It'll Be Obama and Romney!

Nick Gillespie | July 20, 2007

That's what self-defined "libertarian Democrat" Terry Michael suggests in a Wash Times col:

While still in third or fourth place in those meaningless national match-ups, Mr. Romney has pulled ahead in both of the important test markets of Des Moines and Manchester. Those who get to see him up close and personal feel the magnetism of that master of the universe jaw and industrial strength hair.

And while Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton may have bludgeoned her way into the wallets and frontal lobes of the bloodless investors in Democratic circles, Mr. Obama is viscerally connecting with the lower-brain instincts of masses of activists, many of them newly activated. The Tiger Woods of politics has amassed more than 250,000 contributors in the first half of 2007 and vaulted millions of dollars ahead of Mrs. Clinton in the second quarter reports. One more figure to make the case: Mr. Obama has five times the number of "friends" on facebook.com. The Illinois senator's coffers are now as deep as Mrs. Clinton's, but his much greater breadth augurs well for cashing in with actual voters.

The key to their appeal? For Michael, a former press secretary for the Democratic National Committee, it's their sunny-side up with people-ness: "The broad center of the electorate is weary of public policy Cassandras like those at the press-release-driven Centers for Disease Control who boost their budgets with CNN Breaking News threats of the week, like the drug resistant TB case that turned out not to be so much."

More here.

Comments

|7.20.07 @ 9:35AM|#

well I'd be less depressed with those choices than Clinton/Guliani. Not happy, sure, but possibly less likely to drink heavily and weep for no reason.

Stephen the Goldberger|7.20.07 @ 9:43AM|#

my money's still on clinton v. thompson

|7.20.07 @ 9:44AM|#

The broad center of the electorate is weary of public policy Cassandras like those at the press-release-driven Centers for Disease Control who boost their budgets with CNN Breaking News threats of the week, like the drug resistant TB case that turned out not to be so much.

Wasn't Cassandra the one who made correct prophecies but no one would listen to her? It seems he's railing against those who force people to listen to their incorrect prophecies.

Actually, I guess you could say that Obama, along with Ron Paul, was a Cassandra as far as the Iraq war goes...

|7.20.07 @ 9:57AM|#

Steve,

While that's a good bet, Clinton would probably take 90% of your winnings and Thompson would claim it as needed for the war. Its best to put your money on someone else and lose it to the bookies rather than give it to those two. :(

|7.20.07 @ 10:19AM|#

We should elect our president based on votes per dollar spent. This would prevent someone from buying an election. Of cose money spent does not always correlate to number of votes but I think this would be interesting.

I live in Ohio, how soon can I expect tv ads for the 2008 primary and 2008 election? thank you for Tivo

|7.20.07 @ 10:20AM|#

Both Romney and Obama have good looks and a certain charisma and sex appeal.

Hillary is trying to improve her sex appeal. Amidst all the claims that she's too manly, she wore a dress with low cleavage recently on the Senate floor.

|7.20.07 @ 10:28AM|#

Rattlesnake jake,

I'm about to get sick...Please no more, of course if could be worse you could have said G. Flowers -> Barf

|7.20.07 @ 10:32AM|#

Genefer Flowers was pretty good looking, the last picture I saw of her.

|7.20.07 @ 10:54AM|#

I read a Time Magazine article about the cast of Ocean's 13. Clooney and Damon said they were for Obama because of his charisma. I guess that reflects the general electorate's fifth grade reasoning as well - "ooh, look, his teeth are so shiny." Well, I suppose the upside is that he's not quite as charismatic as Mao or Mussolini but he's cuter than both put together?

Bill|7.20.07 @ 10:59AM|#

Obama better hope if he wins the nomination that he is facing Romney instead of Guiliani or Thompson. Obama is a political lightweight with no political credentials. The man is veering to the left faster than a NASCAR driver; his policy positions should make any libertarian, or anyone to the right of Pol Pot for that matter, cringe.

Edward|7.20.07 @ 11:04AM|#

Nonsense. It will be Kucinich and Paul.

highnumber|7.20.07 @ 11:05AM|#

Bill,
I won't quibble with your assessment of Obama's political leanings, but "no political credentials"? How do you figure that? He served in the Illinois State Senate for eight years and has served in the US Senate for two and a half years.

|7.20.07 @ 11:20AM|#

Brace for it, people.

Unless the current administration pulls off a miracle in Iraq or does a very abrupt about-face, no Republican is going to win.

Your next President is either going to be Clinton or Obama, probably with the other as VP.

