Archive for the ‘2008 Election’ Category

What’s In a Name? – The Story of Hillary

Friday, January 11th, 2008

With the passing of Sir Edmund Hillary, the first person to reach the summit of Mount Everest, I’m reminded of one of the great legends of the Clinton years, that Hillary Rodham Clinton was named after the famed mountain climber.

This myth, which was repeated numerous times from 1995 to 2006, relates how Dorothy Rodham, mother of the former First Lady and current presidential candidate, named her daughter after Edmund Hillary – hence the spelling with two L’s, as opposed to the more standard spelling (Hilary).  

The only problem with this story is that at the time of Senator Clinton’s birth (1947), Mr. Hillary was a bee keeper in New Zealand;  it would be another six years before he would climb Mount Everest.

There are only three possible explanations for this:  (1)  Mrs. Rodham thought the surname of an obscure bee keeper was an appropriate first name for her baby daughter; (2) she had amazing powers of predicting the future; or (3) she’s a prevaricator extraordinaire (and the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree).

What’s even more amazing is the fact that it took over a decade for Hillary the Younger to finally admit to something that was so patently false.

By the way, did I happen to mention that my mother named me after Curious George?  (It could happen; the first Curious George book came out in 1941 – nine years before I was born.)

Whoever Says “Change” The Most Times Wins!

Tuesday, January 8th, 2008

Since the 2008 presidential primary season has been unofficially dubbed the Campaign of Change™, I would like to offer a modest proposal that would eliminate the incovenience of running out of ballots, paying for expensive TV commercials, organizing tedious debates, hiring pollsters, or even holding caucuses, primaries or a general election.

The proposal:  Count how many times each candidate says the word “change” and award the presidency to the person with the highest tally on the date that the election would have been held.

By my best estimates, here are the current leaders:

Obama:  6,954,213

Romney:   5,285.977

Clinton:  1,549,456

The candidate with the fewest number of “changes” is Mike Gravel (D-AK), with a grand total of one.  Back last September, Gravel lamented that his campaign was so strapped for funds, he couldn’t even afford a “change” of clothes.

There could also be some variations on this scheme.  For instance, Mitt Romney could be awarded one-half a “change” every time he says, “Washington is broken,” and Hillary Clinton could be deducted one-half a “change” every time she uses the word “experience” within five words of uttering the word “change.”  Conversely, she could be awarded an additional 5,000 points for being the only presidential candidate to have gone through the “Change” of Life.

For those voters who wish to support their favorite candidate, campaign contributions could still be made, but these monies would only be used to add to the “change” count.

It would give a whole new meaning to the phrase, “Does anybody have ‘change’ for a dollar?”.

Huckabee and the “Religious Right”

Sunday, January 6th, 2008

huckabee.jpgFollowing the surprisingly strong win of Mike Huckabee in the Iowa caucuses, pundits have begun to speculate whether this victory is a one-time shot, or perhaps something more.

On the one-shot wonder side, Ronald Kessler at newsmax.com opined that the Huck-a-boom “may be a fluke attributable largely to the fact that 60 percent of Republicans who voted in the caucuses described themselves as evangelical Christians.”

To be sure, the former Arkansas governor has tapped into a cohort of the electorate that has been largely underestimated by political pundits and taken for granted by the Republican Party.  Back in February, Jim Wallis at Time Magazine proclaimed that  The Religious Right’s Era Is Over. If the “Religious Right” is a top-down political movement within the Republican Party, which Wallis seems to imply, perhaps he is right. Traditional leaders of this movement (such as Pat Robertson), in an apparent effort to retain their seat at the political table, have compromised their core values by endorsing social liberals like Rudy Giuliani.

But the Evangelical Christians who came out for Huckabee in Iowa were not part of an organized movement. This was largely a bottom-up phenomenon, generated by word of mouth, guest sermons by Huckabee at local churches, and the Internet. Far from a fluke, Huckabee is replicating this winning strategy in other states, such as South Carolina, Florida, Texas and even Michigan.  In New Hampshire, a much more secular state than Iowa, Huckabee could exceed expectations by taking third place away from Giuliani.  Beyond New Hampshire, he has a much better chance of success.

But is Huckabee only the candidate of the “Religious Right”?  Not so, says Michael Medved, who points out that Huckabee beat Romney in Iowa among voters aged 17 to 29 (40% to 22%), 30 to 44 (39% to 23%) and over 65 (30% to 28%). He even beat Romney among female voters by a whopping 40% to 24%. If Huckabee can pull those kind of numbers among younger voters, as well as female voters, he’ll be a much more competitive going head-to-head against Obama, should he get the Democrat nomination. Huckabee also brings in voters on non-social issues, such as Second Amendment rights and the Fair Tax.

The Republican Convention this summer is still a long ways off, and there are likely to be a number of surprises along the way. But I don’t anticipate Mike Huckabee being eliminated from the race any time soon.