Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

February 5, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

HILLARY AND RUDY....I'm with Atrios on this: I don't think it's surprising at all that Hillary Clinton trounced Rudy Giuliani in a recent poll in New York state. It's sort of the flipside of my earlier argument about Hillary being stronger than many people think.

In Hillary's case, my argument is that there are a lot of people who have vague, negative impressions of her from the 90s, and that these people are going to be pleasantly surprised when they see her for the first time in years and she turns out not to be a fire-breathing dragon after all. Maybe it's the soft bigotry of low expectations, but it's real nonetheless. She has nowhere to go but up.

Giuliani is just the opposite. The average voter has vague, positive impressions of Rudy thanks to his 9/11 heroics, and these people are going to be unpleasantly surprised when they see him for the first time in years and he turns out to be nastier than they remember (not to mention being freighted down by a closet full of skeletons they didn't know about). He has nowhere to go but down.

New York demonstrates this dynamic pretty well. Name recognition isn't an issue since both Clinton and Giuliani are well known there. And unlike the rest of the country, the average New Yorker has good, sharp recent memories of both candidates. The result? Clinton is better liked than in the rest of the country and Giuliani is less liked. The same thing is likely to happen when both candidates go national.

Anyway, that's my take. I don't think Giuliani has the faintest chance of winning a presidential contest in 2008, which is the reason I insisted a few days ago that the Republican field was so poor this cycle. Democrats, on the other hand, look pretty good.

STANDARD DISCLAIMER: My track record on these kinds of predictions isn't especially good. You have been warned.

Kevin Drum 2:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (100)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Who could win it, Kevin, from the R side?

Posted by: Gore/Edwards on February 5, 2007 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

I'm still waiting for Gore. Which of these four will he achieve in the next two years:

  1. Oscar for "Inconvenient Truth"

  2. Best selling book (due out this year)

  3. Nobel Peace Prize

  4. U.S. Presidency

Place your bets...

Posted by: Oregonian on February 5, 2007 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum >"...I don't think Giuliani has the faintest chance of winning a presidential contest in 2008..."

At this point in time I agree. The tide could change considerably twixt now & the important dates.

Think about more false flag operations in the "Western World" & the consequences there of. Our fascists haven`t given up by a long shot.

Plan for the worst
Hope for the best
Expect business as usual

There is NO light at the end of this tunnel visable yet

"...The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way..." - Henry Wallace

Posted by: daCascadian on February 5, 2007 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

I think that there's a huge groundswell of strong pure hatred against Hillary Clinton, that is not reflected in these polls.

If you ask people to vote yes/no for her, then yeah, I'm sure you'll find that the majority of people find her acceptable. But the people who hate her with so much fervor, and the ultimate impact of such hate (whispering campaigns, etc.) are not represented in those numbers. If she wins the Democratic nomination, we're going to lose 2008. The evangelicals will mobilize, and they'd even vote for Romney; because it's not Romney they'd be voting for. It'd be Hillary they're voting AGAINST.

Myself, I'd rather see Pelosi become president (by virtue of impeachment). But that's just me. (and about 20 million other Americans).

Posted by: Extradite Rumsfeld on February 5, 2007 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

McCain has been collecting about himself a set of advisors who are experts in the field of negative campaigning and mud-slinging.

If Rudy gets any traction whatsoever, you can be sure that pictures of him in drag will be broadcast in every station in the most conservative areas of every state in the early primary cycles. Primary voters will be flooded with direct mail enumerating every pro-choice, pro-gay rights state he's every made. Tales of his martial issues will be shouted in op-eds and whispered in churches.

Yes, the best thing for Rudy would be to never get traction - if he does, he won't like the results. Republicans only like Rudy as a spokesman, not as someone who might actually make policy.

On the other hand, I really hope McCains advisors go over the top, as I suspect they will. That's what they're good at, that's why he hired them. I suspect that it will be much harder to pull that on Dems this time around.

Rudy, on the other hand, will get buried.

Posted by: Fides on February 5, 2007 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

Extradite Rumsfeld,
Do you work for the NYT? Just kidding, but it is true that there is a huge groundswell of hatred for her in the press corps, and particularly at the NYT.

As somebody from NY who has seen her campaign, most people here don't have a problem with her. Yeah, her politics runs more to the middle than I'd like, but after 8 years of Bush she seems like a hard core liberal. Okay, maybe not. But the point is she won the Democratic primary easily.

Posted by: DR on February 5, 2007 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

I don't think Giuliani has the faintest chance of winning a presidential contest in 2008

Hah? You're kidding right? Giuliani is the hero of 9/11. Even as New York was still trembling from destruction of the WTC, Rudy Giuliani marched into the middle of the city ready to take anything the terrorists were willing to give. Social conservatives love Rudy because they take the War on Terrorism seriously and don't want to live under Sharia. They want to live in freedom. Rudy would definitely win if nominated. The only reason I can think you and Atrois would spread the propaganda Rudy can't win is because you fear his popularity so much.

Posted by: Al on February 5, 2007 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

It would be one thing if HRC held positions that were popular with the Democratic base, but she doesn't. That's because the only issue that matters now, and the only issue that will matter is 2008, is Iraq (and possibly Iran).

And Hillary has flunked the test. Big time.

She hasn't got a chance. All the money in the world won't change the fact that she has been disasterously wrong on the only issue that matters. It is too late for her to change and that is all.

