Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:
Also watch for her campaign to go for Obama's throat. She certainly will not give up without a fight.
What are they going to do, in order to go for the throat? What are they going to attack him on that he hasn't already been attacked on? Will negativity play well?
Seems like a tough row to hoe for Hillary in the next few days. Weekend, too, so there's not much news cycle to exploit for changed message.
Rudy has an extremely small chance of winning anything. I'm not sure you've kept track of his falling poll numbers, but they are bad.
Cycloptichorn
Everyone asked claims to hate negative ads, but the simple truth is they work.
It can be a problem if a candidate's name becomes synonymous with negative ads --- which could be happening to Mitt --- but otherwise it's (unfortunately) smart campaigning.
As for Hilary finding other things with which to attack Obama, just you wait and see.
The Clintons have cried foul every time they have been attacked but they are political dobermans.
Obama was smart to confess to drug use right off the bat, but there is far less identification, among the populace, with coke users than pot tokers. There is fertile ground to plow on this score.
Obama seems to a be a fairly well adjusted, decent guy. As such he probably has not made a crusade out of hiding all of his indiscretions. If he has them (and who does not?) there's a good chance they will come out. He has the backing of the establishment media at present but they don't fear him the way they fear Hilary. Clinton has already been found out for leaking items through the Grunge Report. If something really juicy is surfaced by Grunge, the rest of the Media will have to go with it. As much as they might like Obama, they like ratings more.
If the Clinton campaign was capable of dumpster diving after Obama's K-class records, there is no limits to the energy it will invest in digging up dirt. I would be amazed to learn that all that can be revealed about Obama has been revealed.
I'm not a Rudy supporter, but any drop he is experiencing in the polls has more to do with the fact that he has been AWOL of late, than any substantive failing on his part. Out of sight, out of mind.
We'll see more of Rudy in New Hampshire and South Carolina, but the fate of his run for office will not be revealed until we come to primaries in states like Florida and New York. It's quite possible that the field will pass him by by then, but obviously his strategy figures that either they will not or that he can make a comeback. Time will tell. It's hard to imagine Huckabee leaving him in the dust. Romney might have, but the Iowa results crimped that plan.
A key to the race is McCain's performance in NH. He almost has to win. Perhaps remaining a hair breadth away from first place will suffice, but I doubt it. If he wins, look out.
For National Review Conservatives (with whom I usually agree) McCain represents a stick up their asses. He refuses to tow the line on litmus test issues --- most of which (as they are with Liberals) are silly. E.g. limitations on campaign financing are really a major blow against free speech? I don't think so.
Populist candidates, whether from the Left or the Right, rarely find traction within a more general audience. Huckabee is running what is essentially a populist campaign, underscored by some measure of social conservatism.
Despite the all too prevalent opinion of Conservatives on A2K, we are not, at all, a majority of bible thumpers. Huckabee can tap into those who are, but they are his only entre to the conservative base. Libertarians, small government advocates, and foreign policy hawks are not going to swoon before him.
Obviously anything can happen in politics, but I seriously doubt Huckabee will be the nominee.
Romney is not out of the picture yet and neither is Thompson, but right now it looks good for Rudy and McCain.
