Forget about Republicans vs. Democrats in 2008. The most interesting race between now and then might well turn out to be Clinton vs. Obama.
While Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has just signaled an interest in running, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton is signaling her own interest in a different way: by spending nearly $7 million last month in a Senate re-election campaign where she already holds a 32-point lead and almost nobody has heard of her opponent.
As this story in the Hill newspaper points out, Clinton wants a landslide to show she can appeal to a wide range of voters, and to refute critics who say she’s too polarizing to beat a moderate Republican in 2008.
The same strategy appeared to work for George W. Bush in 1998, when he outspent his opponent 4-to-1 to win re-election as Texas governor.
Posted by Dave Knadler
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
- Politico on So they said
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
30 Comments
I have annointing oil I would be glad to give you. All you have to do is nominate Hillary, Obama, Gore or Kerry. Any of these losers would make the Repubs very happy.
Haha! Appeal to a wide range of voters in New York?
What would that be? From the screaming shrill Liberal Democrat to the “I don’t care I’m supposed to be Democrat because I’m “
Our best advocate for electing a Democrat in 2008 is 2 more years of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld.
In order for that comment to have any meaning at all you should contrast it with what is being spent inother Senatorial races. My gut feeling is that Clinton’s expenses are chickenfeed. I don’t want to comb the net all day to find out though. Maybe someone else will.
Oh yeah. Your gut can be wrong.
I still haven’t seen the definition of a “moderate” republican OR democrat.Is it a word that really has no meaning, except to make folks feel good about themselves?Kind of like calling yourself an”independent”?
I do not like Hillary, never have and I can not see a time I would. But if the choice would be between Hillary and Coni Rice? Coni is prettier, but she has a greater stench about her then Hillary has. It is my hope that neither get the spot, if they did. I hope those standing waiting to get into the booth behind me brought a lunch. As it will take some hours for me to convince myself to vote for Hillary! I do know that I could not vote for Coni or anyone else that even has a loose connection to the current administration. It is time to cut all traces of the cancer from the body America.
My party has a rough road ahead, the R.R., Neo-cons and the Bush administration has seen to that.In order to have another Republican President it will have to be from the moderates and one that can be voted for by both parties. That will be hard to find for awhile, too many sold their souls and this country out. But I have a feeling that the Democrats will beat the Republicans to that punch. If they do not throw away yet another election. If they put up a Edwards and not a Hillary, we can wave bye-bye to the oval office for a time. If the party puts up a Rice or a Frist, the party can not look for my vote in 08.
There is NO WAY Clinton can win. I’d suggest the democrats come up with someone electable real quick.
Now you are talking, writer dog.Edwards is someone who the repubs should worry about. Not Hillary,Gore, Kerry, Obama. I hope the left wing of the Democrats take over (again/still) and don’t nominate Edwards. He would be trouble.Also, what is a “neo-con”? Another meaningless word?
“I still haven’t seen the definition of a “moderate” republican OR democrat.Is it a word that really has no meaning, except to make folks feel good about themselves?Kind of like calling yourself an”independent”?”
Of course, lest I forget. You must buy into everything that the GOP says lock, stock and barrel to be considered a TRUE republican.
I’m sorry, my wife and I watched Obama on tv the other day, and he made a lot of sense. He was smart and well spoken, and SEEMED willing to reach across party lines and make some real progress.
The definition of a moderate? I think, someone who is willing to work with the other party to actually make some difference in government, not just shout at each other from across the isle. Of course having a real conversation isn’t as easy as shouting, but it’s what the country really needs.
Kumbaya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)
Neoconservatism is a political current and movement, mainly in the United States, which is generally held to have emerged in the 1960s, coalesced in the 1970s, and has had a significant presence in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
The prefix neo- refers to two ways in which neoconservatism was new. First, many of the movement’s founders, originally liberals, Democrats or from socialist backgrounds, were new to conservatism. Also, neoconservatism was a comparatively recent strain of conservative socio-political thought. It derived from a variety of intellectual roots in the decades following World War II, including literary criticism and the social sciences.
Irving Kristol,[1] Norman Podhoretz[2] and others described themselves as neoconservatives during the Cold War. Today, however, the movement’s critics use the term more often than supporters. In fact, some people described as “neocons” today say that neoconservatism no longer exists as an identifiable movement.
Many associate neoconservatism with periodicals such as Commentary and The Weekly Standard, along with the foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Neoconservative journalists, pundits, policy analysts, and politicians, often dubbed “neocons” by supporters and critics alike, have been credited with (or blamed for) their influence on U.S. foreign policy, especially under the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
Thank you Ben, but how would one know if they are a neo-conserv?Is there a checklist? Or is it the libs answer for the word “lib”?
Hotlick you want to find a moderate, “I’ll be your Huckleberry” I have voted Republican for the last twenty years except twice in the Presidential elections. I am pro second amendment, yet even though I agree that abortion is killing I must be pro-choice in that until we as a species can control and be rational about our basic instincts. The alterative would be overpopulation and cursing a child to a fate worst then abortion.I believe that welfare is a trap and should be reformed to be a leg up instead of a hole that keeps a person down. When you are better off being on welfare then you would be working a forty hours job, being on welfare is the smart thing to do. We have to change that, either through raising the minimum wage to a living wage or lowering the cost of living… Another smart thing to do!
