You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Chris Matthews predicts Obama/Romney Iowa wins [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
LVZ Donating Member (632 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-02-08 09:53 PM
Original message
Chris Matthews predicts Obama/Romney Iowa wins
Advertisements [?]
Edited on Wed Jan-02-08 10:21 PM by LVZ
Matthews tends to shift his predictions a lot but maybe it reflects how the various state electorates shift in this atypical election season. On the other hand, Matthews' well-known dislike of the Clintons might be at play.

His prediction of Romney over Huckabee in Iowa is easy to understand. Romney's vastly larger and well financed organization can spend the money necessary to ensure Romney voters get to the Iowa caucuses.

The predicted Obama win seems more based on Chris's political gut feeling. We've all seen Hillary and Edwards around for the past few years. In contrast, Obama is definitely the "fresh face" for non-traditional Democrats, someone who can best appeal to an expanded voter base of independents and to those looking for something different. The trick is to actually get the new Obama crowd to show up at caucus time, not really a safe bet.

Overall, I think that Joe Biden would be the best "qualified" President. Unlike certain other northeastern intellectual candidates, he has a more feisty yet likeable temperament than prior personality-deficient candidates like John Kerry or Michael Dukakis. However, he would seem to be a real long shot to win the nomination.

Months ago I thought that New Mexico's Bill Richardson had the best experience résumé of the various Democratic candidates. As a western swing-state Governor, he appeared at the time to be most "electable". Since then, however, I have not been impressed by Richardson's debate performances and his rather obvious pandering to the activist left. Richardson's recent very undiplomatic and unrealistic call for the immediate resignation of Pakistan's military dictator Musharraf, without consideration for consequences, is just the sort of knee-jerk "cowboy" foreign policy rhetoric that we complain about with the neoCons.

The top three Dems each have significant strengths and vulnerabilities.

IMO, Hillary Clinton represents the battle-tested, organizationally strong, politically-connected ready-to-govern candidate. That may also be her main weakness to voters: along with Bill Clinton, too much "old school" politics, too ready to manipulate to get her way, and a bit too machiavellian. Like it or not, fair or not, Hillary's perceived television personality is also a big negative factor in terms of "electability".

Barak Obama represents a break with the past - very appealing, especially for younger folks. Unfortunately, the under 30 group rarely shows up in big numbers when it counts - at election time. Lack of direct experience, to some degree, is a fair criticism. However, this can be greatly offset by good judgement selecting good people as advisors and implementers - just ask Warren Buffett. Obama's "can't we all just get along" appeal, however, is not at all realistic since the other side has no intention to "get along".

John Edwards represents more traditional Democratic Party values, a strong advocate against corporate greed, corruption and exploitation of the working class. As a very successful trial lawyer, Edwards should be especially effective putting forth his visions to the nation and attending to the practical craft of making law to implement that vision. The question for me is whether he is tough enough to counter the inevitable smear campaign that the GOP will launch against any Democratic nominee.

To simplify:

Hillary Clinton: readiness, connections
Barak Obama: symbolic change agent
John Edwards: issues advocacy

I think all of these facets are important and I have been going back and forth about which is more important. Surprisingly, I have now shifted to favoring Obama. This is not because he is better qualified (he is not) and not because he is better on the issues (IMO, he tends to be fuzzy on issues). I now favor Obama because that is what would seem to be best for the nation at a time when the world either hates or distrusts us and for good reasons. There are times when symbolism and a spirit of optimism can be overall more effective in achieving one's long term goals than all the best plans and intentions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC