Scott Freeman

For previous analysis and discussion click on the individual names: Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, Rudy Guiliani, John Edwards, and John McCain.

Again, another week passes without any changes to the field. I thought I would be in the market for a new candidate to support but for now the campaign marches on. And we are still waiting for the GOP to welcome it’s best hope into the field.

As always, we flip back across the aisle and this time take a look at Barack Obama. As one of the front-runners for the Democratic nomination in ’08 his profile is still on the ascendancy.

Pros: Polished, well-spoken, at the right place and time for America to elect someone other than a white male, a strong democrat not named Hillary, has appeal across the aisles and can play to minorities, staunch opposition to the boondoggle, for a universal health plan, has been a voice for the religious left paving the way for restoring ties between the Democratic party and people of faith, green

Cons: Does not have the fund-raising punch of Hillary, still a relative unknown compared to his major competitors, has to endure Fox news, not a clear proposal for universal health like Edwards, will deal with racial backlash, does not have much experience, young.

Analysis: Obama is a strong name that will continue to make waves during the primary campaign. Part of the question is whether or not he can endure the infighting between him and Hillary while withstanding Fox New’s smear campaigns against him.
I like Obama and would be firmly in his corner if Edwards had bowed out. I feel that he is a tremendous voice that can speak for those disenfranchised with both parties.
However, I fear that many voters, in the south primarily, are still both unable to admit their prejudices and unable to vote outside of their own demographic. That will play against Obama.
At the same time, I believe that Obama will resonate with the younger audience as his presence on social networking sites attests.
Ultimately, however, I would like to see him as a running mate, preferably for Edwards.

For the entry and discussion on Hillary, click here. (50)

For the entry and discussion on Rudy Giuliani, click here. (40)

For the entry and discussion on John Edwards, click here. (62)

For the entry and discussion on John McCain, click here. (18)

(Noting the comment totals, I must ask: does this mean the Democrats are more popular than the Republicans among my blog readers? And is this scientific enough to give Edwards the advantage in ’08?)

Now, we move back again to the GOP side of the aisle and if all the speculation over new aspirants tossing their hat in the ring, we have to ask: who isn’t running for the Republican nomination?

Let’s turn our gaze now to the incomparable Mitt Romney. News just came out that Orrin Hatch has endorsed him for 2008. That’s no surprise but with the election this far out you will take any positive press you can get. Maybe Hatch is angling to play at the inauguration.

Pros: Is the conservative that Guiliani and McCain are not (although McCain is desperately trying to repaint himself as one), not a senator, sterling job as the director of the 2002 Winter Olympics, married once with no skeletons having emerged (yet), his work to provide health care for all Massachusetts residents, knows how to revitalize industries and eliminate red-tape; more political endorsements thus far than any other candidate.

Cons: question on whether his Mormonism would prevent evangelicals from voting for him; a record of flip-flopping and equivocation on important conservative issues; “tar baby” and Hitler ads being linked to his campaign; Not present as governor his final year in office; joined the NRA as a political move off-setting the gun-control efforts while in office; supports the “surge,” has no where near the clout, record or legitimacy to be a viable candidate.

Analysis: Ultimately, I believe that the evangelical bloc of the Republican party will be unable to pull the lever for a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Despite the fact that he agrees with them (at least he says he does, now) on their key issues of abortion and gay marriage, they won’t be able to get behind him. Their discomfort with Romney as the champion of conservative values is evidenced by the “adopt Newt” and “adopt Fred” movements.
While I applaud some of the moves that he made as governor, such as health care and gun control, there are too many issues where I disagree with him for me to feel comfortable about his candidacy.
I believe that Romney’s position in the “top three” of Republican contenders early on is akin to seat fillers at the Oscars when the legitimate contenders are taking bathroom breaks. He is keeping that chair warm for an approved conservative which paves the way for a Gingrich, Thompson, or (shudder) Huckabee to step in. He’s not nominate-able, nor is he electable. He has no legitimate shot and his treatment as a front-runner for the GOP election is a joke.

For the entry and discussion on Rudy Giuliani, click here

For the entry and discussion on John McCain, click here

For the entry and discussion on John Edwards, click here

As we continue along we jump back across the aisle to the Dems. Rumors of more candidates jumping into the saturated Republican field underscores the uncertainty in that grand old party. However, the Democrats seem to be a little bit more stabilized with 3 front-runners and the rest lagging painfully behind (insert AI comparisons here).

Who better to look at then America’s senator: Hillary Clinton. The sheer mention of her name is enough to provoke some 40 million Americans to begin pulling out their hair, rending their clothes and doing something akin to spontaneous combustion. Yes, she is that polarizing. But is she electable?