Posted by: owenz on February 5, 2007 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

Exactly. I had a general overall good feeling for Giuliani based on his actions after 9/11. Then I got a good look at him during the 2004 conventions and "Yuk!"

McCain I was okay with until he gave Bush that 'hug' after Bush and his minions did everything they could to trash McCain. Again, Yuk!

Posted by: Tripp on February 5, 2007 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin is probably correct about Rudy going down in republican popularity (but perhaps not accross the board), but Kevin claiming Hillary has no where to go but up? Give me a break. Two weeks after her announcment without anyone running against her? You will also note that she got huge bounces in Iowa and New Hampshire. I think she probably wins the nomination, but the notion that she can only go up is ridiculous.

By the way, she recevied 53% in that New York poll. I don't find that particularly impressive, especially for someone who just ran for reelection and secured about 70% of the vote, in a poll against a guy who has not ran for anything in about ten years.

Posted by: Brian on February 5, 2007 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

I also think that Giuliani's 9/11 boost is probably over.

Social conservatives love Rudy because they take the War on Terrorism seriously and don't want to live under Sharia.
Posted by: Al on February 5, 2007 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

/lights cigarette, inhales deeply, holds smoke. . .
/exhales slowly.

You SURE about that statement you just made, Al?

She hasn't got a chance. All the money in the world won't change the fact that she has been disasterously wrong on the only issue that matters. It is too late for her to change and that is all.
Posted by: owenz on February 5, 2007 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

The Patriot Act?
The Credit Card Bill?
am I getting warm?

Posted by: Extradite Rumsfeld on February 5, 2007 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

I don't think Giuliani has the faintest chance of winning a presidential contest in 2008, which is the reason I insisted a few days ago that the Republican field was so poor this cycle.

That's why - yet again - we had an op-ed piece in the LAT yesterday, moaning about how unfair it is that Arnie can't run for President. Perhaps this is the new GOP strategy - the world's fastest Constitutional amendment, on the grounds that it's the only way they'll get an 'R' in the White House in 2009.

Posted by: craigie on February 5, 2007 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

And another thing - Hillary will be evicerated the same way Geraldine Ferrarro was evicerated by Bush 41: on whether she would have the courage to push the button.

Americans know she wouldn't, and that's why she will never be elected as POTUS or VPOTUS.

Posted by: Al on February 5, 2007 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

If by some slim chance Giuliani were to end up the Republican nominee, I wouldn't be surprised at all if he pulled an 'Al Gore' in the general election by not carrying his own state. After all, we had eight full years to develop a distaste for old Rudy.

And besides - "Remember Bernie Kerik!"

Posted by: Jack Lindahl on February 5, 2007 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK


KEV: I don't think Giuliani has the faintest chance of winning a presidential contest in 2008


true....

but if dead ender republicans have proven anything...

its their ability to deny reality...

how is that working for them?

Posted by: mr. irony on February 5, 2007 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum wrote: "She has nowhere to go but up."

Maybe. The problem is that she has very few undecideds. So for all we know, she's peaking right now, and won't "go up" in the polls.

Posted by: Jim E. on February 5, 2007 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

Why would anybody vote for Hillary Clinton? All politicians are willing to shape their message to their audience but more than nearly any politician I have ever encountered (except maybe John McCain) she lacks a moral center. She doesn't lead. Instead she runs to the head of the crowd.

If she wants my vote she is going to have to stand for something. She is going to have to stand for it even if it isn't popular.

Posted by: Ron Byers on February 5, 2007 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

al: Hillary will be evicerated the same way Geraldine Ferrarro was evicerated


al is right....

gop hates women...

just ask...

gannon...foley...drier...mehlman....

Posted by: mr. irony on February 5, 2007 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin said: The same thing is likely to happen when both candidates go national.

Not obvious. Hillary beats Giuliani in NY by about the same ratio that Kerry beat Bush in 2004 in the state. So it's probably more about state-specific party affiliation than candidate preference. Extrapolating to the national scene, one would expect this advantage to disappear.

Posted by: JS on February 5, 2007 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin's comment about the republican field being weak and the democrats look pretty good raises a question. Accepting Kevin's view as accurate (I really don't see much difference in strength between Hillary, Obama and Edwards and McCain, Romney and Rudy), what difference does the quality of the field make? Since only one candidate will be nominated, the "field" seems largely irrelevant.

Look at history. The democratic and republican "fields" that produced presidents in 76, 80, and 92 were relatively week, yet those fields produced winners in 5 presidential elections (6 if you count Bush 41 - who also won in a relatively weak field in 88).

It just seems like a meaningless observation, even if true. Hillary likely wins the democratic nominiation (with Obama as VP), so what difference does the field make? McCain likely wins the republican nomination (maybe with Leiberman - wouldn't that be interesting), so what difference does the replublican field make?

Posted by: Brian on February 5, 2007 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

This poll says more about New York State politics more than the viability of either candidate. First off, NYC mayors don't usually do so well statewide, and Rudy probably still has some negatives among the GOP for having endorsed Cuomo way back when. Plus Clinton just wrapped up a landslide statewide campaign. Check back in next year, if you ask me.

Posted by: Headline Junky on February 5, 2007 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

I've been saying the same thing.

Hillary has been demonized by the Right Wing Noise Machine for a decade. When people see her in TV interviews they have cognitive resonance. She doesn't come across as Madame Mao. She seems intelligent and reasonable.

Right now Rudy has low negatives nationwide. It just means most people don't know about his serial adultery and other issues. They keep hearing from pundits that he is "America's Mayor" and acted like a hero on 9/11.

