Ron Paul: The Impact of his campaign

Ron Paul is possibly the only republican with any dignity. The man fights for what he believes in and I respect that. I might not agree with him on a lot of the issues, but on one thing we do agree: the Iraq War is a disaster and needs to be ended. Ron Paul is bringing that message to the GOP debates and with him on the campaign trail and it seems to be working. He reportedly has more money on hand than John McCain. He is without a doubt the most popular candidate on the world-wide-web. His website has more hits than any other Republican candidate. He is the change candidate as far as republicans are concerned, so why is he doing so horribly in the polls? Well for one thing he refuses to spend money. If he could get his message out in Iowa and New Hampshire, he could get a major boost. He is of course hated by the neo-cons. For what reason, I'm not quite sure, as I could never understand the reasoning of those crazy right-wingers. But whatever the case may be, Ron Paul unfortunately won't get the nomination. So what is the impact of his campaign?

Quite simply this man will be running as the libertarian in the general election. I can guarantee. And this gives Republicans another choice other than Rudy or Romney, who appear to be the two best in position to get the nomination. A lot of pro-life republicans might not like Romney's flip-flopping or Rudy's openly pro-choice stance, so here is their alternative. It also gives the anti-war republicans a candidate that is not a liberal democrat. The impact of Ron Paul is this, he is bad news for the GOP. He won't get a large chunk of votes in the general election, but we've seen how just a few hundred votes in a key state, can determine the election. If Paul picks up just a small part of the GOP vote in Florida, Ohio, or Texas,(which if you've seen my earlier posts show a virtual tie between Clinton & the Republicans) the electoral votes could go to the democrat. I almost see him doing what Nader did in 2000 in Florida. In this close race, every vote matters, and with the current state of the country, the GOP needs every vote it can get its hands on.

Obama: inexperience or change(or both)?

The question has to be asked: Is Obama really the candidate of change? or is he just an ambitious, inexperienced, rookie? Or is him being new to politics, the fact that he is a rookie, mean that he is the candidate of change? You can think for yourself but this if what I think:

Obama is not the candidate of change. He says that, but what sets him apart from Hillary, or Edwards, or Biden, other than the fact that he is younger, and is not a long time Washington insider? He likes to bring up the fact that he didn't vote for the war, while the others did. Well he didn't have to vote. He wasn't in the Senate. Its easy to say you wouldn't have voted for the war, yet I feel confident, that he would have. And if he is so opposed to the war and truly wants to get our brave men and women home, why was it Clinton, not him, who asked the Pentagon for withdrawal plans? Thats leadership, and Obama has not shown any leadership yet, in any circumstance. And his inexperience is overly obvious. To talk to enemy leaders without some pre-conditions is a disastrous foreign policy. Its not that we shouldn't be willing to talk to our enemies, because I believe we should, but the president cannot put him/herself and/or the country in danger. Hillary, Dodd, Biden are all right on this issue as is Senator Barbara Boxer and FMR. Secretary Albright who all have put their input on this situation. And just last week Obama talks about invading Pakistan with or without Musharraf's permission to fight al-qaeda. I accept that position as we should find and kill bin-Laden, but saying it as Obama did further de-stabilizes the Pakistani government. I just don't see what is so great about Obama. I don't think he's the guy to be president. I just don't.

Clinton: the inevitable president?

Hillary Clinton is running the perfect campaign. She has been flawless in the debates and is doing better and better in the polls. Her negatives are dropping and her positives are rising. She is now 22 points ahead of Sen. Obama and is only 2 points away from having 50% of democratic support. Mark the my words, if that happens, its over for the other candidates. Just getting over 50% would give a huge boost to her campaign. The money will pour in, as will some major endorsements. Her weak spot? Well if she has one problem it is Iowa and New Hampshire. She is not doing bad there, she is in a virtual three way tie with Obama and Edwards, but she needs to do well. If Obama can beat her there, he may be able to win the nomination, but if Clinton wins, it will be like a train going 150 mph, no one will be able to stop her. And I have titled this blog the eventual president, not the eventual nominee for one reason. I have a hard time believing that a republican will win in 2008. Clinton is in such a good position for a general election run. She is not far-left like Edwards or Obama, she is the moderate democrat. Possibly the most encouraging news for the Clinton campaign is that she is polling even, thats right, equal to both McCain and Guiliani in Texas, yes, Texas of all places. If she can appeal to the independents and anti-war republicans in Texas, she can win swing states like Florida & Ohio. Like her or not, when you watch her at the debates, or see her statements on her website, or hear an interview she has given, you just can't help but say, "damn", this girl is running the absolute perfect campaign.

AFL-CIO Forum Analysis

So the top 7 Democrats running for the office of U.S. President took the stage at Soldier field in the intense heat of Chicago and infront of over 10,ooo union members. The biggest story of the night was the good old battle of experience versus change when Clinton, Dodd, & Biden triple-teamed home town hero, Obama, on his foreign policy. This all began last week when Obama said he would attack Pakistan if he got intelligence bin-Laden was there, with or without the Pakistani leader's permission:"if Musharraf doesn't act, we will". Clinton and Dodd proved that they have the experience of foreign relations, making it clear that the goal is to stop islamic extremists, but Obama's plan would only disable Pakistan's already shaky government and could very well turn it into a nuclear power headed by those same islamic extremists that want us dead. Biden later chimed in saying that while everyone is entitled to their own opinions, there is only one fact. This can be seen as a shot at Obama for trying to undermine possibly our only ally in the War on Terror in the middle east. So who won that confrontation? Well for the people in attendance it was Obama and maybe for the far-left of the democratic party, Obama also scored some points. But Clinton, Dodd, & Biden showed their experience and appealed to main-stream America. Clinton and her buddies hace their eyes set on the general election, while Obama is trying to upset Clinton with the liberal caucas goers in Iowa. And finally who had a good showing last night? Well Clinton did as good as she always does. Her, Dodd, & Biden's experience showed. Richardson again did poorly. He has all the experience but just does horribly in these forum/debate settings. Obama did okay. He is trying to appeal to the far-left and did just that. Edwards failed, he was supposed to be the angry populist fighting for the working man, but Kucinich completely out-shined him. So if there was a debate winner it has to be Clinton, but if I was to base it on who appealed to be the best for the AFL-CIO, it was Kucinich.