(Note: let me repeat that this is not intended to be an in-depth analysis of issues and positions. The comments can deal with that. These pros and cons deal with profile, aesthetics and electability. And let’s face it: electability and issues do not walk hand in hand in this country.)

Pros: A strong, widely recognized last name that carries a tremendous amount of clout; the deepest war chest with a tremendous ability to raise money; the first legitimate female aspirant to the presidency; Initiated the Children’s Health Insurance Program while first lady among other works; a champion of stopping violence against women; the power of Bill.

Cons: Far and away the most controversial and polarizing figure in the field who is absolutely hated by conservative Republicans; unspectacular Senatorial career; for the Iraq war before she was against it; does not possess her husband’s charisma or likability much less his ability to play the middle; past scandals and controversies (as all candidates do); does not have the clearly defined positions as her primary opponents do.

Analysis: Hillary is the front-runner for the democratic nod and it is her nomination to lose. It’s a long way until February and her constant sniping with Obama could deplete her coffers and pave the way for a third candidate (i.e. John Edwards) to break through.
However the power of her name and the presence of Bill makes her a formidable opponent and one that the GOP is scared to death of. There are still some who will make the contention that there is no way she could ever be elected. That’s denial at its finest.
However popular she might be and despite the cachet of the name, however, there are many blights on her record and the Dems must realize that she might not be the best candidate to reach out to middle America.
The prospect of seeing on a national scale the never realized Giuliani-Clinton showdown is tempting. She is polling well and is a money-raising machine.
But what does she believe? Who is she really? I don’t believe that she is the ultra-crazed liberal that the far right have painter her as. But I don’t believe she is the best candidate either.

Thoughts?

For the entry and discussion on John McCain, click here.

For the entry and discussion on John Edwards, click here.

(Note: I’ve been chided for this not being an in-depth analysis of where the candidates stand on the issues. I haven’t intended it to be. I just want to do a cursory overview of each of them listing points about their candidacy. Of course, John Edwards having a Second Life site is not indicative of his ability to govern. But it is telling of his presence and visibility during a campaign. And let’s be honest, that often matters more than the issues. Any in-depth discussion of the candidates positions will unfold in the comment section.)

Since the speculation that he would be seeking the presidency in 2008 has heated up, Rudy Giuliani has raced to the lead of GOP contenders. At this writing he stands head and shoulders among his competitors in early polling.

Giuliani brings an interesting mix into the Republican primaries, being the least republican of the bunch. Which could be his downfall come primary time.

Pros: America’s mayor, his leadership post 9/11 galvanized the country, sterling record as a prosecutor in his early days, perceived as being instrumental in reducing crime drastically as mayor of New York, most attractive GOP candidate across parties, oversaw the transformation of Times Square, great experience in leadership in times of crisis, moderate.

Cons: Republican , his marital history, lack of alignment with GOP power brokers over their key issues of abortion and gay rights, the Bernard Kerik flap, as of this time a lack of clarity over where he stands on major issues

Analysis: At this point in the race it would seem that the nomination is Giuliani’s to lose. He is crushing in the polls. He carries tremendous cachet with GOP voters who long for the ascendancy and good will of the party in the immediate aftermath of September 11th. There is the view that he will be the voice of reason in a “war on terror” that Bush has failed so miserably at.
But we are a long way away from February and Giuliani will be hammered by issues on his family ad nauseum between now and then. At the moment he has a great amount of cachet and appeal that will most likely wane between now and the primaries. It’s hard to picture a pro-choice Republican who is pro gay rights getting the nomination. In addition, as the dust settled on NYC greater questions about his leadership pre–9/11 have emerged.
Ultimately, I differ greatly with him on several important issues for him to have my vote. Then again, I’m not a Republican. However, he does bear watching closely.

Thoughts?

For the first entry on John McCain and the subsequent discussion click here.

Since last week’s entry the pool of candidates has actually decreased by one. Tom Vilsak, we hardly knew ye.
But, moving over to the other side of the aisle, let’s look at another front-runner who has experience with a presidential campaign, John Edwards.

Edwards intrigued me in 2004 even while I was still dogmatically Republican. Slick, polished and personable he reminded me of another candidate in the non-too distant past. Of course, as the VP candidate to John Kerry’s presidential bid, he came up short. But he emerged from 2004 as a viable candidate in ’08.

Pros: Has one of the best stump speeches in recent memory, Clinton-esque in demeanor and oratorical skills, willingness to admit he was wrong on the Iraq war, a legitimate plan for universal health care as opposed to just advocating one, tremendous utilization of the web including being the only candidate with a Second Life presence, has made fights against poverty and global warming major components of his campaign platform, and his college for everyone program.

Cons: Last name is not Obama or Clinton, history as a trial lawyer, reversal on previous positions regarding the war, the recent blog fiasco, equivocation on some issues.

