Two and a half years ago, I threw my support, or my hopes, for 2008 towards Al Gore. I gave up a few weeks ago. If he didn’t do it during the Nobel medial blitz, it’s not happening.
So, this has left me at a quandary. As usual, the candidate I like the most (Dodd) is not viable, and he, just like Hillary and Edwards, voted for the AUMF. Richardson has made too many goofs on the campaign trail, even though he has some interesting policy ideas and appeared to be anti-war at the time.
Obama also appeared to be anti-war at the time, but I now believe that if he had been in the Senate at the time he would have voted yes as well. Don’t you? And Obama antics with “recovered gays” and new Social Security FUD have only reinforced my image of him as an empty shirt than can give a good speech.
So much for my litmus test.
So now, for many of the same reasons I was for Gore, I’m leaning strongly towards Hillary. Her operation has been skillful. She has a machine. She has the appeal of the Clinton days as much as Gore does, and people already know her. If she’s polling this well now, it’s not because she’s unheard of.
Of course she won’t win in the South. Andrew Jackson couldn’t win in the South as a Democrat these days. The question is, can she bring the heat in Virginia, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Nevada, Montana, and Arizona? Even if she just makes legitimate challenges there, odds are she will win handily.
I mocked the idea of picking the most likely to win in 2004, because I knew we would lose anyway. This time, all of the stars are aligned, we just need someone to close the deal.