If Obama wins and McCain wins, there will be no room, or interest in a third party candidacy. The Hillary and Rudy leads probably stoke Bloomberg’s interest the most — considering that they’re both New York pols whom Bloomberg figures he’s head and shoulders above.
But if Hillary is in and say McCain or even Huckabee get the nod, what then?
And then there’s the wobble-ation (it’s a word) of Chuck Hagel these days. At the Stormin’Norman conference he implicitly talked about switching parties. Now, it’s not clear if he was talking about going from R to I, or from R to D. But Hagel’s name always seems to come up as the Dem’s favorite Republican. Of course, the love is almost all about Iraq and hating the Bush Administration (and to a lesser extent immigration). Some have even whispered about an Obama-Hagel ticket to show true “Change!” at the top.
But, assuming an Obama nomination, if Hillary keeps the nom process close then there’s no way Obabma could entertain thoughts of Hagel as veep. The party stalwarts wouldn’t allow it — with all of Hagel’s conservative positions being brought out. (And how would he vote on ties in the Senate?) Of course he could always have a position in a Dem administration, like how GOP Senator Cohen was Clinton’s Sec Def.
And then Obama aside, look who else brings Hagel to the forefront in an Iraq argument: Former President Bubba. Lame-duck Hagel is still having fun in the limelight!
Nelson is clearly being pushed to lead the way for national Dems to say the Surge isn’t really working (facts notwithstanding). Dems can point at the “conservative” Nelson and say, “well if NELSON thinks that it’s not working, well then, gee, it must really not be working.”
But Nelson points to the failure of the Iraqi government to form a coalition, etc, for the reason that the Surge hasn’t worked. Which is stupid. The Surge is a military tactic, not a political one. Not to mention that it’s comical that Nelson thinks that Iraqi factions that are still trying to literally kill each other will come together and hold hands just because the violence has diminished. It’s going to take time. Heck, Republicans and Democrats can’t get a simple bills passed in Congress and they’ve been working at it for 200+ years.
But ya know, interesting spin E. Ben.
And the other news hitting the blogs is that Jon Bruning has decided to back Mike Huckabee for Prez.
Now Nebraska Republicans are still all over the place for the primary. Lee Terry was an early Fred-head. Dave Heineman is pro-Mitt. Hal Daub and former Governor Charlie Thone are state co-chairs for Rudy Giuliani. McCain was a Tom Osborne guy back in the Gov’s race (and considering how loyal T.O. is, you’d have to figure he’d return the favor if asked).
By supporting Huck, is Bruning trying to get the fundamentalist Christians, Huckabee’s main supporters, on his side? Or is he doing it just to put his thumb in Heineman’s eye? Or maybe just to try to get lucky picking the next Prez?
Because it’s curious that Bruning chose to mention Huck’s “law and order” credentials when Huck is the one candidate that has the inmate-pardon problems from his days as Arkansas Governor. Of all the things he could support Huck on, why not mention Pro-Life issues or other general conservative issues? Oh well.
And since everyone is talking about the Presidential stuff anyway, feel free to toss in your thoughts and support. (Just remember to use the Jim Rome rule: Have a take, and don’t suck.)