John McCain didn't hire all those GOP hit men to keep quiet about Rudy's dirty laundry. It will all be aired. And when it does Rudy's negatives will go up. He has no chance of winning the GOP nomination.

Posted by: Nan on February 5, 2007 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

"Even as New York was still trembling from destruction of the WTC, Rudy Giuliani marched into the middle of the city ready to take anything the terrorists were willing to give."

LOL! This statement contains levels of idiocy even beyond your usual childishness.
Bring it on, Al, bring it on. March right into the middle of the city with it, baby.

Posted by: Kenji on February 5, 2007 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

Of course polls don't mean a thing now.

My sense of 2008 is that the Dems will have a much stronger field than the Republicans. The Dem nominee will be a much stronger candidate, on policy, on experience, on character, on any way you want to measure who would be better for the country. The Dem may also do relatively well in the money race. But on Election Day, we'll all be up late chewing fingernails because the media believes it would be too risky to trust a Dem in the White House.

Posted by: JJF on February 5, 2007 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

It doesn't seem to me like Giuliani is serious about running. He's just doing enough to make himself look like a national figure so he can keep his profile up, but he's not going to actually jump in unless he's pulled in by some massive wave of support which I only see happening if the Republican Party suddenly say decides to start pushing a constitutional amendment legalizing gay marriage.

Posted by: Guscat on February 5, 2007 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

"The Credit Card Bill?"

Hillary voted against it.

Posted by: Nan on February 5, 2007 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

Social conservatives love Rudy

Um, either this is fake Al, or he's really out of touch. Go on over and see what the Freepers are saying about this. Some like him, yes, but more despise him as a RINO.

Posted by: Finny on February 5, 2007 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

Owenz nailed it: Hillary will never make it past the dem activists in Iowa and New Hampshire.

She has spent the last six years transforming herself from a primary shoo-in and general-election long-shot to a general-election competitor who'll never make it to South Carolina.

She's running a general election campaign a year before New Hampshire and it's going to get her buried.

Mark my words: John Edwards vs. Sam Brownback, Edwards in a landslide.

Posted by: Yellow Dog on February 5, 2007 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

I remember Rudy in NY after 9/11.

I had the feeling that he took charge of the situation the way that you wish Bush had taken charge of the situation.

Based on that kind of feeling, Rudy will get a lot of votes.

He then tried to have his term extended because he was a meglomaniac.

Based on that kind of feeling, I am scared to death of him becomming President

Posted by: neil wilson on February 5, 2007 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

Extradite Rumsfeld >"...But that's just me. (and about 20 million other Americans)."

Actually, at the moment, I suspect that number is much higher than you claim. The next 6-9 months will change that one way or another.

Watch the developments in the Libby trial; specifically I am thinking about what is coming out in the evidence being presented (exhibits etc) and how perspectives are going to change as all the revealed pieces of the puzzle are put together by those willing to do so.

Most of the current spinners from FascistVille are going to lose even more credibility.

Let Mr. S. Holmes be your guide.

"...I have reason to know, as do many of you, that when the evidence on a controversial subject is fairly and calmly presented, the public recognizes it for what it is--an effort to illuminate rather than to agitate..." - Edward R. Murrow

Posted by: daCascadian on February 5, 2007 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

Yellow Dog >"...Mark my words: John Edwards vs. Sam Brownback, Edwards in a landslide."

I would say, given the situation today, that would probably be the best outcome (for all). Could change a lot between now & voting day.

"The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist thinks it will change; the realist adjusts the sails." - William Arthur Ward

Posted by: daCascadian on February 5, 2007 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

This will, of course, be rendered completely irrelevant once martial law is declared for the prospective duration of the present state of hostilities -- therefore, our continued resistance is, in fact, entirely useless.

Posted by: Channeling O'Brien from Hawaii on February 5, 2007 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

I think part of the dynamic here is that Hillary has become more of a New York politician, while Rudy has moved national. For example, Hillary has gotten great local press for her work to get health benefits on behalf of the Ground Zero workers, while Rudy has conspicuously been absent. Rudy may also be getting negative response to the feelers he has been floating about moving against Roe vs. Wade (when five different media outlets publish a story suggesting the same tack on the same day, you can bet it was planted).

Rudy was a very good first term mayor, a bad second term mayor until 9/11 and then an outstanding mayor for the last two months of his term. The fact that city has prospered under Bloomberg with a lower level of racial tension has undercut Rudy's appeal (maybe I'm a bastard, but you have to be one to make the city work).

Posted by: Ephus on February 5, 2007 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

Please, Kevin, don't repeat the media narrative of Rudy's 9/11 "heroics." What the heck did he do other than give a few good press conferences?

Ok, he looked good compared to Bush, but that's a pretty low standard.

Posted by: Virginia Dutch on February 5, 2007 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

I've never taken the Giuliani candicacy seriously. Although the MSM lionizes him now, I think that would swiftly change under the pressures of a campaign. Someone above called Rudy a meglomaniac. That is about right. Add thin skinned, thuggish, and a penchant for government secrecy that might make Dick Cheney a poster boy for transparent Jeffersonian democracy. Add in his previous advocacy of liberal social mores (which he will shed like a snakeskin, but they are on the record), his tangled personal life,and the pictures of his drag performances (literally), and I don't see Rudy going very far in the Rethug primaries.

Posted by: Marlowe on February 5, 2007 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

Please, Kevin, don't repeat the media narrative of Rudy's 9/11 "heroics."

