This diary is to serve as an "Open Thread" for thoughts on the Presidential 2008 race. I personally have a few disparate thoughts I would like to toss out there, and don't see an appropriate forum for that as there is no current "Open Thread" on the front page (the most recent one is about 5 hours old and way down), and I'd like to invite others with substantive thoughts on the Presidential race to contribute them here in lieu of starting an equally "lightweight" diary."
My thoughts: 1) Media narrative developing about Obama as front-runner? 2) Morbid thought on primary race 3) Question about Romney's dough
- I came across this article from "official smart person" and Washington Post columnist David Broder that struck me because it states that Obama is the front-runner, and not Clinton.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
This surprises me because, as an avid reader of this site, I do have the impression that Obama is resurgent, but to call him a clear front-runner in a national newspaper is a provocative statement. Moreover, the narrative is that he is emerging in part because he is seen as being the better candidate against McCain, the presumed Republican front-runner:
On the Democratic side, the battle is closer, but the advantage has shifted back to Barack Obama -- thanks to a growing but largely unremarked-upon tendency among Democratic leaders to reject Hillary Clinton and her husband, the former president.
The New York senator could still emerge from the "Tsunami Tuesday" voting with the overall lead in delegates, but she is unlikely to come close to clinching the nomination. And the longer the race goes on, the better the chances Obama will prevail as more Democratic elected officials and candidates come to view him as the better bet to defeat McCain in November.
To me, this suggests all types of insider politics on Broder's part, ranging from perhaps glee from a DC "elder" at the potential collapse of the Clinton dynasty to an attempt to alert Republican voters/establishment to the peril of a McCain candidacy. Or perhaps it's just provocative journalism.
- This topic will certainly attract some heat to me, but as a progressive, I can't forget the history of our movement that has been marked by 3 of our leaders being gunned down in their prime (JFK, RFK, MLK) and not consider the possibility that this could recur. My question is, what is the functional difference of BO suffering a similar fate before or after receiving the nomination? It is a distressing thought, but one that still is worth knowing the answer to.
If it is before, it seems to me that if he is the presumptive nominee, or even not but so long as Hillary doesn't have things wrapped up, then it is not a sure thing that the nominee would then be Hillary because his delegates could go anywhere and this would lead to a contested convention with perhaps Edwards or even Gore receiving his votes (but not necessarily Hillary).
If it is afterwards, then if he were the nominee, the party would get to choose him. I don't purport to know the mechanism for such a decision, but I imagine much more insider politics than at a contested convention, with Hillary much more likely to emerge. Perhaps not, but it would certainly not be a democratic and transparent process.
The latter scenario, aside from being horribly tragic and disastrous, would also be quite messy because the person who benefits most from it would be not just the Republican candidate, but also the Democratic replacement candidate. This would clearly be an electoral disaster as blame and sympathy would likely be at least partially shared.
It is unnecessary to say, but I'll do it anyway: I personally am supporting Obama now that Edwards (and Gore before him) are no longer in the race, and I wish him the best security contingent possible because the hopes of our nation now rest on his shoulders and, unfortunately, there are many wackos and politically powerful interests who are strongly opposed to him as our President. I should also state that I'll support Hillary as our nominee, albeit unenthusiastically.
- Anyone have any idea how Romney's fundraising is going? Or, rather, does he still fundraise or just blow his on cash? Recent reports (http://news.bbc.co.uk/...) are only through last year, which means almost nothing now. I'm particularly gleeful at the idea of his wasting tens of millions in a losing or at least protracted effort. That would leave him, of course, with all the less with which to either continue a campaign against the Democrats should he somehow emerge victorious on Tuesday or to support his own devious plans once the campaign is over and he returns to life as a private citizen.
In any case, this comment doesn't augur well for him if he isn't advertising in Super Tuesday states http://ap.google.com/...
Several officials said that on the heels of a defeat in Tuesday's Florida primary, Romney's campaign was not attempting to purchase television advertising time in any of the states on the Super Tuesday calendar.
Instead, the former Massachusetts governor's current plans call for campaigning in California and other primary states, said the officials, who had knowledge of the internal discussions. There would be organizational efforts primarily for caucus states.
Thoughts?