VM|7.20.07 @ 11:24AM|#

oh yeah, Aresen? Well. Diefenbaker to you.

Diefenbaker. Diefenbaker. Diefenbaker.

Edward|7.20.07 @ 11:28AM|#

Aresen

You're not taking Ron Paul into account. His support grows by the minute, and the Democrats are shaking like leaves at the prospect of running against him. Ron Paul's pricipled positions, incisive wit, and sparkling charm will carry the day. Just you wait and see.

|7.20.07 @ 11:33AM|#

Bill,

I can't imagine getting farther left that Edwards or Hillary and Obama's a smart guy. No, I don't want him to win, but he's not the worst case scenario. Frankly, Guliani stil scares me more than any of the other candidates.

|7.20.07 @ 11:33AM|#

"Obama better hope if he wins the nomination that he is facing Romney instead of Guiliani or Thompson. Obama is a political lightweight with no political credentials."

For what it's worth, Obama is ahead in of all 4 of the leading Republican candidates in a recent poll I've seen. He's ahead of them by a wider margin than is Hillary over them with the exception of Giuliani where they both have approximately the same lead over him.

|7.20.07 @ 11:37AM|#

I too think Romney is gonna take the Rep nomination. He will lose to Obama or it will be a coin toss with Clinton.

Edward|7.20.07 @ 11:38AM|#

The polls won't give us results of Obama vs Paul. Why is that? The gate keepers will pull any tricks they can to stop the Ron Paul juggernaut, but it won't work.

|7.20.07 @ 11:39AM|#

"Your next President is either going to be Clinton or Obama, probably with the other as VP."

Or Gore. If Gore wins the nomination, he might pick Obama as running mate, but Hillary would be more likely to pick a Southern centrist white male running mate for balance and I think Obama would do the same. I don't know that Hillary with her big ego would be willing to accept 2nd place, unless she accepted it with the intention of having the President bumped off.

|7.20.07 @ 11:45AM|#

RJ,

Gore winning would be hilarious. The comeback kid who toured the nation, wrote a book, made a movie and rode his environmental chariot all the way to the whitehouse, no lock boxes in sight. Then after he started saving us all from global warming, we'd be worshipping him as god and...am I carrying this satire too far...?

Edward|7.20.07 @ 11:53AM|#

"I don't know that Hillary with her big ego would be willing to accept 2nd place, unless she accepted it with the intention of having the President bumped off."

Yeah, this big ego thing is something new in politics. Hard to know where it will lead.

|7.20.07 @ 11:57AM|#

Aresen

You're not taking Ron Paul into account. His support grows by the minute, and the Democrats are shaking like leaves at the prospect of running against him. Ron Paul's pricipled positions, incisive wit, and sparkling charm will carry the day. Just you wait and see.

Only if Ron Paul is not invited to the next Republican debate and an asteroid hits the studio.

VM

Oh, yeah?

Stassen. Stassen. Stassen.

VM|7.20.07 @ 12:01PM|#

hrumph.

/trods off

|7.20.07 @ 12:55PM|#

The Iowa Election Markets current stock prices put it Clinton vs. Giuliani (the latter by just a hair over Thompson) HERE. Click on Graph. Fun to watch.

|7.20.07 @ 1:10PM|#

Mitt Romney ? This Mitt Romney?

In an apparent violation of the law, a controverisal aide to ex-Gov. Mitt Romney created phony law enforcement badges that he and other staffers used on the campaign trail to strong-arm reporters, avoid paying tolls and trick security guards into giving them immediate access to campaign venues, sources told the Herald.

The bogus badges were part of the bizarre security tactics allegedly employed by Jay Garrity, the director of operations for Romney who is under investigation for impersonating a law enforcement officer in two states. Garrity is on a leave of absence from the campaign while the probe is ongoing.

A campaign source said Garrity directed underlings on Romney's presidential staff to use the badges at events nationwide to create an image of security and to ensure that the governor's events went smoothly

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that Mitt Romney will not win the GOP nomination

|7.20.07 @ 1:11PM|#

Mitt Romney ? This Mitt Romney?

In an apparent violation of the law, a controverisal aide to ex-Gov. Mitt Romney created phony law enforcement badges that he and other staffers used on the campaign trail to strong-arm reporters, avoid paying tolls and trick security guards into giving them immediate access to campaign venues, sources told the Herald.

The bogus badges were part of the bizarre security tactics allegedly employed by Jay Garrity, the director of operations for Romney who is under investigation for impersonating a law enforcement officer in two states. Garrity is on a leave of absence from the campaign while the probe is ongoing.