As Al Sharpton said when someone remarked that Giuliani had "united us": "After 9/11, Bozo the Clown could have united us".

Posted by: JS on February 5, 2007 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

JS on February 5, 2007 at 4:47 PM:

"After 9/11, Bozo the Clown could have united us".

Well, he did, at least until the '04 presidential race started heating up...

Posted by: grape_crush on February 5, 2007 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

Isn't it about time we got a ticket without a Bush or a Clinton on it?
Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on February 5, 2007 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah. That's what I was saying in 2000, and you fuckers wouldn't listen.

Posted by: Extradite Rumsfeld on February 5, 2007 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

"Isn't it about time we got a ticket without a Bush or a Clinton on it?"

Without a doubt, the smartest thing Frequency Kenneth has ever said.

Posted by: Kenji on February 5, 2007 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

A large part of this population thinks Hillary is some version of Lucrezia Borgia in a baggy pantsuit. No matter how reasonable and gracious she tries to be, no matter how many pastel sweaters with pearls she wears; they won't change their opinion. She has never been a fire breathing dragon anyway. She has, to her great credit, always been gracious. But the perceptions of her as a ring-tailed bitch will remain in too many voters minds. The people who really can't stand her will just think she's being phony.

Posted by: Chrissy on February 5, 2007 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

Both Kevin and Al (!) refer to Rudy's heroics after Sept. 11 (as do many others around town) but I don't get it. Never have.

What heroics? True, he didn't hop in his mayoral jet for a quick flight to the mountains and a hidey hole; but can anyone name one thing he did that could honestly be construed as heroic?

As for Hillary, she panders too much to AIPAC and their ilk for me (realizing, of course, that to win in NY she probably has to). That and her vote for the Iraq resolution and her--call it flippancy?--about it since (I hate the "do overs" part) does not sit well with me.

I wish the Dems would take Wesley Clark seriously.

Posted by: MJM on February 5, 2007 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

WHAT HEROICS??!! You say "America's mayor" even once and I'm outta here.

Posted by: gyfalcon on February 5, 2007 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

How do the New York City "money men" feel about General Clark?

Posted by: nikkolai on February 5, 2007 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

Rudy wears dresses. Hillary wears pantsuits.There's the message for the general public.

Posted by: R.L. on February 5, 2007 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe Rudy Guliani won't wear well in the long run, but I respectfully disagree that most GOP voters are willfully ignorant of his views on social issues.

Here's something to keep in mind about the GOP primary process: It will the first one since 1972 where the conservative movement or conservativism in general will not play a major role. The conservative movement is pretty much finished and a results, a lot of shibboleths may very well fall with it. Do not confuse Republican voters with conservative activists, they are not the same kinds of people and the latter is a lot smaller than the former.

Yes most GOP voters call themselves "conservatives" but I would argue if probe such views deeper among 20 random Republican voters I would bet anyone you would get 20 different answers as to what conservatism is to them. Besides, even when the "movement" was asecdant, the most conservative nominee rarely won the GOP nomination.

Guliani has a chance, not just because of name recognition, but because he has a variety of appeals to the avereage Republican voter (not one-issue types) who vote in primaries whether it is his leadership from 9-11, then sense that he'll reivigorate the GWOT, he'll police the world like he did New York, and that (and this is most important) he's a winner, he can be elected.

Rudy may very well flame out for the reasons mentioned, but if he doesn't, this primary process will be the remembered as the one where abortion ceased as a litmus test for Republican voters.

Posted by: Sean Scallon on February 5, 2007 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

Ephus: "Rudy was a very good first term mayor, a bad second term mayor until 9/11 ..."

My favorite "bad second term" moment had to be Rudy's campy public meltdown at his own press conference, where he basically announced that he had a form of prostate cancer that rocked his soul and taught him that life was truly meant for living, so he was therefore leaving his wife Donna Hanover (and eventually move in with his mistress) -- much to Ms. Hanover's surprise and chagrin, as she literally sat in Gracie Mansion watching her husband's press conference on TV.

Political camp like that is truly priceless.

On the far more serious side, there are but two words that, when repeated over and over, should disabuse most reasonably intelligent and /or semi-conscious people of any notion that Rudy should be put in the White House: "Bernie Kerik."

Posted by: Channeling O'Brien from Hawaii on February 5, 2007 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

How about Godzilla vs. Superman?

That's as pertinent a political question as Hillary vs. Rudy. No way in hell Rudy will get the R nomination, so what does it matter?

P.S. As for the D's, let's get one instead of Hillary.

Posted by: alex on February 5, 2007 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

My favorite bad Guiliani second term moment was when he attempted to enjoin New York magazine from running billboards on the buses criticizing his thin-skinned unwillingness to accept criticism.

Posted by: Ephus on February 5, 2007 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

How can Hilly win when only white guys are allowed?

Posted by: Alice on February 5, 2007 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

mr.irony at 3:51 PM:

al is right....

gop hates women...

just ask...

gannon...foley...drier...mehlman....

Two mistakes there - Al is never right, and it is outright stupid to claim gay men hate women. They just don't fancy them in bed - there's a more than subtle difference there.

Posted by: Ramki on February 5, 2007 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

R.I.: "Rudy wears dresses. Hillary wears pantsuits. There's the message for the general public."

Well, I'll agree that there has to be a message in there somewhere, and after I get home this afternoon and take a couple hits from the bong, I'll start looking for it ...