I believe in a strong military, but we need to speak softly. The truly powerful never yell or threaten, they just smile and know that the other guy is a fool. A strong military means best trained, best equip and the best technologically advanced. It needs to be well rounded in both major conflict and urban warfare. As we are seeing in Iraq and else where, the enemy may not use tanks and aircraft which we can do well against.But still have a problem with one guy and a IED.
In order that this country to be strong, it has to have a strong economy which means a profitable business sector. We need to support business in it ventures, but not at the expense of the working class. It is a symbolic relationship between business and the working class. I.E. Boeing: when Boeing has a large work force, that means money in the pocket of the average worker, which means that restaurants, car dealerships and stores in general have a higher profit. But Boeing downsizing mean less money flowing down and everyone suffers. In the end Boeing suffers because they lose sells to airlines that depend on customers that have quit flying because their car dealership, restaurant or store is failing.
“When everyone is doing better, the country does better”, until we can bring the lowest up and the cost of living down. There will be a need for social programs, welfare, charity and unemployment. But it has to be prudent, not just feeding a stagnate situation. You can not just solve a problem by saying it is a problem, if you do nothing to solve the problem in a meaningful way the ends the problem. It is still a problem!Nor does playing the moronic game of saying that the Boeing worker who lost his job making twenty dollars an hour and finds a job at Wal-Mart making eight dollars an hour. Then there was not job loss, that is just silly! Now there is twelve dollars an hour less in the economy, but the cost of living is still at that twenty dollars. The worker now has to adjust to eight dollars an hour, which means everyone that depended on that twenty dollars an hour has to adjust too. The economy suffers as does the worker, as does the business that laid the worker off.
Government has to be fiscally responsible, as the tax dollar is depended on the economy. every dollar spend should be treated as the last dollar you have. It makes no sense to pour money into a after school reading program when Johnny can not read during school. It makes not sense to put money into a project that does nothing for the country, but makes a Congressman browning point back home.
On a personal note; I am one who see the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan. There was a need to fight those that attacked this great nation… Iraq did not, they were not even a major player in terrorism.When Bush said that Iraq is the front line in the war on terrorism, I ask does the terrorists know that?Al-Qaeda is playing a small role in Iraq, we are actually fighting the people of Iraq! While the terrorists are in other countries building support and planning new attacks. In a sense Bush is doing more then Bin Laden could ever do. Bin Laden could not wave the Constitution, he could not deny the laws of the United States.Why would Al-Qaeda attack us again as long as we are destroying ourselves? The Partisanship, the back biting, the misguided actions of our President. As long as we are see everything as Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal, we are not Americans! And if this nation is not Americans anymore we will fall with no help from Al-Qaeda!
I expect that I will vote a split ticket this year. I would guess that might fit some sort of “moderate” definition.
One thing about Barack Obama is his black heritage. That would attract many of the minority voter. And after the way Bush & Co messed up Hurricane Katrina, it would not take much for the blacks and other minorities to vote against any Republican!
I agree WriterDog, unless this country gets back to being one country with differences rather than separate groups being led by overpaid, hate-filled spewers of non-facts; our future will be much like that shifting sand.
We need politicians with backbone to stand up and do what is right – not what will bring me the most millions to my pockets.
Hotlick, glad you feel that way about Edwards.I’ve had the chance to work with him on legislation, and I like his “think outside the box” approach to things.Too bad George Allen shot himself in the foot. It would have been interesting to see how a Goldwater Republican would have fared in 08.
Never did like the term Neo-Con. Always felt I had to water it or something like a chia pet.
Elections always seem like a set-up, you will have one that is somewhat Evil but the other one is a total Jackass.
Don’t be too glad, Mr. C.He is going to be hard to beat, but I will do what I can to beat him. Now if only the Repubs had someone to run. I think the George Allen deal will blow over by ‘08, but it would be helpful if he would keep his seat, first.
I just don’t see Hillary being viable, if the Dems want to take the Oval Office. John Edwards, paired with somebody like Washington State governor Christine Gregoire, or New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, could be quite formidable, IMHO.
Bill Richards for the top spot. Edwards? Maybe a cabinet post or something.
Can’t typeBill Richardson
There.
The problem with Richardson is that the North Koreans like to use him as a sounding board.That is, of course, a good thing, but I just don’t expect the current outbreak of common sense in this country is going to last that long.
Janet Napolitano – AZ.
Garth Mc Ginn TV ads won’t be seen in Wichita – the tv ads on his web page are going to the surrounding counties — reminiscent of the Glickman ads of the 70’s / 80’s — no mud slinging — take a look and forward to your Wichita friends who will be voting.
http://www.daretwocare.us/press.html
Bill Richardson was a Clinton apologist during the scandal(s).He might have a hard time getting past that on a national race.
Spending 6.5 million dollars more than she needs to again shows the selfishness of the Clinton-crats.
She could have given the money to dems in close races.
Another reason for liberals to shut her down and turn her off . . .
Larry,
You’re not good looking and clever enough to be gay.
Sorry.