A campaign source said Garrity directed underlings on Romney's presidential staff to use the badges at events nationwide to create an image of security and to ensure that the governor's events went smoothly

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that Mitt Romney will not win the GOP nomination

|7.20.07 @ 1:16PM|#

hillary would never have obama as her vp, if she got the nomination. she'd be too afraid of him outshining her during 4 or 8 years. bill didn't have to worry about that with al.


i'm for ron by the way.

|7.20.07 @ 1:51PM|#

"a controverisal aide to ex-Gov. Mitt Romney created phony law enforcement badges that he and other staffers used on the campaign trail to strong-arm reporters"

It sounds like Hillary's thugs. During the 2000 Senate election, Hillary's goon squad in advance of Hillary showing up, strong armed protestors and knocked a camera out of a camerman's hands and busted it up so the film could not be shown to the public.

Terry Michael|7.20.07 @ 2:06PM|#

Re: CRIMETHINK's comment, "Wasn't Cassandra the one who made correct prophecies but no one would listen to her? It seems he's railing against those who force people to listen to their incorrect prophecies."
I am four decades away from my high school and college exposure to Greek mythology, and I should have used Wikipedia instead of my memory. Indeed, Cassandra was more than just a discredited doomsayer; she could see the future but was just doomed by a disgruntled lover not to be believed. My face is red, because I was thinking not just of doomsayers but false prophets like Giuliani and the CDC. For the record, if you'll read my whole piece, I am not advocating Romney nor Obama, though as a libertarian Democrat I tend toward supporting Obama as the least worst candidate in the field. I am just arguing that candidates with hopeful auras are going to be better received by voters than those, like Giuliani, who try to scare us to death with his one-hit-wonder message about The Terrorists. Thanks to CRIMETHINK for your correction of the results of my age-addled mind.

|7.20.07 @ 2:49PM|#

ChicagoTom,

Yes, that Mitt Romney. And while I think he, McCain, Thompson and Guliani are all loathsome, he's a step above Guliani on the thuggish scale.

zune|7.20.07 @ 3:06PM|#

Remeber the "leaked" Romney powerpoint plan? Slide 2 said he would differentiate himself from Bush. There was one word in bold INTELLIGENCE

The next slide talked about his hair.

I dont see how he can loose.

|7.20.07 @ 3:21PM|#

Aresen posted,
"Your next President is either going to be Clinton or Obama, probably with the other as VP."
First, its Clinton as Prez, Obama as Veep.
No way would Clinton accept the Veep position.
Next.
Want to bet on it?
I am willing to put money where my mouth is and say Hillary or Obama will NOT win the Prez election in 2008. Democrats best chance is with Bill Richardson.

PS Anyone know of any betting site taking bets on the 2008 election.

|7.20.07 @ 4:40PM|#

Terry

I'll have to concede the point that Clinton wouldn't take the Veep spot. It has nowhere near the clout of the NY Senate seat. Obama might, however, to pad his resume.

Clinton & Obama seem to be too carefully prepped to make a big blunder - although that is always a possibility - and that's the only way I can see either of them taken out of contention. The Democrats smell blood in the water and they aren't going to take a chance on an outsider.

I'm not sure even a new terrorist attack on a 9/11 scale could win it for the Republicans.

Bet taken.

|7.20.07 @ 5:22PM|#

The vice presidency means quite a bit more than it did 20 years ago. Gore and Cheney changed it forever.

I think it's an open question whether Hillary would accept the #2 job.

|7.20.07 @ 5:29PM|#

I still like Richardson. He's got the experience and resume, he's not overly-ideological but has liberal insincts, and he'd probably cause the least freaking out among the extra-chromosome righties. A little peace and quiet on the culture war front.

And I think he's got the right temperment that we need right now. After a string of Imperial Presidents, a great big overgrown state rep sounds pretty appealing. Somebody who's going to err on the side of not stepping on Congress's toes, for a change.

|7.20.07 @ 5:58PM|#

The vice presidency means quite a bit more than it did 20 years ago. Gore and Cheney changed it forever.

Depends on how long a leash the Prez gives the veep. Also depends on how much personal clout the veep brings to the job.

If you have a high-Alpha Prez and a veep picked as window dressing, the veep spot is going to be worth the proverbial "bucket of warm piss".

|7.20.07 @ 6:26PM|#

Sure, R-S-N, those are both completely true. What I'm saying is, who gets picked to be the Veep and how big a role they're given handled differently now.

