Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Beatin' the Big Three
John Hawkins has ranked "the Democrats' Big Three 2008 Candidates on beatability in the general election." Here 'tis:
"1) Barack Obama: Charisma and a fake moderate tone will only carry you so far. He's way too inexperienced and way too openly liberal to have any shot of winning the presidency. After a year's worth of attack ads and debates on the issues, where he had to discuss things more controversial than 'hope,' he would be beaten into the ground and left far behind the Republican candidate who'd defeat him easily.
"2) Hillary Clinton: Truthfully, Hillary is also too inexperienced to be President and in addition, she's extremely polarizing, has high negatives, and has an enormous amount of baggage. Although she has worked hard to give people the idea that's she a moderate, not a liberal, everyone on the left and right knows she's posturing, so it's doubtful that it will do her much good. Moreover, does the country really want to put itself through the bitter infighting and squabbling another Clinton would undoubtedly produce? I think not. In other words, Hillary would have problems for the same reason that Jeb Bush would have a tough time making a run this time around: good, bad, people are just tired of having a Bush or Clinton in the White House.
"3) John Edwards: Like the other two candidates, the boyish Silky Pony is too inexperienced to be running for the presidency. However, even though he's as liberal as Obama, he does a better job of hiding it and tends to get more of a pass on the issue because he's from the South. Additionally, he doesn't have Hillary's baggage or shrewish reputation. Although he turned out to be useless in the veep slot during Kerry's 2004 run at the presidency, his demeanor would probably be better suited for the top slot than the VP. Also, he's more charismatic than Hillary or Kerry and would do a better job of exciting the liberal base than either candidate."
"1) Barack Obama: Charisma and a fake moderate tone will only carry you so far. He's way too inexperienced and way too openly liberal to have any shot of winning the presidency. After a year's worth of attack ads and debates on the issues, where he had to discuss things more controversial than 'hope,' he would be beaten into the ground and left far behind the Republican candidate who'd defeat him easily.
"2) Hillary Clinton: Truthfully, Hillary is also too inexperienced to be President and in addition, she's extremely polarizing, has high negatives, and has an enormous amount of baggage. Although she has worked hard to give people the idea that's she a moderate, not a liberal, everyone on the left and right knows she's posturing, so it's doubtful that it will do her much good. Moreover, does the country really want to put itself through the bitter infighting and squabbling another Clinton would undoubtedly produce? I think not. In other words, Hillary would have problems for the same reason that Jeb Bush would have a tough time making a run this time around: good, bad, people are just tired of having a Bush or Clinton in the White House.
"3) John Edwards: Like the other two candidates, the boyish Silky Pony is too inexperienced to be running for the presidency. However, even though he's as liberal as Obama, he does a better job of hiding it and tends to get more of a pass on the issue because he's from the South. Additionally, he doesn't have Hillary's baggage or shrewish reputation. Although he turned out to be useless in the veep slot during Kerry's 2004 run at the presidency, his demeanor would probably be better suited for the top slot than the VP. Also, he's more charismatic than Hillary or Kerry and would do a better job of exciting the liberal base than either candidate."
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Wednesday, February 28, 2007 
