Finally Robespierre met his demise from the same institution he had helped create.
I see the same thing happening to the lib left in this country. The moonbats will keep eliminating more serious candidates in favor of those who pander to the nutroots. DNC icons like FDR, JFK and Truman are starting to look conservative in comparison.
Scary how history repeats itself. It’s even scarier when people don’t recognize it as such.
Regards,
Peter H.
#11:
I agree with the first part of your statement but not the last. I just can’t imagine the GOP base going for a pro-gay pro-abortion cross-dressing New Yorker. Giuliani would have to remake himself as a conservative opening himself up to pandering/flip-flopping charges a la Romney. Richardson may have his own “women” problems a la Arnold without which he’d still be a longshot.
By his adoption of the McCain Doctrine, Bush has ensured that Iraq will still be THE issue in 2008 and unless this hail mary pass works, it will drag down McCain. McCain will also be vulnerable in the primary to accusations he is too old (did you see him snoozing in the SOTU?) and prone to losing his temper – just watch them goad him into doing it in public. We Arizonans know all about it. As for Hillary, the war will bring her down too. Her feeble objections to the way it’s been run will be too little too late.
I think both the GOP and the Dems will wind up going with candidates untainted by the Iraq war/occupation. The GOP will settle on a true winger but not a scary one like Brownback. I really don’t know what the Dems will do. I may have a better idea after February 25.
We Arizonans know all about it.
Then you know that Arpaio should be running.