To Bush or not to Bush - that title makes no sense! :)

So in a move to give myself a little bit of a break from the throws of insurance today, I decided to click over toe MSNBC.com to see what else was going on outside my little world. Apparently not much given that the title page had a story about whether or not John McCain should allow or seek George Bust to campaign with him and whether hard line conservatives would back off him a little if he did. Well, from my perspective, it can only hurt. Sure, there is the whole damned if you do-damned if you don’t aspects, but in a general election when most of your registered voters aren’t registered to a party, my opinion is that you steer clear of the W Factor as much as possible, something which may not be possible was the GOP stamp will continue to serve as a reminder. It’s almost likable to Hillary with Bill. Having him campaign for her is good and it’s bad. He’s obvious a lot more popular than W, but he’s extremely polarizing if your not a member of his party. And while I think that the endorsement of the elder Bush is fine for McCain, I’d leave it at that. The only chance this man will have is to distance himself from the younger.

Are predictions of a landslide in November a bit pre-mature?

The title is in regard to the upcoming presidential general election, which many believe is already over... Wait a minute! How can an election be over when one of the parties doesn't have a candidate? Curious. The court of public opinion is voicing strong opposition to any Republican taking office, or are they. Yes, we've heard about the liberal media for years, but perhaps this time around it is more than just a biased opinion or favoritism in capturing sound bytes. In Maine's caucuses yesterday, the Democrats had their largest turn out ever. In 2004 they also had their largest turnout for caucuses, but there's a huge difference. In 2004, 14,000 party-goes attended the caucuses. This year the number was over 45,000 and it was snowing. Granted, Kerry vs. Edwards didn't quite have the luster that Obama Clinton has, but this is interesting. As for counting out McCain and friends for November; I'm not so sure I'd take that course it I were a dem, but the numbers aren't looking good for the GOP in general.

Super Tuesday... Part 2

Nope, this is not going to be about the Super Bowl. Let's get that straight right now. Yikes, I was listening to some local sports radio on the slow and snowy ride to work this morning and it was fairly sad listening to grown men practically cry over this game. YES, I was upset, but life goes on... Sorry - I digress, sort of...

As for the topic, it looks as though the political landscape is not going to change as much as many had thought with today's Super Tuesday primaries. As of about 9:30 EST, Clinton and Obama had about split the primaries and caucuses already called and with the others, they are so close that they may end up splitting delegates. Most had thought that one or the other could really gain some ground today, apparently not.
On the Republican side, things were far different as McCain put a lot of distance between he and Romney and Mike Huckabee won no fewer than 3 primaries. I would assume that Huckabee - although not a serious contender - will stay in the race while I would expect Romney to make an announcement sometime tomorrow about the future of his candidacy.

While GOP plays nice, the DNC primary heats up even more!

So here we are at the end of January and two things are clear with the presidential primaries, the republicans by-in-large like each other and the democrats are out for blood. Oh, and we have a Senator from MA who apparently feels he can be influential in the choice of the democratic candidate. I didn't know Ted Kennedy was still relevant, but his state keeps electing him and he has been a long-time friend of the Clintons, thus his support Barrack Obama is interesting. At first glance, it appears like Hillary is right; she is up against the established good old boy network, but before we conclude this, we need to look at her only real challenger because the aforementioned "network" has never elected or thought about electing a black president. So maybe there is a lot more to this. I think there is and I think it revolves around a third part, if you will. Nope, I'm not referring to Ralph Nader and his pesky Greens (When they want him on their ticket), but rather, I'm referring to a notion that many voters are fearful that a vote for Hillary will be a vote for Bill and Hillary. We know Bill has an agenda and his wife would be all too happy to accommodate an agenda if he can help get her into the White House. Bill's an influential guy and I think that voters are a little weary of having an husband and wife essentially run the country together. Just my opinion on that, but I would be glad to hear others. I'll certainly share more later.

Does this mean I am counting out the eventual GOP candidate? Nope. Not at all, but it's a much less interesting primary with a lot less to talk about. It should be easier for the GOP to form a combined ticket when all is said and done due to the lack on in-party fighting. I have lots of opinions on the GOP side and whether they can overcome the affects of G.W., but I am going to touch more on that at a later date.

Not the stategy I would have picked for an election...

