Political Notes

- At president George W. Bush's final State of the Union Address last night, a photograph was taken with Barack Obama's back to Hillary Clinton, while the New York Senator reached over to shake Ted Kennedy's hand, who was seated next to Obama. Some are calling this a "snub" by Obama. He, of course, denies it. Judging by the photo and what the Illinois Senator suggested happened, it did appear as if he was speaking to Claire McCaskill, the Missouri Senator. A "snub" by either candidate, to me, would make no sense whatsoever, especially with the way the 24-hour "news" media is nowadays. Why would either of the two candidates intentionally ignore the other at a nationally televised event? That makes absolutely no sense to me. If it is in fact true, that Obama "snubbed" Clinton, then it was not a wise move on his part, but I just can't see how he or any candidate would intentionally ignore another on national television, where the entire country can view them. I'm going to just believe for a moment that these candidates have SOME common sense and it was not an intentional "snub" by the presidential candidate.

- It cracks me up when Republicans use the hated "L" word. No, I'm not talking about love, lust, linger, or even leprechaun. I'm talking about "liberal". Oooooh. Over the past few days, Republican frontrunners John McCain and Mitt Romney have referred to the other as too liberal in one manner or another. McCain believes Romney is too "liberal" when it comes to his economic history and future plans and Romney believes McCain is too "liberal" in regard to his tax plans and his "leniency" toward illegal immigrants. Does that seven letter word truly turn Republican voters away from a particular candidate? It seems like when all else fails, interject that seven-letter L word toward your opponent and all is well again, or so they think...

- So, Hillary Clinton now wants the Florida delegates to count. Even though all of the Democratic candidates agreed before their campaigns began that the delegates in both Michigan and Florida wouldn't count, Hillary is speaking up in regard to the issue. Why is this? It's fairly obvious, isn't it? With the race seemingly being so close, she wants every delegate to count. But, what's the problem? The candidates agreed that there'd be no campaigning in the two before-mentioned states. Hillary Clinton was the only big named Democrat on the Michigan ballot. Why should any candidate be given so many potential delegates when not one single candidate was allowed to campaign in that state? This is not to say the citizens of Michigan and/or Florida don't matter. Of course they do. But, it'd be reminiscent of "The Distinguished Gentleman," starring Eddie Murphy. There's no campaigning, just name recognition. The candidates aren't allowed to travel the state, give speeches, lend some insight to citizens on what their ideas are. So, what will be more apt to occurring? Voting Jeff Johnson (in this case, Hillary Clinton), the name you know. We can't say, in hindsight, perhaps the Democratic candidates should've been permitted to campaign in these two states. It was disallowed and because of that, why in the world should the delegates count?

- I find it rather humorous on many's attitudes toward the candidates. As far as I see it, John McCain is the only Republican with a legitimate chance to win the general election. I'm not just saying this because I'm a registered Democrat. I genuinely believe this. Why? He is THE one Republican who will be able to even the playing field with his Democratic opponent, as McCain will receive some votes from Independents and could even receive a few votes from some more conservative Democrats. He also resides in a battleground state, in Arizona. If he is the candidate, he will win a batteground state, without question, and be a leg up on his opponent. Mike Huckabee would do very well in the southeast and probably the plains states, but I don't think he'd do as well in the battleground states, such as Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Ohio, Iowa, Pennsylvania, etc. Mitt Romney would fare well in the typical red states, but I have to wonder if he'd receive some unprecedented contests in the southeast. Being a devout Mormon, I have to wonder if this would hinder him in the southeast. I also don't see him doing well in the battleground states. Do I even have to include Rudy Giuliani in this? After his loss today, he will probably drop out of the race, so I won't even include him in this discussion. But, there we have it. The ONLY Republican candidate with a legitimate shot to win in November is John McCain. Yet, many die-hard conservatives (Rush Limbaugh, for example) believe, if elected, he will destroy the Republican Party. So, what do these people truly want? Would they rather have McCain, a Republican, be elected president or a Democrat, in either Clinton or Obama? I'm a tad confuzzled on this matter.

On the other side of the aisle, I think either Clinton or Obama would win against any Republican candidate outside of John McCain. However, I find it funny that Hillary Clinton seems to be the front-runner when Obama may be the safest choice. Even a recent poll indicated that a McCain/Clinton match-up right now would wind up in a 46-44% Republican victory, while McCain/Obama would result in a tie of 42% a piece at this juncture. Hillary Clinton is such a polarizing figure, in some part due to her husband, the former president. If she squares off against McCain, the Arizona Senator will win his home state, a battleground state at that, and he will be able to win more Independent votes than is typical for the Republican Party. This would pay huge dividends in battleground states, such as Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, and Florida. Independents have been supporting Barack Obama over Clinton all throughout their campaigns and he's more apt to winning over moderate to liberal Republicans than Clinton. While many die-hard conservatives may not like John McCain and while die-hard Clintonians will believe in Hillary over any candidate not named Bill, John McCain and Barack Obama are the safest picks for each respective party to earn the next presidency. As the recent poll showed, the two potential presidential nominees are knotted at 42% a piece.

- Rudy Giuliani's "strategy" was quite...how do I put it? Stupid. He didn't campaign one bit in the first six states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina) and has invested his entire potential presidency on the state of Florida. Some analysts and many Giuliani supporters are saying it was the way to go, because Rudy has a solid base in Florida and the sunshine state has many more delegates than any of the previous six. BUT, a candidate can't do that and seriously expect to win. What? In a NFL season, should the Detroit Lions slack off in their first six games en route to a 0-6 record before facing the San Francisco 49ers at Ford Field, because they feel it'll be their best chance of the season to win? They go into the game with anything but momentum on their side, with anything but team chemistry on their side, and with anything but a good record to go with that. Can their owner, coaches, and everyone involved with the team genuinely expect that they'll bounce back from a 0-6 start to make the playoffs? Ridiculous.