Tag Archive for 'john-edwards'

Campaign ‘08: Whose Electable? Obama and Giuliani!

Published
by
Wilson
on December 17, 2007
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

Whose up and whose down? Who said the wrong word? Who has the right strategy. I can’t keep up!

Obama has Oprah, which makes the campaign the Story of Os.
Hillary (and Bill) can’t take cheap shots at Obama, which sounds sexist to me.
Edwards is the only Democrat talking like a Democrat, and can’t get the rest of Iowa to understand that we haven’t elected a sitting Senator (Obama and Hillary) since 1960.

Romney doesn’t think his Mormon faith should matter so that is all the man can talk about.

Giuliani probably can’t believe he is not currently the chosen one, considering his heroism on 5-28.

McCain gets the endorsement of The Des Moines Register and the Boston Globe, but is still apparently so desparate that he asks that Democrat/Independent, bi-polar, sorry excuse for a candidate in ‘00 Joe Lieberman to support him. I had rather be waterboarded. Actually, maybe this is waterboarding.

Huckabee has the faith of a preacher, but is betting on Ed Rollins to save his political soul.

And today, I find out that Ron Paul has raised another record $6 million in one day on the internet. That is like saying that someone other than Halliburton got a contract in Iraq. So what? However, I have to say go Ron Paul. By George, if nothing else, you may prove the power of the internet and people in time for ‘12.

It just seems to me that none of this makes sense. I am having a hard time keeping it straight. What I really think is this: The polls are wrong! I am betting the Iowa Caucus is having as much difficulty as I am. It’s an open race all the way to January 3, 2008. I think Edwards and McCain are the sleepers. I think Iowans are not telling the pollsters the truth. But hey, what do I know?

In this interview Bob Newman of Newman Communications, gives us his take on what is going on.

Bob thinks even though Obama is enjoying a lead in the polls, Clinton is going to edge out a victory in Iowa and New Hampshire. On the Republican side, Huckabee will win Iowa, not New Hampshire and South Carolina doesn’t matter because no preacher is going to be elected president.

The unfortunate candidates are McCain and Edwards, both of whom epitomize the core beliefs of their respective parties, but neither seem to be able to capitalize on the issues. McCain may be paying for his support of Bush and the War. Edwards should be the most electable but doesn’t seem to be captivating the electorate. But don’t count him out.

Georgia seemed to be Fred Thompson’s back yard a few months ago. Now, it appears that Fred is either lazy or old or both, but in any event he is out of it for all practical purposes.

Bob would like to see Obama get the nomination. It would make for an exciting election. His problem is trying to acheive broad appeal to whites and blacks. He is not talking about the typical black issues, so as to avoid being perceived as a Jesse Jackson. Clinton, on the other hand, has inherited Bill’s broad base of support among African Americans, which explains why Obama brought out the Oprah. For this reason, Bob wonders if Obama’s lead in the polls is legitimate and raises the possibilities that the Iowa electorate doesn’t want to say on the record that they aren’t voting for Obama.

All things said, the bottom line is who is the most electable? Bob says: Obama for the Democrats and Gulliani for the Republicans.

And the most important question: Is there any chance a Democrat won’t win in ‘08? Bob answers this question by saying that he thinks there is a chance that Giuliani could win.

If the Democrats can’t win in ‘08, I will just……

 
 Bob Newman, Newman Communications, Public Relations & Political Consultant [29:09m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (337)

Melissa Harris Lacewell: Hillary Can’t Win?

Published
by
Wilson
on September 29, 2007
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

Melissa Harris Lacewell is an Associate Professor of Politics and African American Studies at Princeton University. I wanted to discuss the significance of the 2008 Presidential Race in the context of electing or failing to elect the first woman or the first African American as president. Melissa gives her views on this issue and a lot of others.

Melissa doesn’t think that women are particularly focused on electing a woman as much as they are concerned about a candidate’s stand on specific issues, such as peace over war. While men are overwhelmingly Republican, women are fairly equally split between the Democracts and Republicans.

