Sunday, May 27, 2007
2008 election
In a time far away, there will be two main opponents in the competition to be the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. As an aside, I have to say that it amazes me that there are always whole bunches of people who want to be cheered and championed for a few years and then excoriated before they disappear into the hazy clubroom known as "former presidents." Anyway, the point here is that one of my blog pals, Eratosthenes, wrote recently (here) that he'd heard and is "inclined to agree" that the 2008 opponents will be Mitt Romney and John Edwards, with Romney winning and Fred Thompson becoming Secretary of State. Let me say that I respect Eratosthenes enormously but I can't imagine that two pretty boys who are both so utterly "white bread" will be our choices. The good news is that Romney, who appeals to me and interests me more as time goes on, probably would trounce Edwards, who alarms me for many reasons. The bad news is that I think that match would make for an extraordinarily boring main campaign and also wouldn't help our image. On the other hand, while I keep hearing that Hillary can't possibly get her party's nomination because of her high negatives, she has so much money and seems to have lots of "in" groupers behind her. And Edwards seems like a joke. I guess I'm waiting for people to come out of the woodwork.

Labels: ,

Permalink | | posted by jau at 9:01 AM


2 more:
Blogger mkfreeberg — at 1:32 PM, May 28, 2007:
I respect you too, blogger pal. And for the record I don't really think we disagree too much about this. Edwards seems to be increasingly a caricature of himself, and I do believe I noted there was a harsh limit to the amount of the stakes I would bid on him receiving the donk nomination.

He sustains a mild lead in my mind, because 1) It seems a given it's either him or Hillary; and 2) Hillary impresses me as the Howard Dean of '08. The plutocracy continues to counsel the paupers that Hillary is "popular," and it appears a stormy surprise looms on the horizon because history suggests the paupers have their own viewpoints about things.

And Hillary -- well, let's face it. She's never had even a fraction of her famous husband's charm. And much of her inertia is formed from the misconception among professional opinion-shapers, that she has an abundance of exactly that. Like I said. Stormy surprise on the horizon.

Seems unavoidable. And the unavoidable result? Candidate Edwards. And a whole bunch of stunned, surprised, upper-crust elitist Hillary-backers, recent victims of the false consensus effect.

But it's early. I know I could be wrong.

Now if you're in a gambling mood and want to set up wagers against someone with some REAL confidence, I suggest you talk to Mr. Hewitt. I'm far more timid. You win against me, you'll be lucky to carry home any more than a couple pieces of Monopoly money and a mayonnaise sandwich. In my world, donks are weak candidates, by definition. Hewitt is far more experienced at handicapping these things, and his confidence might net you a free dinner at Ruth's Chris...or something.
 

< home >

Blogger jau — at 6:02 PM, May 28, 2007:
Cool details. Boy, you really can write! I agree that Hillary likely won't get it and thus I see your point about Edwards. But I'd hate to have it be him vs. Romney since they're both so similar in so many ways.

OK, let's have a who-will-win-the-nomination pool. The winner gets to host a dinner party for all the guessers. Sadly it might be a virtual dinner since some of the participants live way the hellangone. But I'd settle for mayonnaise and bread anyway! I'll set it up in the next day or so. (With a who-you-want-to-win, too, since that could well be different.)
 

< home >


Post a Comment

< home