Posted by: Channeling Spicoli from Hawaii on February 5, 2007 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

Al, you hate Giuliani as much as most conservatives (don't know if you're a social conservative - I'm guessing so).

And Hillary will not be evicerated so much as swift-boated, the likes of which we will not believe.

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on February 5, 2007 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINK

Do the math 27% will vote R 73% are going to vote dem who that will be we don't know.The republics should just put there money on trying to stave off losing the rest of there house and senate seats.Americans have had it with the likes of Bush and the Republics.

Posted by: john john on February 5, 2007 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINK

it is outright stupid to claim gay men hate women. They just don't fancy them in bed - there's a more than subtle difference there.

I think it is a pretty safe bet that gay *Republicans* hate women.

Posted by: Disputo on February 5, 2007 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

It would almost be worth it for the pleasure of watching Karl Rove's "Base" mutter clench-toothed endorsements of one of the fine serial-philanderer Republican candidates for the duration of a long campaign.

Almost.

I've left my talking points in the Suburban. Are they supposed to sit this one out and come back like gangbusters in '12?

Posted by: Trollhattan on February 5, 2007 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK

nikkoli:
Wesley Clark does not pander to the NY money men (unlike Hillary, Edwards, Schummer, etc.) which obviously makes him anti-Semite and therefore persona non grata.

Clark has as much or more intelligence and experience than anyone running and has been right on Iraq since day one, but because of the NY money men we'll never see it put to use at the executive level.

A big shame for US.

Posted by: MJM on February 5, 2007 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

Don't know how close Rudy dances with AIPAC and other foreign interests.

Posted by: MJM on February 5, 2007 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINK

Giliani's 9-11 heroics?? When he ran like a little girl through the streets of Manhattan as the towers came tumbling down? Almost as impressive as Bush running off to hide in a cornfield in Nebraska the whole day. Look, let's be honest - Guiliani is a philandering coward with a combover so severe that he uses his armpit hair to hide his bald pate. If this lisping, diminuitive twit can be elected president then Pee Wee Herman may be our Commander-in-Chief soon. Don't get me wrong, I don't find Hillary to be all that appealing, but the only GOP candidate less appealing than Rudy is all the rest of them. Where do they find this shit?

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on February 5, 2007 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

Republics WILL NOT WIN THE 08 ELECTION. A 73% majority will vote Dem in 08,yes that means even the R's will be voting on the Dem ticket.That shows you how bad Bush and his bible thumping Dobson loving Cheney smirking crowd has mest up the GOP.Ya gotta love it.

Posted by: john john on February 5, 2007 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

By 08, the GOP will be shredded on the wipesaw of Iraq, so a hawk like McCain might not stand a chance. But a conversative moderate like Guiliani (cross dressing and all) might. McCain v Hillary? Guiliani v Obama. The GOP might go off the deepend like they did in CA and nominate real righty like Duncan Hunter (in CA is was Simon v. Grey Davis). Hard to say. So you get the first black Amer and first women against the Old man and the cross dresser. Interesting.

Posted by: The fake fake al on February 5, 2007 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINK

Who could win it..., from the R side?

The winner of the 2008 election will be the candidate who best communicates ending the military adventure in Iraq. Right now that politician is a Republican but not a candidate. The candidates using increased militarism as a rallying cry will not succeed in the primaries and suffer defeat.

I do not know if I could vote for Hagel, but he is the most forceful speaker against the occupation among mainstream politicians.

Posted by: Brojo on February 5, 2007 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINK

I notice newscasts have called Guiliani a "media creation," -- his biggest plus seems to be he was heavily in the news during the week of 9/11, while the president and cabinet members were essentially absent. There was a void of leadership from the federal government, and there was the NY major, visible as hell.
But Senator Clinton has a more prolific history, I see the media showing her efforts with health care back in the 90's, she looks so young and fresh, trying to help the nation, and comes across well.
If she has baggage, it's the Big Dawg Bill, and he is pretty much loved world-wide.
Guiliani has all these unanswered questions about personal issues and rather liberal-seeming positions that upset conservatives.
Years later, his heroics are questioned, i.e., why didn't the firefighters and police have the needed cell phones that would have saved their lives in the area of the twin towers? He's not so great in restrospect. I am pleased to see more reality-based reports how he could have done more for the first responders in NY.

Posted by: consider wisely always on February 5, 2007 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

I notice newscasts have called Guiliani a "media creation," -- his biggest plus seems to be he was heavily in the news during the week of 9/11

Eighty percent of success is showing up.

Posted by: JS on February 5, 2007 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK

The Dems like to act as if the pres. 08 election is in the bag but I don't think it is. Hillary (gets the nomination, but) is not electable nationally, and while Obama is a ?, Edwards has not been a raging fire of inspiration, especially lately, with his mumbospeak on Iran, and his national health-care proposal (which, does he even comprehend his own proposal, and which, in any event we cannot afford).

Biden? Sorry, no. Vilsak? Most likely not.

The truly knowledgeable, serious guys--Clark and Richardson--won't go anywhere within their own party. (Party don't know real quality, I guess.)

All of which makes Rudy look--uh--okay--if he's the guy the Repup's choose.

Posted by: MJM on February 5, 2007 at 6:44 PM | PERMALINK

But the whole reason why Hillary is being touted as a candidate is based on her connections.

If she hadn't been the wife of a president, then she wouldn't have become a senator or a candidate for president.

She did not charm us as first lady.

Why should you think that when Hillary is placed side by side with other candidates who got there through charm, among other things --- why do you think people will choose her over these others?

