Executive Speechwriting: Corporate, Weddings, Retirement

Monday, June 11, 2007

Fred Thompson vs Barack Obama (vs Hillary Clinton)

Will Hillary's top challenger be Fred Thompson?

Thompson, who has yet to officially announce he is running, is Hillary's opposite: he's conservative, well-liked by all sides, and, most significantly, not losing ground to Barack Obama.

Thompson's stock value is rising. Hillary is not losing value as much as Obama is taking over the leftover. This adds up. Obama has only flirted with the Democratic lead, but it should be enough to scare the previously complacent Hillary Clinton campaign.

What this means is that Hillary and Obama have a problem. To run in November, someone needs to win in the primaries. Obvious? Yes, yes. What will happen to get there?

The fight now is Obama-Hilary. John Edwards has fallen into the cult following by hefty, horn-rimmed glassed women who love to worship a dreamy-eyed liberal. So, Edwards is now just a speech giver and radio talk show guest. Obama has momentum, but it is far too early to call it. Hillary, on the other hand, has fire power, and connections Obama is too new to have. Expect each to play their strengths and flop the top position.

What worries me is the dirty work. To win, someone must lose. To win, scandals will be brought up so that a loser may be declared. Hillary has more than her fair share of scandals, but, slowly leaking out is that Obama has made a few unholy alliances. While the Tony Rezko story is relatively unimportant, it may inspire a buck reporter to dig a little deeper. The Hillary Clinton campaign might even help provide information.

Let's say Obama wins the primary. He'll stumble into the general election already bruised and road weary. The press might be tired of beating on the conservatives, and know their readers have heard it all. If Fred Thompson is the Republican candidate, the media simply might not have anything new to say about him. He might be a better version of Bush, and brighter at the podium. So, they pick on Obama. He's clean, fresh -- or is he? The Rezko story might flower into something dirty, like mob work, corruption, bribes, or may fizzle into something that was a mistake and nothing more.

If, though, he's got a cachet of trouble, and has spent dollars fighting these issues with Hillary, he might not have enough bullets to fight Thompson.

Hillary's war chest, I'll guess, is deeper, and can survive a battle financially. She might arrive as victor (or do we say victoria?) in November. Her marketing people are working double time to make her appear as a mix of Martha Stewart, and my gossipy next door neighbor, while trying to balance that with her image as a blood thirsty Republican killer. Obama has no choice but to run a simpler campaign, but, has fewer complexities in his life, his leadership and his political experience.

For the Democrats, a clear victor needs to be established early enough so that they can regroup to beat the Republican candidate. If they don't, they should know that the Republicans will be ready, organized, motivated, and ready to win as the underdog. If the Republicans become the underdog, and aren't parlayed by the Democrats as inevitable losers, they will lose.

See http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm


@bdul muHib said...

Couple thoughts. Thompson scares me as President. The scuttlebut is he's lazy, he doesn't like to work. We've had enough of a President achieving the record for most vacation days. I want to see someone in there who wants to actualy work for 4 years. I think any of the top 3 Democratic candidates fit that bill.

Secondly, Obama has actually raised more money than Clinton so far, and looks to do so in the 2nd Quarter too. Hillary only has a bigger warchest because she used her leftover Senate campaign funds and poured them into her Presidential campaign. She can't do that trick twice. So Obama has a lot to run on, and is a force to be reckoned with monetarily as well. Even with no extra Senate funds, he is only slightly behind Hillary in overall funds- and that's just at 1st Quarter.

Anonymous said...

So far the left has used two strategies to attack Thompson.
1) They claim he is lazy.
2) They attack his record as a lawyer and lobbyist pinpointing clients he represented on the left and the right to show that he is both too liberal ( for the republicans) and too conservative ( for the dems).

The lazy claim doesnt really hold. He is a self made man, who rose from simple orgins to become a wealthy lawyer, lobbyist, twice elected senator and member of the council on foreign relations and american enterprise institute. He passed his bar exam the first time, Hillary didnt. This guy isnt dumb or lazy.

As for the lobbyist and lawyer example, im sure Hillary has represented clients she did not agree with either. Its part of the job. Thompson has a 100% pro life voting record and a 0% rating with the abortion industry group NARAL. Clinton and Guilliani are on the other side of that ranking.

Resilient Hawk said...

Thompson's not to be ignored. While he may not be what the left wants, he, along with Mitt Romney, are the current contenders among conservatives. Ignoring him, or just trying to create a cartoon of him, may backfire. It backfired, I think against the easiest president ever to cartoon (GWB). With all Bush's mistakes, with all that is being heaped at him (some deserved, some the product of hate-mongers), he remains steadfast.

In the case of Thompson, he just might win the primaries. If the left tries to make him a simple, lazy lobbyist, they will see Thompson return fire.

Just as with Barack Obama, when Hillary and Edwards campaign tried to push out that Obama was inexperienced, Obama has come back with guns blazing, showing that he can lead despite not being an insider.

I have issues, naturally, with various candidates, but, ultimately, all are not lazy. These are hardworking people. Some were born into the money, or made it by some non-political means, but 'lazy' is not a right term for any seeking office.

Passing the bar the first, second, 12th time is impressive. I will not hold it against someone who took it twice. Nor, will I count someone as brilliant who passed it the first time. Smart cookies either way. Brilliant people are rare, and passing the bar is not on my 'brilliant' litmus test. Flunking it won't make them dunces. Hillary turned out to be a fine lawyer, as did Thompson.

What matters is how they use their skills when it matters.

Michael Jordan was cut from his HS basketball team one year, but he turned out to be a decent player. ;)

With Thompson, as a pro-lifer, you are right. He is not exactly the Planned Parenthood aborter of the year. Clinton and Giuliani have both taken stances that would make a pro-lifer shudder, though many a conservative will overlook Giuliani's view not realizing it is precisely what Bill Clinton's was.