Hmm... So before I make my newest point on Election 2008, please let me again state that I am not currently endorsing a candidate from any political party for President. I have someone I am and have been leaning towards, but this is not a place for me to share who that is or why I think they would be a good candidate and President. During the general election, if that person is still a candidate, I may disclose who I am supporting, but until that time, it doesn't matter. I will, however, make fun of candidates if situations warrant. ('cause why not?)
I truly think that anyone reading this should put more into learning about each candidate and focus less on what the media portrays. You owe it to yourself to do so as images and perceptions are scewed and there is a lot of information out there if you choose to find it.
Now, my thought about the Michigan primaries. I was half right about the New Hampshire primaries, but Michigan has me a little baffled. On the Republican side, there surely is a battle and with the results just hours away, it still appears to be Mitt Romney and John McCain fighting it out to the end. Romney, with strong ties to the state, says he doesn't "need" Michigan to continue, but I think that a lose here may set spell the beginning of the end. McCain, who pulled out the upset in New Hampshire, has said he's in it for the long haul and whereas he was all but done a few months back, he is now perceived as the possible front-runner, especially with the financial issues within the Giuliani camp. My prediction is that Romney pulls out a win in Michigan and gains a much needed 30 delegates.
It's a little stranger for the Democrats and two of them aren't even on the ballot. With all the back and forth between Clinton and Obama, you'd think there was a hotly contested vote in Michigan, but the reality is that in some sort twisting logic, the DNC decided that a good punishment for Michigan moving their primary would be to strip the state of its' delegates. From a democratic standpoint, that is just absurd, but in my opinion, not as absurd as taking your name off the ballot because there are no delegates available. We know clinton left her name on and will win, pretty much by default, but I think she sends a much better message than a couple of the other candidates. My question to Obama and Edwards would be why residents of Michigan should think about voting for you in the fall if you didn't care enough about their state in the primary? Yes, it's more complex than that, but it just seems a little strange.

A negative endorsement for Obama?

Former Presidential candidate and current junior US Senator from Massachusetts, John Kerry, threw his two cents into these early primary elections. Nope, he didn't opine as to weather he was pulling for Romney, but instead made a surprise endorsement of Barrack Obama. While many may have expected Kerry to come out and support John Edwards, I think we all know that Kerry may have already flip-flopped and changed his mind about the endorsement, but I would hedge a bet that his second choice would be Billary. Why? This is a two person race, regardless of how long the other democratic candidates stay in it and Kerry would love an appointment of some sort. That's not gonna come from Edwards. As for Obama, this may have been more negative than positive, but realistically it was most likely neither unless he were to campaign with Mr. Botox himself.

Who will rise to the top in New Hampshire?

With the Iowa caucuses in the past and the supposed "surprise winners" trying to hold onto the limelight, the nation's first primary looms just two days away. And like I wrote after that outcome, I don't think those two victories carry over to New Hampshire. Converesly, I expect that neither Barrack Obama nor Mike Huckabee win top the polls when the results are in. While I expect Billary Clinton's lead in the polls will translate to a New Hampshire victory, I think the republican side will offer a closer race. Rudy Giuliani, who for all intents in purposes, sat out the Iowa caucuses, will prove to be a a strong opponent to the state's straw polls leader Mitt Romney. And so if I'm right, what does it really mean? It means that aside from some public limelight, neither Iowa or New Hampshire hold much water and certainly not many convention delegates, but you'll be hard pressed to find a political pundit who wouldn't admit that as these races get closer, the personal attack ads will become more frequent, which makes me wonder how many people will actually show up to vote instead of saying, none of the above. It should be an intersting day.

Huckabee and Obama winners, but will Iowa be the answer?

Hmmm. Sorry if I again sound a little cynical, but quite frankly, I've already heard too much about the primaries/caucuses and the first one just happened. The mere fact that New Hampshire had to move up their primary to remain first in the nation is just proof that politics is still far-more about perception that actuality.
For example, let's look at tonight's winner in the Iowa caucuses. I've heard some reporters saying that Barrack Obama's and Mike Huckabee's wins were upsets... Really? Perhaps these journalists haven't spent much time out in Iowa, I know I haven't, but I'm well aware of the political landscape there and I know how important religion is to the voters there. So sure, there was going to be a huge advantage for Mike Huckabee. Yes, Romney was an early leader, but he swayed lately, to take jabs at John McCain, which may have made sense starting tomorrow, but I think it cost him some votes in Iowa. More importantly, his attacks on Huckabee cost him all of Iowa. On the democratic side, the winner is no surprise. Obama speaks to the Midwestern voters more than Hillary Clinton could ever, but the true surprise is that as of this hour, Clinton is actually in third behind the ever-charismatic, but rarely substantive John Edwards.
Regardless of any the results from tonight, I don't think that Iowa will do much of anything to shape voters minds prior to other caucuses and primaries. The leader on the GOP side, Rudy Giuliani, didn't even campaign in Iowa and on the democratic side, are there people who really don't have a Clinton/Obama preference? Perhaps, but I doubt it. What this could do is really fire up the Clinton political engine. A third place finish would not sit well with the former first family and you can bet that the attack ads would start flying.
I'll continue to watch, read, and follow the election season because I find it interesting, but let's not get too carried away with tonight's results to think that anything very definitive, aside from Chris Dodd (D-CT) dropping out this evening, will happen before Super Tuesday when many of the delegates for the respective conventions will be decided.