Posted by: catherineD on February 5, 2007 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINK

Don't know how close Rudy dances with AIPAC and other foreign interests.
Posted by: MJM on February 5, 2007 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINK

Rudy's one endearing trait is that he does not play footsie with the Saudis. After 9/11, when a Saudi prince (I think it was the guy who's brother was traced back to an Al Qaeda-connected "charity") wrote a hefty check to the victims, he tore it up and said; "you're part of the problem".

A completely anti-PC statement, for which I'll always hold him in high esteem.

Other than that, I don't really much care for the man.

Posted by: Extradite Rumsfeld on February 5, 2007 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK

Since there were some favorable comments about Edwards here,I thought I would post something from his Meet The Press interview yesterday.
Anyone who thinks Edwards might be an honest or sincere fellow, read this answer explaining that he did not realize his vote for the Iraq War was wrong for 3 plus years because he was busy and did not have time to think about it. Edwards is excellent at pretending to be sincere (as any excellent plaintiff's lawyer is), but as shown here, when faced with a tough question, he usually either ties himself up or gives a ridiculous answer (he even reaches for his wife's cancer to generate some sympathy as he is stumbling around - classic).

VIDEO TAPE FROM OCTOBER 2004
MR. RUSSERT: If you knew today, and you do know, there is—there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, would you still vote to go to war with Iraq?

SEN. EDWARDS: I would have voted for the resolution, knowing what I know today, because it was the right thing to do to give the president the authority to confront Saddam Hussein.

I think Saddam Hussein was a very serious threat. I stand by that, and that’s why we stand behind our vote on the resolution.

(End of videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: That’s a year and a half into the war.

SEN. EDWARDS: Mm-hmm. Perfect—that’s a very fair question. I can tell you what happened with me, personally. We got through—I was—at that point, I was in the middle of a very intense campaign, one that I thought was very important for America. When the campaign was over and the election was over, we had a lot going on in my own family. Elizabeth had been diagnosed with breast cancer, we were taking care of her. And for the first time I had time to really think about, number one, what I was going to spend my time doing, and, number two, my vote for this war. And over time, when I reflected on what I thought was going to be necessary going forward, to have some moral foundation to work on issues like poverty and genocide, things that I care deeply about, I could no longer defend this vote. It was pretty simple. And I got to the place I felt like I had to say it and had to say it publicly. And so—what?--a year—a year or so ago I did that.


Posted by: Brian on February 5, 2007 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK

I think HRC will win,Why,The big dog Bill,People want him back in some kind of power,If they have to hold there nose and pull the lever they will.They want Bill back.

Posted by: john john on February 5, 2007 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINK

I can understand people who don't pay attention to politics having a good impression of Guiliani based on 9/11 TV coverage. But I can't believe anyone who does pay attention to politics could feel anything but contempt for that pitiful creep.

Posted by: Gary Sugar on February 5, 2007 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, about Hillary. She's good enough; and so far, she'd beat any Republican, not just that creep.

But I don't see a reason to settle for a half-honest triangulator this time when a real Democratic leader could get elected even more easily.

Posted by: Gary Sugar on February 5, 2007 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINK

Amen, Alex - Hillary is even less of a Democrat than the rest of the DLC.

Just amazes me no one pays attention to Harry Truman's sage observation, even though it's proven true dozens of times in every election:

"If you give people a choice between a real Republican and a fake one, they'll pick the real one every time."

Posted by: YellowDog on February 5, 2007 at 7:52 PM | PERMALINK

Mr. Guiliani has a gender gap problem. He flaunted his then mistress in his then wife's face. At least Clinton had the sense to hide his under a desk. Its gonna matter big time just wait and see.

Posted by: aline on February 5, 2007 at 7:53 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, Brian, we get the point you hate Edwards.

Hillary has had pretty consistent ratings for 15 years. That's alot of time; people have made up their minds. And her negatives aren't budging much. It's hard to conceive of the negatives going anywhere but up at least a bit. It's hard to conceive her winning the South. I'm from Western NY, am in Pennsylvania enough to make it hard to believe she'd even carry Pennsylvania or Ohio. And nobody wins with 54% negative ratings among independents. Nobody.

It's hard to conceive Giuliani getting the nomination. It would casue civil war. Given the events of 2000, it's not hard to conceive of his suddenly dropping out. ("Hey, Bernie . . .) But it's fun to contemplate that between Rudy, McCain and Gingrich, there are eight wives between 'em. Maybe they can all show up at the convention.

One thing for sure, this campaign will be even nastier than anything we've seen since 1840.

Posted by: MaxGowan on February 5, 2007 at 7:58 PM | PERMALINK

she turns out not to be a fire-breathing dragon after all.


That has never been Hillary's biggest problem. It mostly that she actually is a brain dead blond. What happens when people find out that she's not Bill Clinton? She voted for the bankruptcy bill before she voted against it. Bubba was never that stupid.

And that there is problem that the Clinton's actively supported this war, told us that those 16 word were just a mistake. And the fact of the matter is, the Clinton's lie, lie about WMD, lie about 16 words, lie about pre-emptive war.

Oh and they both gave everything to Mark Rich, a 10 most wanted criminal - the Cintons are JUST LIKE BUSH, it's amazing what the DLC corporate ass kissing two will do for corporate buck.

Yes, Hillary has lots of money BUT she isn't getting it from the netroots. Enought said, because it say everything.


