2008 is still a ways away; but the field is filling up quick and the two top Democrats - Hillary & Obama - are getting money and donors and attention, so it's time to restart the '08 topic I blurbed about a few months ago. While I find Obama intriguing (and Hillary disgusting), I'm still putting my oomph behind John Edwards. Right now, I think an Edwards-Obama ticket would be very powerful. It'd match Southeast & Midwest, a moderate hawk & a social liberal, and two attractive (physically and emotionally) men who create a lot of voter excitement.Then, after 8 years of Edwards we can plausibly have 8 years of Obama (by then people will be used to his name).
On the GOP side, I'm frightened of a Giuliani-McCain (or vice versa) ticket because they both have appeal to Independents. But McCain looks like death warmed over (and will be 72 in November '08) and Giuliani is massive S.O.B. - which is an asset for the NYC mayor's seat, but doesn't play well anywhere else.
While there's a funny symmetry to have a Giuliani-Clinton race - when's the last time the major party candidates came from the same state, probably Lincoln-Douglas - I am praying that Hillary will implode before the year is through. And Giuliani is a ticking bomb of an even higher degree (and remember he ducked out of their first fight in 2000 blaming is naughty prostate... like having cancer could keep you from the Senate; just ask Tim Johnson]
In any case, I will comment more about this issue as time permits. I do like that Krugman gave some support to Edward's bona-fides here (praising his health plan).
{2009 Update: Pic from Edwards' endorsement of Obama in 2008; my how things change.}
3 comments:
"he ducked out of their first fight in 2000 blaming is naughty prostrate..."
Do you mean his naughty prostate? And even that doesn't sound right. See you this weekend
After the reports about Edwards' comments about a preemtpive Israeli strike on Iran being the greatest threat to world Peace, are you still a staunch suporter?
Edwards didn't really say that. To quote Jonathan Chait from The New Republic:
"Edwards says the report in inaccurate. Ezra Klein, also at Tapped, says he thinks it probably is inaccurate, as "I've heard Edwards talk about Israel dozens of times now, in response to all different sorts of audiences, and he's been vehemently pro-Israel before every single one."
Like Ezra, I think reporter error is by far the most likely explanation. For one thing, I don't mean to be a snob, but the Variety antenna to nuances in foreign policy commentary may not be as finely-tuned as we would like. "
Post a Comment