The Who's Who of Who Has a Chance in 2008

This New York Times graph or blurb sums up who has a shot in 2008 (and honestly, I really really don’t walk to talk about the Presidential election for the next 20 months or whatever it is, but apparently we are going to have to do so because it’s the only some what positive thing to come out of DC right now; but isn't this insane? I mean Bush is still going to be President for a good amount of time, yet all anyone wants to talk about is 2008; maybe that says something about Bush come to think of it, people want to move on... the future seems brighter, a lot brighter). Anyway, I’ll break it down for you:

No Chance:
Joe Biden
Chris Dodd

In Hot Water, in other words, probably in a lot more trouble that they think they’re in:
Hillary Rodham Clinton

On Thin Ice:
John Edwards

So You’re Saying I’ve got a chance:
Mike Gravel
Dennis Kucinich
Tom Vilsack

Barack Obama
Bill Richardson

In case you didn’t click on that link, this basically sums up where these candidates were on Iraq in 2003 and now today. Today they all oppose the war, but the ‘key’ is where they stood in 2003. Dodd has zero chance since he voted for the war and wants a phased redeployment. This will not go down well with Democrats in the primaries. Clinton’s in the same boat as Dodd, but I won’t move her into the no chance category because she’s got a lot more support, money, and all that jazz than Dodd. Biden is done since he: 1) voted for the war, 2) is an idiot. Edwards voted for the war, but he’s been anti-war since he lost the VP race, so I think he’s convinced some people that he never really supported the war. Gravel and Kucinich really have no shot, but since they’ve been against the war from the beginning, they’re going to appeal to some who were never big on the war to begin with. In other words, even though they’ve got pretty much no chance at being elected President, a voter may be more attracted to one of them than say, Clinton, because of Iraq.

That leaves Obama and Richardson. Obama’s been against the war from the get go so even if he supports a phased redeployment it's his plan and he can do no wrong in many people's eyes. He’s going to appeal to pretty much everyone because of his original stance. Richardson claims he’s against the war… and hey, why not?

One other note about Obama... has there ever been a "Great White Hope" to the degree that Obama is? I mean it's amazing... everyone on the left loves this guy and sees him as the one who will 'change' the country. I know I've never seen anything like it.

These candidates are much harder to ‘grade’ or ‘gage’ since the GOP is much more divided about how to handle Iraq and what to do in Iraq. I’m sure the candidates will figure out a ‘stance’ by April 2008, but right now, I can’t see a single GOP candidate winning the Presidential election besides Chuck Hagel. Iraq is so unpopular across the voting population in this country (and stories like this don’t help) that I can’t see a pro-war, pro-stay in Iraq candidate winning in 2008. That means guys like McCain or Giuliani can’t win considering their stance right now. And it’s going to be tough for McCain to get the nod from the GOP as it is… same with Giuliani. What does this mean for Mitt Romney? I have no clue. Same for Mike Huckabee. I still think that Chuck Hagel would win the GOP nod if he ever decides to run, but he’s probably too good of a guy to run for President.

Let me put it this way… I have no clue who’s going to win the GOP Nod. I could see Romney, Huckabee, Hagel, even some random entry who’s a bit off the radar right now getting the GOP nod. And as I said, I can’t gage how the ‘average’ GOP voter views Iraq. I’m sure it’s a mix of “Get the Hell Out and give me back that money you're spending with tax cuts”, “Well since we’re there…” and “STAY UNTIL THEY VOTE FOR THE PEOPLE WE TELL THEM TO VOTE FOR!” which makes it all the more difficult to figure out who’s has a chance in this race.

Anyway, I firmly believe that Iraq and each candidates position on Iraq is going to be the major factor in the 2008 election. I doubt it will be the #1 reason in exit polls in the general election, but in figuring out who’s going to face who in the general election, I can’t see an issue being bigger than Iraq at this point since there are so many different view points.

And I swear, I’ll get that Sox stuff up soon. But writing about the Sox is sort of like writing about Helen of Troy for this guy.

No comments: