The Presidential Secondary

Dick Meyer: The Primary Campaign Is Over And The Candidates Are Bloodied Already

(CBS)  This commentary was written by CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer.

---

The primary campaign will be over in less than 45 days and the candidates are bloody and their prospects deeply uncertain. The 2008 race remains a tough one to handicap, even this far along.

Whoa, you say, the primaries haven’t begun. Wrong. The primaries began last winter when candidates began announcing the pre-announcement and then announced their announcements and then announced. The candidates have debated more times than Lincoln and Douglass ever shook hands. They have been on the Sunday shows for a year, they have cut on each other and they have aired ads.

Nope, the primary campaign is over.

On January 3 in Iowa the Presidential Secondary opens. Thanks to the nearly kaput primary campaign, candidates who had stature nine months ago now look like Lilliputians. Imagine how puny they’ll seem by November 2008. Americans will resoundingly vote for relief, sending out a national cry of “Uncle! We give up.”

The Democrats at least have a front-runner in the form of Hillary Clinton. Many Democrats believe she is unelectable, of course, but she is the front-runner. And she seems especially unelectable in theory. That is, the concept of “Hillary” does not work as a victorious American president. But the reality of Hillary versus Barack, John E., Rudy, Fred, Mitt, Mike H. or John McC. works better than any other equation. Hence, she is the front-runner.

Many, especially Obama fans, are saddened to see the Democratic primary campaign turning so snarky. Campaigns have simply become very skilled at tearing down opponents and very bad at building public admiration. The great hope was that Barack Obama might change that skill set. Not going to happen and that is a bummer.

John McCain’s fans suffered similarly. McCain was to straight talk as Obama was to positive talk. McCain, like Obama, was the charisma leader in their posse. Such factors matter little in 24-month campaigns where every voter is a pundit, every sound bite is YouTube fodder and every utterance is repeated ad nauseum.

So McCain is behind the pack, sometimes trailing Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson.

Rudy Giuliani is the front-runner in his gang. But there’s a problem. Mitt Romney is leading in Iowa and New Hampshire. Most handicappers don’t believe that Rudy can lose the first two big Secondary races and still be the front-runner. And most-experienced Rudy watchers don’t believe the Mayor will handle electoral adversity with grace and aplomb.

So in the Secondary campaign there is tremendous opportunity to further diminish the candidates’ stature, the legitimacy of the presidential selection process and the credibility of the American press corps.

Of course, things really won’t turn sour until the general election. And if history is a guide, the next president will have an awfully hard time actually governing.

---

E-mail questions, comments, complaints, arguments and ideas to Against the Grain. We will publish some of the interesting (and civil) ones, sometimes in edited form.

[quatrops]

Absolutely amazing! I''m 73, and from the mindset mistered9 reveals @ 12:10, he''s at least 50 years older than me!

Someone should tell him that women can now vote, and, prohibition has been repealed!

[sparks224]

"Can you imagine Obam''''s generation leading this Country?? Teenagers using drugs, shooting up schools and killing their own parents...."
Posted by mistered9

Ah, Yea, Obama will probably fill his cabnet with teenage drug addicts who kill their parents.

By the way, what drugs are YOU on?

[mistered9]

Can you imagine Obam''s generation leading this Country?? Teenagers using drugs, shooting up schools and killing their own parents. Just what we need, the old west style living. Everyone carry a gun and shoot anyone you don''t like. Think a gain Obama, it''s not what we needd.

[quatrops]

Figure this! Robisch asserts " . .I will not . . treat differently any homosexual". This follows the sentence in which he asserts a homosexual should be denied "any church job".

What part of "blatent contradiction" don''t you understand, Alan? It is no wonder you are so comfortable with the concept of inerrancy.

[alanrobisch]

BTW keep using Clinton as neocon excuse #1 for the last 8 years of total failure. I think if the choice had to be between Bill and the chimp in 08, the ol philanderer would get 90 percent of the vote. At least he kept his penetration to his personal partner as opposed to the entire country.


Posted by ainttaken at 08:50 PM : Nov 23, 2007

I am not a defender of GWB''s record. this is difficult if not near impossible. I can say that your memory lapses that we did wage war in the balkans during his period in office and we did a few preemptive strikes during his time in office to try and stop international terrorism

[alanrobisch]

Quattrops quite clear quite wrong when it comes to stating that active homosexuals should be allowed into the priesthood or any other church office. this is not homophobic. I do not have not and will not hate or detest or even treat differently a homosexual .but unlike you I do believe that the bible is the source of moral teachings and that homosexuality is a sin and no more than having extramarital *** is acceptable to God.

Unfortunately people who use the word homophobic are judging others in the manner that the bible tells us specifically not to do.

[quatrops]

Re robisch''s 8:08 query: I know you are not looking for a dictionary definition, so let''s dispense with that. We can also dispense with proof-texting Scripture, since we know already we disagree about inerrancy and whether or not Christ''s overall message of love and tolerance supercedes any words of judgement, intolerance, and supposed prohibitions of behavior that were of his age, whether they appear in Leviticus, Numbers, or Chronicles.

That being said, my basic concern about homophobia is how it manifests itself in so many areas of life that have nothing to do with a person''s sexuality. If a man or woman meets all the qualifications for a particular job, to deny that person employment just because of their sexual preference is homophobic, whether the job is as a sales clerk, priest, bishop, pope, or soldier.

The same would hold for public office or membership in public organizations or religious groups, again where they meet all other qualifications.

I believe it is homophobic to preach that homosexuality is a sin, is evil, is immoral, or decadent.

Clear enough?

