22 November 2006

WildCard 2008

For the sake of setting up a hypothetical situation designed to make me look brilliant, let's say that over the next 13 months, both John McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton conduct themselves in such a manner, (raising money and name recognition, equivocating, etc.) as to preclude all but perhaps some quixotic challenges by publicity-seeking third-tier candidates for their respective party's nominations. And for continuity's sake, let us postulate that at least 100,000 U.S. troops are still in Iraq still being killed at the rate of 50 or so each month, and that no bombardment of Iran has yet taken place.

Nothing radical about such prognostications as all are completely in the middle of the mainstream conventional wisdom as it exists today.

This situation would mean that the anti-war factions of each party, the large Democratic one and the small Republican one, would have been effectively neutralized during the preceding year's activities. (still assuming that Hillary does not crab or flip from her current position) And with the current one-half to three-fifths of the American electorate already favoring U.S. withdrawal from Iraq in one form or another, by January of 2008 with another $100 Billion spent and 3500 to 4000 U.S. dead, it is conceivable that nearly two-thirds of voters would have no "champion" of their cause.

That is what the 'pro-War' factions of both parties most desire. But even then the game would likely consist of who can intimate 'withdrawal' without actually saying so or meaning it, most effectively. (ala "Nixon's Secret Plan-1968) An angle worthy of comment in and of itself.

But, in 2008, more than ever before, the party Primaries will be compressed and early. Purposefully designed to produce a decisive victory for each nominee as quickly as possible. It could well all be a formality by April Fools.

Such a condition would be an irresistable temptation for an egotistical third-party run. Ralph Nader is of Lebanese heritage and would therefore have a major incentive to run, but he would be 74 years old, with no chance to win, but only to again determine who won.

The real "wild-card" is Al Gore. At 60 years old, his anti-War credentials intact, the timing and circumstances replicating Nixon's in 1968, not only could he raise enough money and poll well enough to force his inclusion in the debates, with his name recognition and history, Gore could ride to victory on the one issue Hillary and McCain dare not embrace.

Therefore you can expect Hillary and the pro-War factions in both parties, as well as the corporate, state-fellating media, to do everything in their power to preclude such a scenario. By skewering polls (hence 'Obama-mania'), highlighting any perceived malapropism (ala JFK's 'botched joke') , or by simply ignoring Gore during 2007, the forces of perpetual war for perpetual profit are already diligently at work making certain that no serious anti-War candidate emerges in 2008. (Russ Feingold's already MIA)

And that is why the fact that Google's stock price climbed above $500 per share this week, matters so very much. But even if Al hesitated to self-finance, it would not be difficult for him to raise $100 million during a few months in early 2008 if he were to GO GREEN.

Time will tell.

stephenhsmith
22nov2006