The Moderate Election

[_Notoriuswun]

As many of us have already witnessed, the 2008 presidential campaigning essentially started directly after the 2004 presidential election. There are many reasons for this phenomenon, and the first is perhaps our much beloved/hated president George W Bush. Sometime after the 2004 election, but before the 2006 election, Bush’s electorate seemingly abandoned him; and, because of this, the Democrats ended up defeating the Republicans--mostly on the promise that they would hold the president more responsible for the Iraq war than their predecessors did. Following that election, the president stated quite glibly, “We got a good ole-fashioned whoopin.’” I bring this commonly cited turn of events about because it is incredibly important in understanding why many are calling the 2008 presidential campaign “The Moderate Election.”

While Democrats were defeated by a slim majority in 2004, I personally think that the lesson learned by them was that someone as “liberal” as John Kerry is no longer seen as a viable option for the presidency-or as even electable for the majority of the country. It is interesting to note that of all the Democrats that were elected in 2006, a great majority are Moderates. That is, they hold some “values” that are common to both parties. I think that both parties then realized that to win the new, modern voter, the push would be towards the middle; and that the biggest egg of them all, the presidential election, would be likely decided by who encompasses the center best.

Of all the people who have a serious chance of getting elected-- Hillary Clinton, Rudy Guiliani, Mitt Romney, John Edwards, John McCain, and Barrack Obama—it’s interesting to note that all presidential hopefuls either were, or are currently, Moderates. The ones that abandoned the center--John McCain and Mitt Romney--are now suffering in the polls because of it.

While Hillary Clinton is considered by some in the far right to be extremely liberal--some going so far as to call her a socialist--her voting patterns and history seem to indicate that this simply isn’t the case. Hillary also knows all too well how to pander to the center, as she once campaigned as a Goldwater Girl several decades ago. I think Goldwater’s dedication to supporting business and sustaining civil liberties are now entrenched in Clinton’s dialogue with the public--and is basically a part of who she is now.

Barrack Obama is kind of a wild card. He is probably the most liberal of the group, but his inherent charisma has a way of making people look beyond this. People don’t care about red/blue when in his presence--they simply want to “fix” America. If he capitalizes on this, he can become a serious player who could upset the traditional voting electorate. His only fault is a lack of experience in dealing with businesses, unions, politicians, the military…basically any group that wants protection/entitlements from the government. I think the first few primaries will either make or break him--depending on how well he connects with his voting bloc.

Rudy Guiliani, most notable for his role as NY mayor and directing the city after 9/11, will probably end up winning the Republican nomination--this despite the fact that he is pro-abortion, and pro-gun control, and hasn’t served in any official capacity since 2002. While Evangelicals made up a whopping 25 percent of the electorate in the 2006 election, I think that they have ultimately become disillusioned with trying to elect someone who will best serve their “pro-Christian” interests. I will say it here first “Evangelicalism is dead” (as far as politics go anyways).

Mitt Romney is another wild card, and if he can court Evangelicals and garner their trust (a very hard thing to do following someone like Bush), then he has a good chance at an upset. His Mormonism has become a kind of joke discussed around water coolers across America, but if he manages it well (which he has), and focuses more on his presidential attributes (he was a CEO), he can achieve the impossible. If he wins, then perhaps even Tom Cruise can win on the Scientology vote in 2012.

John McCain. At one time John McCain was the seeming embodiment of the center. He is most notable for his “campaign finance reform” initiatives, his observance for a smaller, more responsible government, and his criticism of the Christian right (2000 election). He was also asked by John Kerry to be his running mate at one point. But now, because of the war, he now has covered more positions than an experienced Bangkok whore. He is also trying to make nice with the Evangelicals (after he snubbed them)…and so far it isn’t going too well. He has become an old man, trying to run “responsibly” on W’s politics, not realizing that these are the some politics that lost the 2006 election for the Republicans. It’s time for him to wake up and smell retirement.

John Edwards seems like an honest, down-to-earth good ole Southern Boy. While Bill Clinton did a fantastic job at playing “Southern gentleman” in ’92, he is actually the real deal. Edwards seeks a more closed society, and wants us to stop being so dependent on China for all our merchandise. His policies are more nationalistic than anything, and his health care reform ideas are very plausible. On paper, his voting bloc is solidly the middle class, so much so that it may become detrimental for him. I think that had John Kerry not won the Democratic ticket in ’04, that Edwards would have likely beaten Bush…I definitely wouldn’t count him out at this point.

I predict that Guiliani and Clinton will win their respective parties nominations. Clinton should pick Obama as running mate, and Guiliani should pick Romney. If this happens, it will be a very interesting election – considering Hillary Clinton, a senator from New York, will be facing off against the man made famous for bringing New York City back together following 9/11. In terms of American politics…it just doesn’t get any better than this.