[alanrobisch]

The sad fact is probably 80% of voters choose their candidate based on entirely irrational reasons. U.S. voters have become strongly irrational: ergo, George W. Bush Jr.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Something like voting for bill clinton

[alanrobisch]

found your caveat about sounding "anti-religious" interesting. As a life-long Christian in a denomination that has led the fight for equality of women and against homophobia, I have never had any quarrel with those of other faiths or those with no institutional "faith" at all. My anger is directed towards the "religious right" who, with their self-rightous, pompous pronouncements on any number of issues gets the great majority of more tolerant and loving Christians painted with the same negative broad brush.


Posted by Quatrops at 03:05 PM : Nov 23, 2007

I agree that people like Jerry falwell and Pat robertson blinds people to the caring that christians bring to what they do in parts of life from food banks to helping the homeless etecetera but I would be interested in knowing what you mean by homophobia.

[geezer62]

Quatrops
Thank you for your kind reply to my post. Your points are well taken and also informative. That is what these sites are meant to do. To exchange ideas and provide food for thought. So many who post here seem to think that the only way to communicate is by insult and sarcasm. If I appear to lump all Christians together I do appologize. It seems that the radical right are the ones we hear to the exclusion of folks like yourself who have the ability to actually understand what Jesus tried to teach us. I sometimes feel left out and have been unable to find a church that is right for me. But it is good to know that there are Christians out there who don''t think I am evil because of my stand on certain issues. Thanks again for your post and I hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving Day.

[jowand]

Another story written by a Hillary cheerleader, what a corrupt media.

[quatrops]

Yo geezer! Your point about the religious right is well taken, although a number of surveys indicate they may well be less involved in 2008 than previously. A recent article about their up-and-coming, younger leaders indicates an interest in getting back to their historic priorities, their "fundamentals" (no pun intended), with less emphasis on political action. I hope so!

Even so, it would serve the cause of sanity well if Giuliani is the Republican candidate. His stance on abortion coupled with his moral baggage will keep a lot of those folks home watching Trinity Broadcasting on election day.

I found your caveat about sounding "anti-religious" interesting. As a life-long Christian in a denomination that has led the fight for equality of women and against homophobia, I have never had any quarrel with those of other faiths or those with no institutional "faith" at all. My anger is directed towards the "religious right" who, with their self-rightous, pompous pronouncements on any number of issues gets the great majority of more tolerant and loving Christians painted with the same negative broad brush.

[denn034]

Go Thompson.

[nmsuip]

In my line of work we refer to this as a "hold your nose compromise..." You hold your nose and pick the one that stinks the least.

[geezer62]

Quatrops...
What an excellent post. I think you really nailed it. When you say we aren''t out of the woods yet I totally agree but for maybe different reasons. The fact that the republican smear machine is so effective spells troble for whoever the Democratic candid might be. Their ability to distort truth will no doubt play a part in smearing any candidate. Also, and I do not mean to sound anti-religious, the role of the religious right will be a big factor. When people vote based on issues like abortion and gay marriage, as they did in 2004, it takes away from important issues like education, health care, the economy and the enviornment. All of the above should be considered. Even though the numbers seem to come down on the side of the Democrats never, never count the Republicans out. Also, remlember that they have total control over right wing radio with a steady barrage of right wing rhetoric going on almost 24/7.

[mistered9]

Can you imagine with this Iraq Muslim war going on, having a President name Barack Obama. You would feel we lost the war and Terrorist took over.
Which would probably be close to the truth.

[marcodele]

I think it was Woody Allen who said ''Americans always get the president they deserve.''

We have a sad selection to choose from. But if any of the Democrats decide to grow some cahunas, tell it like it is and take on the past eight years of failed philosophies then they will become president.
The entire neocon movement needs to be exposed for what it is: hypcrisy.

The sad fact is probably 80% of voters choose their candidate based on entirely irrational reasons. U.S. voters have become strongly irrational: ergo, George W. Bush Jr.

[quatrops]

dgwooster @ 8:56 thinks some voted for Bush because his daddy was president. That may have been so in 2000, dg, but by 2004 he had sufficiently demonstrated his incompetence and Cheney had classified almost everything in sight to cover up the neo-con and proto-fascist takeover, but it was still clear the inmates were running the asylum.

But in 2004, Karl Rove had framed the question and defined the terms so substantially that Democratic politicians (and 50% of the electorate) who stood up to the Republican PR machine were easily labeled "cut & runners", "cowards", and did not "support our troops".

But truth be told, it was those who voted for Bush in 2004 who were the cowards. They bought in to the myth of the "War on Terror" successfully parroted by the neo-cons. The package of FEAR drummed into them since 9/11 overwhelmed their common sense.

That 77% now believe Bush is on the wrong course is heartening, but we''re not out of the woods yet. I suspect that the 77% are fickle enough that when Cheney''s Nazis engineer another scare we could be back to the fear/coward dynamic again.

FDR''s warning about fear was never more true, and the neo-cons use of fear since 9/11 makes them, in my mind, despicable traitors and betrayers of the American dream.

[brianbwb-2009]

Bloody? You call that bloody?

If I were the Democrat campaign strategist, the Republican candidates would make a case of Ebola look like a minor nosebleed, they have provided so much fuel that the wimpy Democrats have not taken advantage of.

To the DNC, if anyone reads these posts, I would give my services with a money back guarantee if you avail yourselves of my services and still lose.

Time is running out, however, you had better pull out heavier guns than you have so far, your little starter pistols stand little chance against the Republican financial, media, pseudo religious and racial nuclear weapons arrayed against you.

[jetranger7]

I HEARD, THAT THERES A VIDEO CIRCULITING AROUND ON YOU TUBE (WWW.YOUTUBE.COM) THAT PARIS HILTON IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008 TOO !!! JUST WHAT I HEARD , ITS ON YOU TUBE I THINK !! GUESS YOU''LL HAVE TO SEARCH