Since I posted this morning a moderately enthusiastic summary of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s latest round of bill-signings, I’ll stay with the politics theme.
My friends at Republicans for Environmental Protection have endorsed John McCain for president. On environmental issues, McCain is surely the best of a relatively weak bunch. Given that his campaign has been in free-fall lately, there isn’t much hope that a REPAmerica endorsement will help turn the tide.
I’ll vote for McCain in the primary, and come November 2008, vote for Clinton.
I don’t know any Republicans who think that McCain can possibly get the nomination. With Fred Thompson going nowhere, it seems almost certain to be a Rudy-Romney race on the GOP side. If Romney were running for president on his 1994 Massachusetts senatorial platform, he’d be my man — his remarkable volta face on all the social issues (and believe me, I know a thing or two about volta face ) is both disappointing and unconvincing. Giuliani, of course, is handicapped by his social liberalism. My conservative friends are mostly lining up for Romney, though a few are sticking with the likes of Mike Huckabee. My gut feeling is that Romney gets the nomination — and picks Huckabee as his running mate. (Or, possiblly, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota.)
On the Democratic side, my lad, John Edwards, has failed to generate much heat. Even his impressive organization in Iowa is slipping; only a major gaffe by Hillary Clinton can save him now. The same is true for Barack Obama; I just don’t see how he can get the necessary delegates, barring a collapse by a woman who is very, very unlikely to make any major mistakes. Most people think Hillary will pick Bill Richardson as her veep, but I suspect he’s going to run for Pete Domeneci’s senate seat. I don’t know if she dares pick Obama, though I’d be thrilled if she did. If she really wanted to shore up her right flank she’d pick Jim Webb out of Virginia, but I’m betting she goes with Tom Vilsack or Evan Bayh, or maybe Mark Warner (if the last of these doesn’t run for senate.)
So it’ll be Hillary versus Mitt. I wouldn’t bet the mortgage on it just yet, but this seems to me to be the likeliest combination. The right will overcome their worries about Romney’s sudden conversion on the social issues, and the Mormon issue won’t be a problem. The only place where anti-Mormonism could cost Romney votes will be in strongly Red states that have high evangelical populations; the anti-Clinton margin will be so wide, however, that a couple of lost percentage points due to religious bigotry won’t hurt. Clinton, I predict, will surprise a great many people — even more than she already has — with her campaign skills.
It will be a tough fight right down to the wire. Much too much can happen in thirteen months to predict an outcome yet. I could be wrong; heck, the general election could be Huckabee versus Edwards (wouldn’t that debate be delicious), but I suspect it will be the former Massachusetts governor versus the current junior senator from New York. In the meantime, I’m continuing to endorse John Edwards on the Democratic side and John McCain for the GOP.
I think it’s way too early to make reasonable predictions about the post-primary matchup. Four years ago, Kerry was desperately trying to stay in the race, and Howard Dean’s nomination looked like a fait accompli. Eight years ago, John McCain appeared to have his nomination wrapped up, and it wasn’t until Karl Rove started pandering to racists in South Carolina that Bush had a chance. So many (silly and stupid) things are going to happen between now and February-March that it’s impossible to be confident about the outcome. I’m still optimistic about Edwards, or even Obama, getting the Democratic nomination. (Kucinich would be even better, but despite the loads of screen time the Daily Show and Colbert Report are giving him, I’m not optimistic about his chances.)
Noumena, I share you with a fondness for the Cleveland imp. But he’s not going to get the nomination any more than Ron Paul is. The 2004 primary for the Democrats didn’t have any figure like a Hillary. People underestimate her skill, her ability to have a charisma all of her own, and her formidable political acumen. She’s not my first choice, but when she is chosen — and I do think she will be — she will prove a magnficent and savvy candidate.
We’ll see. But given that we’re going to be mailing out absentee ballots here in California in just over 60 days, there isn’t a lot of time for folks to start shaking things up.
I supported McCain in 2000, and I may have voted for him in the primary; I don’t remember if I ended up choosing him or Bradley. But I can’t vote for him now.
One of the things that attracted me to him in 2000 was his integrity, his straight-shooting, the sense I had that even when I disagreed with him I could trust him. I *cannot* reconcile his vote on the MCA with that; the MCA tacitly authorized torture, something that I would never have believed John McCain — the only sitting US Senator *to have been tortured* — could endorse.
Coming from someone else, it would have been a forgivable vote; coming from him, it leaves his integrity in tatters. Why should I trust him to not sell out *anyone* for political gain, after that?
Were I a Republican today, I would likely vote for Huckabee; I’ve been impressed with him over the last several months.
I have to ask….is your vote for Clinton, or for the “first female president”? Very concerned about the lack of depth in the candidates in this important election, I seriously studied her platform (along with the rest of teh dems, the top reps, and some independants) and I do not think she has the best ideas in the field right now, on any side. Of course, this is always pure speculation and opinion, but I have to wonder what you hear in her platform that I am missing (what makes you want to vote for her), and so naturally I wonder if it is not just finally the best chance to have a woman president.