Tweet
of beating Hilary Clinton. At least that's what Dick Morris thinks (today).
"As we look toward 2008, it is obvious Republicans would like to see their GOP nominee triumph. Democrats clearly want one of their own in the White House. But there are many who want to see ABH -- "anybody but Hillary" -- get elected.
The former first lady's unique brand of transparently phony moderation, heartfelt inner socialism, Nixonian disregard for the norms of civilized politics and governance, and her well-documented tin ear on ethical issues make her the most dangerous aspirant for president since George Wallace (and he never had a chance of winning).
The more John McCain runs and Rudy Giuliani tests the waters, the clearer it gets that neither of these good men can command the Republican nomination.
McCain is too independent and Rudy too liberal. Republicans will not forgive the Arizona senator for his anti-torture bill, his backing for campaign finance reform, his support of major reforms in corporate governance, his opposition to big tobacco, his antipathy toward making the tax cuts permanent and his backing for citizenship for illegal immigrants. Nor will they overlook Rudy's support for abortion choice, gun control, affirmative action or gay rights.
Condoleezza Rice, long the object of our affections, has not moved any closer to running despite our ceaseless prodding.
That leaves no Republican who can beat Hillary. George Allen, of confederate flag/tobacco spitting fame, is not likely to win over any female votes from the Democrats. Allen can get his usual complement of gun-toting white males but the female vote is the swing one in our politics.
Governor Mitt Romney is sinking fast in the Massachusetts polls. And Senator Bill Frist can't get out of his own way to even be an effective majority leader.
As for Governor George Pataki, fleeing your home state because you wouldn't get re-elected is hardly a springboard to national office.
Al Gore - poor benighted Al Gore - offers the best chance to stop Hillary, albeit in the Democratic primary.
History is repeating itself. In 1960 and 2000, a popular president (Eisenhower/Clinton) prompted his vice president (Nixon/Gore) to run for president. Each lost very, very narrowly. Each was sharply attacked within his own party for not using the popular incumbent more to campaign on his behalf.
After their defeats, neither seemed likely to get another presidential nomination. But then the party blew the next election by a considerably larger margin (Goldwater/Kerry) and the former VP's defeat didn't look so bad in retrospect. Each rode opposition to a current war into renewed popularity. And Nixon got elected.
Gore has several key advantages over Hillary. He has always strongly opposed the war, while she and the other possible Democratic candidates - Kerry, Edwards, Bayh and Biden - all voted for it. His historic warnings about the dangers of climate change seem to be coming true all around us. The major national issue - energy prices - is right up his alley. Gore has been advocating alternative fuels and major conservation for decades.
Gore would exploit a soft-core negative against Hillary that is sweeping the ranks of Democrats. Hungry for victory and suspicious of Hillary's ability to win, they whisper to one another: "I like her but isn't she too divisive to win?"
Gore has become personally wealthy with the appreciation of his Google stock and his equity position in his Current TV network. And he has access to much of the donor base that he used in 2000 for his run for the presidency. Hillary will take many of these supporters with her, but the truly left-wing Democrats who are turned off by her moderation and backing for the war will likely provide a sufficiently wealthy and enraged base for funding an Al Gore campaign.
John Kerry and John Edwards both lack the purism of Gore on the Iraq War. Both backed it and voted for the resolution. Former Virginia Governor Mark Warner, the current fair-haired boy being touted in the Democratic Party, probably will not be able to get a word in edgewise as the two giants - Hillary and Al - square off with each other.
Any bad blood between Gore and Hillary? I once asked the vice president if there was any friction between Tipper and the first lady. "There is no friction between Tipper and Hillary" came the deadpan, earnest reply.
"Well," I rephrased my question "at the convention how do you think Hillary would react to Tipper introducing her?"
"There is no friction between Tipper and Hillary" came the automaton answer.
"So neither one would mind?" I ventured.
"There is no friction . . ." You get the point. There wouldn't be any friction between Al and Hillary were they to run against each other.