If somebody asks Hillary Clinton to be VP, it won't be because they want her to be eye candy on the campaign trail and attend funerals for eight years.

|7.20.07 @ 6:52PM|#

I'm sure Clinton wouldn't take the job to "be eye candy on the campaign trail and attend funerals for eight years" and I think she has enough clout to make it stick. However, both HHH and LBJ had lots of clout before they took the veep slot and both of them were humiliated by their bosses.

The veep's influence extends only as far as the Prez lets it go. Their only real option is to walk if they don't like it. And a veep who "jumps ship" really beggars his/her chances of getting the nomination when the eight years are up.

WJC used Gore, who played "loyal soldier" during the Impeachment flap, even though that handicapped Gore in 2000.

As for Cheney and GWB, we've all wondered who's in control.

If Romney were to pick Ron Paul, for example, and win, how much freedom you you think Ron Paul would get? "Ron, this week you're attending the funeral of the third assistant deputy minister of agriculture for Botswana."

|7.20.07 @ 8:20PM|#

I don't think Romney would pick Ron Paul, Aresen.

I think a president at this point is expected to pick someone who will be an important part of his administration, and utilize her as such.

If a president ended up shunting aside the vice president, it would cost him politically in today's American. Dan Quayle time ten.

I think there's been a revolution in how our polity looks at the vice president, from the voters all to the way to the president. I don't think a candidate could get away with picking someone as a token anymore.

You keep saying The veep's influence extends only as far as the Prez lets it go. Yes, I know. But I think that a modern president has to let the veep's influence go very far, or risk paying a political price.

|7.20.07 @ 8:26PM|#

Look at how much Edwards hurt Kerry. That was a completely cynical, calcuated pick based on polling and the old "regional balance" tokenism. He was never going to give John Edwards a Gore-ish role; he was offering him the bucket of warm spit.

Kerry never got any benefit from that pick, for just that reason. People picked up on the fact that it was a marketing stunt.

|7.20.07 @ 10:40PM|#

You may be right. But I remember that JFK picked LBJ because of his clout in the South and the Senate. LBJ was a big help in when Kennedy passed his tax cut, but the Congress was more in control of the party bosses in those days & LBJ was a party loyalist. That didn't stop Kennedy from shutting Johnson out of virtually every major decision.

While there is a lot of talk about "balancing the ticket" - not just regionally, but idealogically - the fact is that a President can't allow the VP to outshine him. Basic politics.

The ideal VP is someone who is willing to pay the price of being the waterboy while building his/her own clout for the future. That's why, after Terry's comment, I reconsidered my idea that Clinton would accept the VP spot with Obama.

I see your point about people no longer accepting non-entities [like Quayle] in the VP spot, but the VP can't be too independent, either.

I could be wrong, but I have this feeling of "Plus ca change, plus le meme chose."

|7.20.07 @ 11:03PM|#

One further point - the very fact that Cheney has had so much power is going to mean that people are going to look askance at a VP candidate who looks like he/she could be a behind-the-scenes manipulator.

|7.21.07 @ 2:33AM|#

I know I'm always late in the thread, but I really think that some of the things that make people most charismatic are the positive outlook that people see, and they both have it, Obama and Romney. Of course neither is my first choice, I definitely cringe a lot less at those two than the others even if it's based less on politics and more on personality. I think after a negative presidency, America needs a positive one.

Oh, and what would you think of an Obama/Richardson ticket?

|7.21.07 @ 9:26AM|#

I'll give two to one odds Richardson will be on one side of the ticket or the other.

|7.21.07 @ 10:35AM|#

Good point about veeps being a big part of the legislative agenda, Aresen. There's an argument for a Richardson vice presidency.

I think the backlash against Cheney is going to attach to his personality and not his role.

BobDobalina|7.23.07 @ 1:47PM|#

Clooney and Damon said they were for Obama because of his charisma. I guess that reflects the general electorate's fifth grade reasoning as well - "ooh, look, his teeth are so shiny."

That's what kills me about Obamamania. The man has done practically nothing in the Senate, yet it's all swimming-trunk-pics and hard-ons with his supporters and the media.

Charisma is fine, but better if paired with some actual brains and demonstrated experience. As much as people deride Reagan for being an "actor," they tend to forget he was also a labor union president and governor of America's most populous state before he ran.

Considering the levels of violence and crime that affects the African-American areas that Obama represented on the state level in Illinois, what does he have to brag about, compared to a Richardson, or even Clinton in her brief NY tenure?