Melissa has some strong opinions about the Democratic ticket. Her Dream Team: Obama/Edwards, although she thinks Edwards/Obama is more likely to win. She’s a little put out with those people who think that Obama isn’t black enough or that Obama and Edwards don’t have the international experience necessary to be president. She points out that when people voted for a change in 2000 they weren’t voting for a George Bush that they felt capable of fighting terrorists or starting two wars. They were voting for someone that they thought would continue the relatively good times economically. The point: You never know what issues and decisions a candidate will face after election, so you best focus on overall qualifications for integrity and competence.

Melissa says that according to the polls, Hillary can’t win. Hillary is the conservative force (she was once a Republican) behind the contemporary Democratic party, as opposed to a proponent of the populist Democratic Party. Everyone believes a Democrat is going to win in 2008, no matter who it is. Melissa says this is correct according to the polls, except for one thing: Hillary always loses.

It is for this reason that all the top Republicans are branding Hillary as the next president, kind of like reverse psychology. If they can get the Democrats to nominate the one person who can’t win, they win–again. All I can say is, if the Democrats nominate Hillary and she doesn’t win, I am definitely going to join the Unity Party.

We also discussed Drew Westin’s book “The Political Brain” in the context of the Democratic candidates’ recent cop-out in responding to the question of whether or not they could commit to having all American troops out of Iraq by the end of their first term. Melissa says that, unfortunately, they are just being Democrats.

On Congress’ low approval rating, Melissa sees the 2006 mid-term elections as a referendum on Bush. The message: We can’t vote Bush out so we will vote his supporters out of office. She points out that people in general hate/blame Congress, but love their own Congressman. Thus, the low approval rating may not mean much in predicting the outcome of the 2008 elections.

Melissa believes the idea that the Democrats will ever be able to win without Dixie is wrong, that the future of the Democratic Party lies with its ability to win back the South.

She does think that as a result of the Katrina fiasco the Republicans have lost much of whatever Black support they had. The recent snubbing of the PBS/Tavis Smiley debate certainly hasn’t helped.

 
 Melissa Lacewell, Professor, Princeton [26:37m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (255)

Interview with Dave “Mudcat” Saunders, Political Strategist with the John Edwards Presidential Campaign

Published
by
Wilson
on August 5, 2007
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

Dave “Mudcat” Saunders is the “Rural Strategist” for the John Edwards Presidential Campaign. If you want to know what a “Rural Strategist” is, just listen to Mudcat speak and that says it all. This guy is no-nonsense and in your face when it comes telling you what he thinks is wrong with both Democrats and Republicans.

Named for the baseball pitcher “Mudcat” Grant, Saunders can be controversial, but there is nothing phony about this guy. In “Foxes in the Henhouse”, co-written with Steve Jarding, Mudcat says his contribution was the cuss words. I believe him! And, I like him.

Mudcat is an experienced political strategist having worked on the 2001 gubernatorial campaign in Virginia of Mark Warner and the 2006 senatorial campaign of Jim Webb. Both successful.

He agrees with me (or I agree with him) that we need to get the money and lobbyists out of politics or they are going to kill us. One thing he did say that I had not thought about was: “Lawyers are everyman’s lobbyist.” It is true. Lawyers lobby for justice and special interests one person at a time. Have you hugged your lawyer today?

Actually, I believe we need more lawyers in both the state legislature and in Congress. Better and fairer laws were written when lawyers were more involved in the legislative process. Some of the crap the Republicans in Georgia have written is proof that a business degree or entrepreneurial success, doesn’t translate into good laws which are fair to everyone.

I am supporting John Edwards for two main reasons. First, he has the character qualities I want in a President. As a lawyer, he knows how to deal with, work thru and solve problems. He has seen to good and the bad of this world. Everytime a lawyer takes a case, particularly when he represents an injured person he is declaring “I believe in America, I believe the system can work.” Lawyers often have to put their money where their mouth is. Everyday they live optomism and faith in truth and what is right. If you don’t think this about your lawyer, you just don’t have the right one.

The second and most important reason I support Edwards is that I think he is electable. History suggests that Southern Democrats are electable. I think he can beat Fred Thompson who I fully expect to be Republican nominee.

 
 Dave Mudcat Saunders [27:39m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (227)