Sunday, October 23, 2005

Who's afraid of the big, bad New York liberal?

Ah yes, the joys of blogging from 30,000 feet.** I'm what the industry calls a 'white knuckle flyer.' I am absolutely loath to do it. While I know intellectually that it's as safe a mode of travel as any and that it's generally faster, there's still a small part of me that thinks "it's not natural for man to be miles above the ground. If God had intended for us to fly, we would have wings." But such is the nature of technological advancement, I suppose. So long as I can think about something else, I'm usually ok.

At any rate, buzz has already started picking up in D.C. about 2008. Who will run, who will win, how it could hasten Armageddon, etc.

On the Democrat side, it’s pretty much a given that Hillary Clinton is running. She’s repeatedly denied it, but she’s full of crap and she’s lying. She’s running. The primary is likely to come down to two -- Hillary, and what I’ve heard described as the ‘anti-Hillary.’ That is to say, someone who will try to play the ‘electability’ card against what the Republicans are sure to portray as a carpet-bagging, Northeast, Manhattan liberal with questionable morals and an unpleasant past. If I had to guess, this ‘anti-Hillary’ figure is likely to be John Edwards or someone very similar.

Although, whoever it is, it’s probably not going to matter, as Hillary Clinton has a fundraising apparatus the likes of which have never been seen in this universe. She’s probably going to raise an absolutely obscene amount of money and crush whatever measly opponent dare try to challenge her in the primary.

For whatever reason, the thought of a Hillary Clinton presidential campaign has many conservatives lying awake at night clutching their pillow. I am not one of these conservatives. Hillary Clinton is indeed one of the left’s favorite representatives. But she’s also one of the right’s most vilified targets. She’s every bit as divisive as George W. Bush, and the odds of her picking up any states that John Kerry didn’t in 2004 are pretty slim.

This isn’t to say that Republicans shouldn’t worry about a Clinton campaign, but all this fear and despair are, as yet, unfounded. Hillary Clinton has only managed to win state wide election in New York as a Democrat. What’s so frigging impressive about that? Seriously, what’s so shocking about a pro-abortion, pro-entitlement, pro-gun control liberal getting elected in New York? If she’d gotten elected in Alabama, I’d be impressed. I’d even be impressed if she’d defeated a formidable Republican opponent, but she hasn’t done that either.

She’s certainly never had to compete on a national level, and as far as I’m concerned, once she hits "prime time" she's not going to look like the brilliant woman everyone seems to think she is. She's not invincible. And the whole argument that every woman in the country will vote for her is asinine. If all the women in the country vote for her simply because she's a woman, that's the strongest argument yet that women shouldn't be able to vote. No one should vote for a political candidate based on genetic traits. That's not democracy. Replace 'woman' with 'black' or 'white' or 'man,' and it sounds just as stupid. But I digress.

On the Republican side, there's a lot of wishful thinking that Condi Rice will take the nomination. She's adamantly been denying this, and I'd believe her before I would Hillary Clinton, but it's still a possibility. I think she'd be more primed for a run after the next President, whoever it may be, but that's just a guess.

Several conservatives, most notably Dick Morris, seem to believe that a Condi Rice campaign is the only way Republicans can derail a potential Hillary Clinton campaign. Now, a Condi Rice campaign would certainly be effective in derailing a Clinton campaign, but it's not the only way. It would work, but it's not the only way.

Early money seems to be on Virginia senator George Allen, and I honestly can't complain. He's been described as having the charisma of Bill Clinton, the convictions of Ronald Reagan, and the common likeability of George W. Bush (before he was turned into a piñata but the left, that is.) And as a conservative, I can say that could be just what we need. As much as I think George W. Bush is a decent man, he’s not done a good job of representing the cause as of late.

George Allen is also like 6’5”, and as much as people like to pretend physical appearance doesn’t matter, it does. Sure, John Kerry was tall, but he was also gangly, wrinkly, and with a droning voice. George Allen is much more fresh-faced and charismatic. And I think if put up against a shorter, (slightly) less masculine, less aesthetically pleasing Hillary Clinton, Allen certainly wouldn’t let Hillary walk away with it like people seem to think she would.

Of course, sitting here in 2005 trying to predict what’s going to happen in 2008 is a little silly, but I’m a dork like that, and that’s what people in this town do.

**The majority of this post was written on a plane between Washington and Atlanta, en route to Ft. Walton Beach.

3 Comments:

Blogger Jami said...

your post seems well-considered. i must point out that hillary, like 99% of americans, is not pro-abortion. like about 65% of americans, she thinks women and doctors should make their reproductive decisions, not the government.

i'm personally against abortion. but if 65% of the country thinks it should be an option in some cases, it's good that democrats, at least, respect that.

1:35 AM  
Blogger Charles said...

It's all in how the question is posed. If the question is 'Who should make a woman's reproductive decisions, the woman or the government?' of course a majority of people are going to side with the woman.

I'm sure if the question was asked 'Should a woman have a right to kill a fetus?' a majority of people would be against that.

At the end of the day, I think a majority of people would be against the 'abortion on demand' culture and more in favor of a more measured, restricted approach. Problem is, the people have never gotten to express their opinion through a ballot. The 'right' was discovered by 9 people in robes with no regard for public opinion. Regardless of someone's thoughts on abortion, that should be unsettling.

12:10 PM  
Anonymous Michelle said...

I'd just like to add a nifty tidbit to the post. It seems that I've managed to move into Senator Allen's district. If I were a few houses over, I would be out of his district. At any rate, I intend to volunteer on his 2006 re-election campaign to help set him up for the hopeful 2008 bid. He does seem to be the brightest and most likely star to run. Condi would be great and I've been having my kids read about how great she is just in case she's the 2008 candidate. Crazy as it sounds, I've got a fair number of 6th graders who will actually be able to vote in 2008...

2:25 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home