Analysis: Edwards is a name to be reckoned with for the Democratic nomination in ’08. He currently trails the afore-mentioned Obama and Clinton, but could emerge unscathed as those two continue to take shots at each other. He has taken the tactics that made Howard Dean an internet phenomenon in 2004 to the next level with presences on all the Web 2.0 platforms. His wealth and profiting off of huge court cases gives a little pause but I am impressed with his gravitation to a more populist platform. He is my front-runner at the moment.

OK, let me have it.

Yeah, I know it’s still a long way until the ’08 elections. But this one is intriguing to me on several levels:

1. It’s the first presidential election since 1988 that I’m not a card-carrying member of the GOP.
2. It’s the most wide-open field in my lifetime with no one seeking re-election of attempting to move from VP to POTUS.
3. The diverse make-up.

Over the next few weeks I want to take a moment to look at each of the aspirants, both contenders and pretenders. I will alternate between both sides of the aisle so I won’t be accused of stacking the deck. Each thumbnail will be my own individual impressions. I will try to be as fair as possible but of course my subjectivity will be apparent. But I’m sure you will set me straight in the comments.
Side Note: As always, I want this to be a civil forum. I know that political discussions are given to ad hominem attacks and pejoratives. Let’s avoid that here.

What better place to start than John Sidney McCain?

For the longest time I have been a McCain fan. His positioning himself as a maverick and unwilling to play politics was a breath of fresh air within the beltway. I even thought that my vote for him in ’08 would be a rubber-stamp if he decided to run again. After he was so cruelly sabotaged in 2000 by the Bush campaign I hoped for a comeback.

Pros: Knows the horrors of war first-hand, his work on campaign finance, awareness of global warming including his work with Joseph Lieberman to raise awareness, a benevolent approach to immigration reform, and his commitment to end torture as an interrogation device, cash cow, a candidate that has cross-party appeal.

Cons: Age (he would be older than Reagan was when first elected), an increased penchant for capitulation to the current administration on the Iraq war, recent reversals of positions that seem to be tied to the nomination

Analysis: The McCain of 2000 is a candidate that would make me reconsider voting GOP. But, that is not the candidate of 2008. It seems, from my perspective, that McCain has realized that he may be electable but he can’t get the nomination unless he caters to the far-right.
It seems that he has made the decision that he will remain unswervingly devoted to the war in Iraq and that will be the hill he dies on. As a result, I question his strategy to remain so committed to the Bush doctrine. It’s a long way away and a lot can happen that will prove him to be more shrewd than I think he is. But it seems like a fool-hardy move in the light of the current climate.
Moreover, he seems to be painting himself as more conservative this time around. Recent comments reversing previous positions on Roe V. Wade, reconciliation with Falwell, and ruminating about Bob Riley as a potential running mate indicate a swing to the far-right. My question is whether or not this is out of growing conviction or the realization that a moderate cannot win the nomination in the GOP. Based upon his experience in 2000, my cynical nature opts toward the latter.

I know it’s way early in the game and that with our nominating process such as it is that the initial question is “who can be nominated” not “who can be elected.” But I want to commit some time on Wednesday in the coming months to breaking down the field. Next week we will look specifically at the GOP field.
But to begin I thought I would get a gauge on how my views align with the candidates. The folks at select smart have a survey that aligns your views with that of the candidates. Get it here.
It looks like I’m on the Obama bandwagon (sorry, dad). Brownback is pulling up the rear. Which is fitting, because he scares me. What about you?

Percent Rank Item
(100%) 1: Sen. Barack Obama (D)
(88%) 2: Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D)
(86%) 3: Sen. John Kerry (D)
(83%) 4: Retired Gen. Wesley Clark (D)
(80%) 5: Ex-VP Al Gore (D)
(80%) 6: Gov. Bill Richardson (D)
(80%) 7: Sen. Christopher Dodd (D)
(74%) 8: Ex-Sen. John Edwards (D)
(73%) 9: Gov. Tom Vilsack (D)
(70%) 10: Sen. Hillary Clinton (D)
(59%) 11: Sen. Joseph Biden (D)
(56%) 12: Rep. Ron Paul (R)
(46%) 13: Gov. Mike Huckabee (R)
(45%) 14: Gov. Mitt Romney (R)
(38%) 15: Ex-Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R)
(36%) 16: Gov. George Pataki (R)
(36%) 17: Sec. Condoleezza Rice (R)
(36%) 18: Sen. John McCain (R)
(35%) 19: Ex-Rep. Newt Gingrich (R)
(29%) 20: Sen. Chuck Hagel (R)
(27%) 21: Sen. George Allen (R)
(24%) 22: Rep. Duncan Hunter (R)
(24%) 23: Rep. Tom Tancredo (R)
(16%) 24: Sen. Sam Brownback (R)