POLITICS - Number One, I Order You To Pick A Number Two
In today's NYPost, Dick Morris writes that the demise of the Dean campaign opens the door for a Hilary VP ticket. I've written about this recently, and said that her next move hinges on Rudy Giuliani and the Dem candidate. Morris concurs and adds an interesting point about Giuliani's stance on platform GOP issues:
I still doubt that Hillary is at the top of Kerry's short-list. John Edwards, Bob Richardson (New Mexico), and Bob Graham (Florida) would all fill out Kerry's ticket quite well. On the long shot list, I would put Hillary, Dick Gephardt, and John McCain. On the ultra-long shot list, I'd add Wesley Clark and Herman Munster (to give a little personality to Kerry). On the ultra-ultra long shot list, let's put down Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy.
Should the DLC focus on the North/South divide, or the East/West divide? I honestly don't know. I believe that Max Cleland (another long-shot VP) spoke about this briefly on Real Time with Bill Maher, but they didn't reach any conclusions. I think that Edwards is one helluva strong candidate, and he could play well in all four corners of the US.
But will that be necessary if Kerry can play well in the four corners, too? We'll have a better idea tonight, after we see how Kerry does with the southern and minority voters in South Carolina, New Mexico, and even Missouri. If Kerry is pulling high numbers across the board, then it may not be as necessary to find somebody like Edwards.
I like Hillary Clinton, but I don't know if she'd be the best choice for a successful Anybody But Bush campaign. I think that moderates and independents really do want a change in the White House. That's why a Gore-less 2004 Dem campaign has been so good for this party. All Democrats had to somewhat re-boot, and re-load with a new candidate. This fresh campaign is attractive to independents and moderates. It may not be time to re-open the nation's Clinton wounds, and we shouldn't do it if another less-controversial VP nom is in the wings.
But Hillary has one other good reason to say yes: Rudy Giuliani. If the former mayor runs against her for the Senate seat in '06, polls indicate that she would face a very, very tough fight. Her first race against Rick Lazio would be a cakewalk next to a battle against Giuliani.
Rudy may run against Hillary - even though he'd rather be governor - in order to accumulate points with the Republican faithful so that they consider him for president in 2008.
Giuliani's pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-affirmative action, pro-gay-rights positions won't endear him to the GOP right wing. But knocking off Hillary might engender the forgiveness he needs.
So, if Rudy might run, wouldn't it be the better part of valor to get out of the way of the charging bull and run for vice president instead?
I still doubt that Hillary is at the top of Kerry's short-list. John Edwards, Bob Richardson (New Mexico), and Bob Graham (Florida) would all fill out Kerry's ticket quite well. On the long shot list, I would put Hillary, Dick Gephardt, and John McCain. On the ultra-long shot list, I'd add Wesley Clark and Herman Munster (to give a little personality to Kerry). On the ultra-ultra long shot list, let's put down Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy.
Should the DLC focus on the North/South divide, or the East/West divide? I honestly don't know. I believe that Max Cleland (another long-shot VP) spoke about this briefly on Real Time with Bill Maher, but they didn't reach any conclusions. I think that Edwards is one helluva strong candidate, and he could play well in all four corners of the US.
But will that be necessary if Kerry can play well in the four corners, too? We'll have a better idea tonight, after we see how Kerry does with the southern and minority voters in South Carolina, New Mexico, and even Missouri. If Kerry is pulling high numbers across the board, then it may not be as necessary to find somebody like Edwards.
I like Hillary Clinton, but I don't know if she'd be the best choice for a successful Anybody But Bush campaign. I think that moderates and independents really do want a change in the White House. That's why a Gore-less 2004 Dem campaign has been so good for this party. All Democrats had to somewhat re-boot, and re-load with a new candidate. This fresh campaign is attractive to independents and moderates. It may not be time to re-open the nation's Clinton wounds, and we shouldn't do it if another less-controversial VP nom is in the wings.
posted by Hot_Tuna at 2:29:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home