None at all.
from Newsmax.com
"As we look toward 2008, it is obvious Republicans would like to see their GOP nominee triumph. Democrats clearly want one of their own in the White House. But there are many who want to see ABH -- "anybody but Hillary" -- get elected.
The former first lady's unique brand of transparently phony moderation, heartfelt inner socialism, Nixonian disregard for the norms of civilized politics and governance, and her well-documented tin ear on ethical issues make her the most dangerous aspirant for president since George Wallace (and he never had a chance of winning).
The more John McCain runs and Rudy Giuliani tests the waters, the clearer it gets that neither of these good men can command the Republican nomination.
McCain is too independent and Rudy too liberal. Republicans will not forgive the Arizona senator for his anti-torture bill, his backing for campaign finance reform, his support of major reforms in corporate governance, his opposition to big tobacco, his antipathy toward making the tax cuts permanent and his backing for citizenship for illegal immigrants. Nor will they overlook Rudy's support for abortion choice, gun control, affirmative action or gay rights.
Condoleezza Rice, long the object of our affections, has not moved any closer to running despite our ceaseless prodding.
That leaves no Republican who can beat Hillary. George Allen, of confederate flag/tobacco spitting fame, is not likely to win over any female votes from the Democrats. Allen can get his usual complement of gun-toting white males but the female vote is the swing one in our politics.
Governor Mitt Romney is sinking fast in the Massachusetts polls. And Senator Bill Frist can't get out of his own way to even be an effective majority leader.
As for Governor George Pataki, fleeing your home state because you wouldn't get re-elected is hardly a springboard to national office.
Al Gore - poor benighted Al Gore - offers the best chance to stop Hillary, albeit in the Democratic primary.
History is repeating itself. In 1960 and 2000, a popular president (Eisenhower/Clinton) prompted his vice president (Nixon/Gore) to run for president. Each lost very, very narrowly. Each was sharply attacked within his own party for not using the popular incumbent more to campaign on his behalf.
After their defeats, neither seemed likely to get another presidential nomination. But then the party blew the next election by a considerably larger margin (Goldwater/Kerry) and the former VP's defeat didn't look so bad in retrospect. Each rode opposition to a current war into renewed popularity. And Nixon got elected.
Gore has several key advantages over Hillary. He has always strongly opposed the war, while she and the other possible Democratic candidates - Kerry, Edwards, Bayh and Biden - all voted for it. His historic warnings about the dangers of climate change seem to be coming true all around us. The major national issue - energy prices - is right up his alley. Gore has been advocating alternative fuels and major conservation for decades.
Gore would exploit a soft-core negative against Hillary that is sweeping the ranks of Democrats. Hungry for victory and suspicious of Hillary's ability to win, they whisper to one another: "I like her but isn't she too divisive to win?"
Gore has become personally wealthy with the appreciation of his Google stock and his equity position in his Current TV network. And he has access to much of the donor base that he used in 2000 for his run for the presidency. Hillary will take many of these supporters with her, but the truly left-wing Democrats who are turned off by her moderation and backing for the war will likely provide a sufficiently wealthy and enraged base for funding an Al Gore campaign.
John Kerry and John Edwards both lack the purism of Gore on the Iraq War. Both backed it and voted for the resolution. Former Virginia Governor Mark Warner, the current fair-haired boy being touted in the Democratic Party, probably will not be able to get a word in edgewise as the two giants - Hillary and Al - square off with each other.
Any bad blood between Gore and Hillary? I once asked the vice president if there was any friction between Tipper and the first lady. "There is no friction between Tipper and Hillary" came the deadpan, earnest reply.
"Well," I rephrased my question "at the convention how do you think Hillary would react to Tipper introducing her?"
"There is no friction between Tipper and Hillary" came the automaton answer.
"So neither one would mind?" I ventured.
"There is no friction . . ." You get the point. There wouldn't be any friction between Al and Hillary were they to run against each other.
None at all.
from Newsmax.com
Comment