Posted by: Cheryl on February 5, 2007 at 8:06 PM | PERMALINK

The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is pushing for Hillary to win the nomination. Once she wins, they will unleash the most vicious slime campaign we've ever seen.

I just don't think she can win.
And she's been a weasel on the War. And the Patriot Act.

Posted by: Extradite Rumsfeld on February 5, 2007 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

The Republicans won two elections with W and two with Reagan. Why should they be worried this year that they have no good candidates?

Posted by: reino on February 5, 2007 at 8:12 PM | PERMALINK

Senator Clinton appears to have some momentum.
She has been described as a moderate liberal populist.
Seemingly she has a large following, has polled well. Had a 17 point edge over Barack Obama, led John McCain--that old war mongerer, and has been very decent on privacy rights--a big issue. Talked about need for diplomacy with Iran. She is not so much the hawk any more...there is still a lot of time to go yet, and things will change in the coming year.

Posted by: consider wisely always on February 5, 2007 at 8:33 PM | PERMALINK

Please, Kevin, don't repeat the media narrative of Rudy's 9/11 "heroics." What the heck did he do other than give a few good press conferences?

Ok, he looked good compared to Bush, but that's a pretty low standard.
Posted by: Virginia Dutch on February 5, 2007

Thank you. There are a lot of people that didn't run and hide in a closet on 9/11. That doesn't necessarily qualify them for President of the United States. And I'm not convinced that the media's raging boner for NYC is going to transfer to the Heartland. Especially in those rural areas where some people have never left the border of their home state.

If it's Clinton v. Giuliani then I think you'll see Republicans show up to vote against Hillary. But they don't hate Edwards or Obama enough to hold their nose and vote for the ex-mayor of NYC (a.k.a. Elite Liberal City).

Posted by: Tuna on February 5, 2007 at 8:49 PM | PERMALINK

wishIwuz2:And Hillary will not be evicerated so much as swift-boated, the likes of which we will not believe.

But you know of a Democrat who won't be swiftboated? Eh, I don't think so.

Posted by: J Bean on February 5, 2007 at 8:51 PM | PERMALINK

Generally, I think that kevin is right here. I od think tho that the one overwhelming downside to hillery that hasn't been brought up, the one that would cost her the primary and/or the general: her voice. I mean, hav eyou listened to her talk? The only thing that might overcome that blast of nasality would be, as was mentioned previously, people'ws desire to see Bill back on the national scene.

And no, I'm not endorsing this kind of choice-making, i just think that we as a nation ARE that shallow.

Posted by: URK on February 5, 2007 at 9:06 PM | PERMALINK

MaxG: "But it's fun to contemplate that between Rudy, McCain and Gingrich, there are eight wives between 'em. Maybe they can all show up at the convention."

Bwahahaha! Eight *so far*! There're still two years left.

Posted by: Emma Anne on February 5, 2007 at 9:28 PM | PERMALINK

"The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is pushing for Hillary to win the nomination. Once she wins, they will unleash the most vicious slime campaign we've ever seen."

You can substitute any Dem's name in that second sentence. Hillary is not my first choice (Edwards, unless Gore runs) but the fact that she will be visciously attacked is completely irrelevant. It applies no matter who is nominated.

Posted by: Emma Anne on February 5, 2007 at 9:31 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary does much better in interviews which she doesn't do nearly enough. More of those and less speeches being played in the media would do her good as her speeches are quite uninspiring and uninformative.

Hillary is also the best candidate, imo, to defend against swiftboating since she had to do it for 8 years and she wasn't even in poltical office at the time.

Posted by: Fred F. on February 5, 2007 at 9:58 PM | PERMALINK

For ye of little memory, Rudy was the leading Republican prospect to run against Hillary Clinton the first time she announced for senator. But Rudy opted out, pleading illness from cancer. (Subtext was a very, very messy divorce). And then . . . and then after the election, well, suddenly Rudy's cancer seemed to disappear. It was a miracle! Anyone have any better information cancerwise?

Posted by: bill t on February 5, 2007 at 11:23 PM | PERMALINK

and then after the election, well, suddenly Rudy's cancer seemed to disappear. It was a miracle! Anyone have any better information cancerwise?

Definitely the Hand of God.

Rudy may just appeal to the Evangelicals yet.

Posted by: Disputo on February 5, 2007 at 11:29 PM | PERMALINK

Jesus Christ returned couldn't win from the GOP side if he was running against Barney Fife.

And don't you just love the GOP voting today to support Bush's war? LOL, they own the war and in November next year, they go away. W has done an LBJ and gifted control of government to the Dems for a generation.

Posted by: CK Dexter Haven on February 6, 2007 at 12:00 AM | PERMALINK

I wouldn't count the Republicans out just yet. No matter what they do, they still have the racist evangelical vote in the South, rural Midwest and the near West. That's a sizeable block who kid us into thinking they're driven by such issues as abortion, gay rights and "cultural" issues when in actuallity what they really are after are such things as a return to school segregation, an end to one-man, one-vote, and a return to absolute white supremacy, which, among other things, means no more black sheriffs. The Republicans have corralled this vote and the racists are sticking with it.

Posted by: bill t on February 6, 2007 at 12:20 AM | PERMALINK

I don't think Giuliani has the faintest chance of winning a presidential contest in 2008, which is the reason I insisted a few days ago that the Republican field was so poor this cycle. Democrats, on the other hand, look pretty good.

Would you care to put your money where your fingers meet your keyboard?

Posted by: Maeven on February 6, 2007 at 2:28 AM | PERMALINK

How many times did Rudy run for the NY Mayor's office before he succeeded? Unless old age gets the better of him, he'll run & run & run. He was in the "right place" (sadly) at the worst of times.

Posted by: Coldlouie on February 6, 2007 at 6:27 AM | PERMALINK

Rudy Giuliani got people killed on 9/11 by
1)locating his emergency command center in the World Trade Center 2)purchasing crappy radios and then not paying to get them fixed 3)not establishing a unified command post so the police and fire departments could actually communicate per the emergency plan 4)promoting Bernie Kerik who is an incompetent fool
Read Grand Illusions

Posted by: dead firemen on February 6, 2007 at 7:03 AM | PERMALINK

I agree that the GOP is toast for a generation. I teach college and my students have an image of the GOP that is all that I could ever hope for (as someone who believes GWB is the worst President ever).

In addition, I also don't think any of the Democrats will suffer for their Iraq War vote, no matter what it was, because the public was fooled just like some Democrats were.
The difference is that the Republicans still rubberstamp Bush... and that's what The Thumpin' was all about -- rubberstamping GWB.
So, whatever the GOP says to the Democrats... "quitters, appeasers to terrorists, defeatists, retreatists..." that say to the voting public now.

And I would never count Hillary Clinton out. She's dealt with these wingnuts longer than anyone. Most of them are on their way to jail. She, in contrast, just won her second Senate election in a landslide.

Posted by: Jan on February 6, 2007 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK
Isn't it about time we got a ticket without a Bush or a Clinton on it?

The Democrats offered such a ticket in 2000 and 2004, the Republicans almost certainly will in 2008.

But, in any case, I don't see why we should care much either way. If we are to choose candidates on their substantive merits, than it should be neither good nor bad that they have some family connection to a previous incumbent.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 6, 2007 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK
And I would never count Hillary Clinton out. She's dealt with these wingnuts longer than anyone.

And lost at every turn except where she either surrendered utterly and went along with the wingnuts, or was able to choose the most favorable forum (running for Senate in New York, for instance.)

None of which is reassuring for someone looking for a candidate that can win the Presidency and advance a progressive agenda.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 6, 2007 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary shares many of Giuliani's weaknesses but few of his strengths. Hillary and Giuliani are both globalists, and Americans are more and more rejecting globalism. They both supported the Iraq War, which more and more Americans oppose. Giuliani, however, unlike Hillary, has experience in running the fourth largest government in America. Hillary has no administrative experience on that scale (being First Lady doesn't count).

Giuliani, however, won't survive the Republican primaries, and the Democratic primaries will probably end in the nomination of Obama or (if the Dems are smart) Richardson.

Posted by: brian on February 6, 2007 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

There is something fundamentally anathema to basic, core democratic principles in having the White House controlled by two families for 28 years. Too bad too many Democrats won't own up to that. But in all likelihood, it won't happen anyway.

In the also unlikely event that Rudy gets the nomination, maybe wife #2, Donna Hanover, can reprise her role in "The Vagina Monologues" for the conventioneers.

Posted by: MaxGowan on February 6, 2007 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK
There is something fundamentally anathema to basic, core democratic principles in having the White House controlled by two families for 28 years.

No, there is nothing "fundamentally anathema to basic, core democratic principles" in having the White House controlled by whoever the voters choose for any period of time.

But, on the other hand, there is something contrary to those principles in having someone other than the person the voters chose having control of the White House for any period of time, as was clearly true of Bush from 2001-2005.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 6, 2007 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely, I note how you actually avoid the core problem, twenty-eight years, two families.

Posted by: MaxGowan on February 6, 2007 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK
cmdicely, I note how you actually avoid the core problem, twenty-eight years, two families.

No, I'm not avoiding it.

I'm rather directly disagreeing with you that it is "the core problem".

If the government is run by the officials the people select in free and fair elections, is responsive to their will, respects their rights, etc., it would be no problem if every chief executive for a thousand years happens to be the eldest male offspring of the prior chief executive, as far as the interest of democracy are concerned.

OTOH, if the government is run by someone other than who the people choose in free and fair elections, if the government doesn't respect their rights, or if the government is entirely unresponsive to the public will, that the leaders are unrelated is of no value.

Now, it may be that the tendency for certain families to end up being elected is a symptom of a core problem that subtly (or not so subtly) distorts the electoral system so it is not free and fair, but the tendency is not, in and of itself, "the core problem".

Posted by: cmdicely on February 6, 2007 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

Have you noticed that this concern about the unfairness of two familes being elected to the Presidency for the past 28 years never seems to apply to Jeb. When his name is mentioned its always OH if only we'd elected the smart one! Or darn it, its just so unfair that this country would be denied the talents of this brilliant, accomplished man due to his brother.

Posted by: aline on February 6, 2007 at 7:01 PM | PERMALINK

Your analysis is well-intentioned but ultimately foolhardy. A poll of New Yorkers is obviously biased because New Yorkers will typically want a more liberal, Democratic set of national policies; hence it would be shocking if Rudy were anywhere close to Hillary in this sort of poll.

Moreover, people do not have a negative impression of Hillary based on style; it is because of substance. They disliked Hillarycare and the wealth of Hillary scandals that she was an intricate part of, like Whitewater, Travelgate, etc. And as Rudy comes out with a political agenda, people are far more likely to like his aggressive policies and take charge attitude than be turned off.

Posted by: dellis on February 6, 2007 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly