Indecision 2004- the Campaign for the White House-

I predict that gas prices convieniently drop to $1.30/gallon in November. Takers?
 
it would be in October, to give the Bush camp time to spin it that way.

But if there was going to be a real "October Surprise" in this election, my guess would be the capture of Osama bin Laden.
 
MrMarcus said:
it would be in October, to give the Bush camp time to spin it that way.

But if there was going to be a real "October Surprise" in this election, my guess would be the capture of Osama bin Laden.
Click to expand...

Ooo! Even better one. Obviously you are a better conspiracy nut than I!
 
I like to think I'm well practiced in my natural pessimism.

:help:

Pulling off any sort of surprise like this has to be something believable and overwhelming because of the last one in the 1980 election. Something only the real conspiracy nuts will blame the gov't for, but will impress the rest of the electorate enough to sway their votes.
 
i would rather have a right winged zealot in the oval office than a super liberal who cant tell the difference between a human life and that of a tree frog.


remember clinton anyone?
 
i would rather have a right winged zealot in the oval office than a super liberal who cant tell the difference between a human life and that of a tree frog.
Click to expand...
Care to explain?
Because this sentence is so silly, it means that you'd rather have Hitler (who was a right-wing zealot) than Kerry. Sjeesj.
remember clinton anyone?
Click to expand...
Yeah. He was a good president you know, apart from the lying bit.
 
bob_the_rambler said:
i would rather have a right winged zealot in the oval office than a super liberal who cant tell the difference between a human life and that of a tree frog.
Click to expand...
Super Liberal?
The American 2 party system does not allow for anyone even close to centre, let alone one of these "lefties" that your parents may have "warned" you about.

Also, be careful what you wish for (see Sander's post for details).
 
More from the Sabato crystal ball-
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/updates_04-06-24.htm

Looks like good news for Bush- but it doesn't seem that way from what I have been hearing-

2004 as 1980?
Another view from the Crystal Ball

By Larry J. Sabato
Director, UVa Center for Politics
June 24, 2004

Back on June 10, we issued an analysis that suggested just how similar the election of 1980--Carter v. Reagan v. Anderson--was to the election of 2004--Bush v. Kerry v. Nader. (http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/updates_04-06-10.htm) Remarkably, just in the last week or so, we have heard our words used, almost verbatim (and in the news business tradition, without attribution), by quite a number of news analysts and commentators. So be it, as imitation is the highest form of flattery!

But the contrarian in us is rebelling, now that our thinking has become the dreaded conventional wisdom, embraced by the noxious Beltway pundit class.

Is there another way of looking at the same two election years? Is the Pope Catholic? Here with a few differences, to balance the similarities to 1980 we offered earlier:

Jimmy Carter would have given his right leg and left foot for the kind of sterling economy George W. Bush is presenting to the American public. A recession that likely began at the end of the Clinton administration, aggravated by the 9/11 attacks, has given way to a low-inflation, low-interest rates, job-creating, income-producing machine that is easily the equal of the one Bill Clinton claimed credit for in his reelection bid of 1996. By contrast, Carter had to defend an economic basket case of double-digit inflation, sky-high interest rates, and an ongoing recession. The American public's sour mood on the economy should begin to lift as the positive fiscal statistics continue to mount (assuming the news media gives even half the credit to Bush that they gave to Clinton under similar circumstances in 1996.) Advantage: Bush

Iraq and our foreign policy generally are not current pluses for Bush, but there are genuine rays of sunlight. The June 30 handover appears to be going better than expected so far, the United Nations is joining the action once again, and our most critical allies are lightening up and even helping the United States. By contrast, Carter had an intractable mess in Iran, and little hope of resolving it before the election. Advantage: Bush
President Bush's popularity has stabilized in the mid-to-upper 40s, after a dangerous period of flirting with the below-40 mark--which signals almost certain electoral doom. Bush is not yet in safe territory (above 50), but he is far from the 30s dungeon frequented by President Carter in 1980 and his own father in 1992. Advantage: Bush

John Anderson of Illinois, the former Republican congressman, actually rated in the mid-20s in most public opinion polls in the spring and summer of 1980, before declining, as most third party presidential candidates do in the fall, and finishing at 7 percent on Election Day. By contrast, Ralph Nader, on average, is around 5 percent or 6 percent now, and we believe he is headed for a finish below his 2.7 percent in 2000. There is no question that Nader's relative weakness in 2004 aids John Kerry, yet the focus this year is more clearly on a straight choice of Bush or Kerry. A strong historical argument can be made that when a third-party candidate is on the rise and faring well, it signals intense dissatisfaction with the incumbent White House and the likely downfall of the incumbent president in November (Bull Moose Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, George Wallace in 1968, John Anderson in 1980, Ross Perot in 1992, Ralph Nader in 2000). As always, the twentieth century exception was the ultimate presidential comeback kid, Harry Truman in 1948, who survived strong third-party bids by Strom Thurmond on the right and Henry Wallace on the left. (See our discussion of Bush as Truman at http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/updates_04-05-20.htm) So, to conclude, the decline of a strong third-party alternative in 2004 could actually be read as a good sign for Bush. Advantage: Bush

It almost goes without saying that John Kerry is no Ronald Reagan. Of course, George Bush isn't either. We have often called "W" the most inarticulate president of our lifetime. But one could argue that it takes the special skill of a Great Communicator like Reagan (or Bill Clinton in 1992) to oust an incumbent president, given all the inherent advantages that accrue to the occupant of the White House. While Kerry partisans will no doubt insist that their man is "good in small groups" and all the rest, his presence on the big stage is, well, lacking. His face appears to crack when he smiles, and the Democrat is often a cross between a funeral director and Lurch of The Addams Family. Advantage: Bush

There, we feel much better now. The Crystal Ball's role, at least on occasion, is to contradict conventional wisdom, not add weight to it. Also, we've now come down squarely on both sides of the fence, guaranteeing that we will be right (and wrong) come Nov. 2!
Click to expand...
 
So what do people think about Edwards as a running mate?

I think that he balances the ticket nicely. Kerry is not adroit at delivering the message succinctly, a strength of Edwards. Edwards lacks the experience in office, a skill that Kerry offers. Plus, they represent different aspects of the democratic party, the blue-blood liberals and the moderate southerners.

Much better balance, IMO than Bush and Cheney.

All in all, I think Kerry (and Edwards) made the best choice in running mates they could. I mean seriously, was there ever any other choice?

discuss
 
Murdoch-
I love it. Edwards kicks. The republicans are going to go after him as a trial lawyer, but if you look at his record he's always gone after big businesses that really fucked up and injured the small guy. So I think he comes off more as a John Grisham good lawyer, than a sleazy ambulance chaser.

They will also go after his record and expereicne, but Bush only had 6 years of experience as Governor, so experience doesn't really work in that capacity either.

Compare Edwards to Cheney. Edwards is a common guy, went to a non-ivy league law school, got his Bachelor in textile engineering, grew up the son of a parents who had to work to make ends meet. Cheney, a wealthy guy whose term in office has supported his former company, who has pushed the Iraqi war and, based on what we have heard, pushed the CIA to provide crappy intelligence.

I don't think Kerry could have picked better. Honestly, I really like Edwards, perhaps I can identify with him. He's got the "average joe does well" character and not the "members of the privileged class" that Bush and Cheney suffer from.
 
This will probably improve matters for Kerry, it adds charisma and a connection with "the common man" to Kerry, and he'll probably do better with Edwards than with anyone else.

Bush will have to work hard to win.
 
It all depends on the spin.

Edwards does have one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate (ranked among Teddy Kennedy and Barbara Boxer). The way he votes could scare some traditionalist voters who may have been closer to Kerry's center than Edwards is located.
 
I think that you're right Marcus, and that we'll see both parties start moving towards the middle for the next few months.

As liberal as Kerry and Edwards are, the Bush-Cheney team is further to the right.

Furthermore as Bill Mohr pointed out- both have special interests, it's just the republican special interests are a lot more scary.

Ok, for Sabato's crystal ball-
VEEP! VEEP! IT'S EDWARDS!
Will Kerry Prove Wily in his Choice for Number Two?

By Larry J. Sabato
Director, UVa Center for Politics
July 6, 2004

Our long wait is over, and John Kerry has given us all a lot to chew on with the selection of North Carolina U.S. Senator John Edwards to be his Democratic party running-mate for Vice-President.

THE IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCES in the Crystal Ball are twofold:

We are changing North Carolina from Solid Bush to Leans Bush. Even though Edwards will make North Carolina competitive, Bush's 56% in 2000 is a mountain to climb for Kerry. Moreover, the one-term Edwards has never been terribly popular in his home state, and he essentially abandoned his Senate seat to seek the presidency (he has one of the worst attendance records in the Senate). He won his first and only office in 1998 with just 51% of the vote, and polls during his tenure have found his job approval to be anemic--often near 40%. Still, the enormous burst of positive publicity with his VP selection should push Kerry-Edwards into a tie with, or even above, Bush-Cheney in N.C. Our guess is that this will be a temporary bump, but Edwards' campaign skills are such that the Bush campaign will unexpectedly have to spend considerable sums in the state, and it can take nothing for granted. Plus, should Kerry-Edwards continue to pick up momentum , the Tar Heel State might well become winnable for the two Democrats in November. Obviously, a victory for Kerry in the heart of Bush's Southern base would likely prove fatal to Bush's reelection chances. We're not there yet, though. Furthermore, we currently do not see Edwards having any real effect on North Carolina's Bush-leaning Southern neighbors: Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. The only state in this group that Edwards won in the Democratic primaries was South Carolina, and the Palmetto State is one of the least likely to defect from the Bush column. Edwards was born in S.C., though, so it will be interesting to see whether he attempts to turn conventional wisdom on its head there. Bush will likely win but there could be some effect on the relatively close U.S. Senate contest, currently leaning Republican.

We are changing the North Carolina U.S. Senate race from Toss-Up to Leans Democratic. Already, Democratic nominee Erskine Bowles has been steadily leading Republican nominee Congressman Richard Burr. Bowles seems to have learned a lot about campaigning from his unsuccessful 2002 contest with Republican Elizabeth Dole, who defeated him handily. Also, the burden of Bill Clinton, for whom Bowles served as chief of staff in the White House, has eased a bit with the passage of time. By no means does Bowles have this seat locked up, and the current advantage for him is slight. Yet Edwards' nomination really does add a jolt of energy to Bowles' prospects. A Bush/Bowles split ticket in the Tar Heel State is a distinct possibility.


What about John Edwards' pluses and minuses for the Democratic presidential ticket?

PLUSES


Democratic partisans love him. He's consistently led the national polls as the candidate Democratic leaders and activists would most want to be the vice presidential nominee.

Edwards' energy and charisma are much needed on this ticket. Even though Edwards clearly upstages the boring and somnolent Kerry when they share a platform, Kerry must have decided that a charisma transplant for the ticket would help him get to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue--which is the goal, after all.

During the primaries, Edwards showed a greater appeal than Kerry to Independents, one of the crucial swing voter blocs. Let's also note, though, that Independents who participate in Democratic primaries are NOT necessarily representative of Independents generally; they tend to be considerably more liberal than the group of all Independents.

Edwards' blue collar background provides a good balance to Kerry's silver spoon upbringing. While Kerry is a graduate of Yale University, Edwards was the first in his family to go to college, and attended N.C. State University.

Democrats want to contest the South, and Edwards' Southern accent and identity permit them to do so credibly, at least in a few states below the Mason-Dixon line.

Generally, Edwards' Senate vote ratings are more moderate than Kerry's, and so Edwards provides some ideological balance to the liberal Massachusetts legislator. It must be noted, though, that Edwards' group ratings have become quite liberal in recent years as he began to seek the Presidency. At best, he is probably a moderate-liberal to Kerry's solid liberal identity.

A vigorous, personable John Edwards provides a dramatic contrast with his personal opponent, Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney is seen as cold, aloof, less than the picture of health, and scandal-tainted.
MINUSES


John Kerry cannot possibly claim that Edwards was the most qualified and experienced candidate available to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Edwards has a very thin public resume, with a single Senate term under his belt. He is noted for little in the Senate, and as mentioned earlier, he's been absent a great deal from his Senate work. The "experience gap" with other potential VP nominees, such as Dick Gephardt and Bob Graham, is enormous. Edwards could easily be classed with other barely-experienced VP-nominees in modern times: Bill Miller (R-1964), Spiro Agnew (R-1968), Geraldine Ferraro (D-1984), and Dan Quayle (R-1988). In the post-9-11 world, is Edwards' skimpy resume good enough? And here is where Dick Cheney will shine in any side-by-side comparison, not to mention the vice presidential debate in the fall.

While some see him as charismatic, others see him as slick. Supporters often compare him to Bill Clinton, meaning it as a compliment to his ability to connect emotionally with a crowd. It won't be long before opponents are also comparing him to the former President in less favorable ways. Slick Johnny, meet Slick Willie? And where's the gravitas? Edwards looks to be barely out of law school?and not very presidential.

Unlike other potential VP nominees, Edwards does not have a secure home base. Bob Graham could carry Florida, Tom Vilsack could carry Iowa, and so on. Edwards' hold on North Carolina appears shaky indeed. And as we have already argued, Edwards doesn't carry much or any weight in other Southern states.

Edwards is a wealthy trial lawyer, one of the least liked occupations in America. Yes, we know that Edwards has been able to turn this to his advantage in prior years by citing tear-jerking cases of big business and medical abuse of the "little guy." But there is no hothouse like presidential politics, and for all the vetting he's been put through, we wonder whether all his cases will hold up to critical scrutiny--assuming the Republicans and the news media do their jobs.

If Edwards has so much voter appeal, then why did he get so few votes in the Democratic primaries? Lest we forget, Edwards won only his two native states, North and South Carolina. He was slaughtered even in the Southern states (such as Tennessee and Virginia) that are neighbors to the state he represents in the Senate.
The Crystal Ball has tried to give a fair "instant analysis" here, but no doubt many more telling arguments will arise in the course of the next four months. We close with a worthy reminder. Just about all the research in the elections field has concluded that vice presidential candidates rarely make much difference at all. True, in an extremely close election such as 2000, a VP-nominee may add or subtract enough votes to make the difference--along with a hundred other factors. But in the end, as always, the election of 2004 will come down to a choice between George W. Bush and John F. Kerry. The two candidates for Number Two will be an afterthought for most voters, and as the Veep Hullabaloo unfolds over the next few weeks, we all ought to keep this in mind.
Click to expand...
 
More from Sabato-

Looks like Cheney is a liability.

Would you be suspicious if he had a convenient heart attack?

Sabato's Crystal Ball, Vol. II Issue 29
www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball

(This email is in HTML format. If you cannot read it, visit http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/updates.htm)

THE CHENEY DILEMMA

By Larry J. Sabato
Director, UVa Center for Politics
July 14, 2004

As expected, the Kerry campaign has put George W. Bush in a box with the selection of John Edwards. And there is probably no way for Bush to win this part of the presidential battle.

How has Bush been cornered? Almost any Democratic veep selection--not just Edwards--would have contrasted nicely with the incumbent vice president. It is hard to remember, but four years ago the selection of Dick Cheney was met with near-unanimous approval across the political and journalistic spectrum. "Cheney is a mature veteran of the public and private sectors, one of the best and brightest on the GOP side," the chorus said. "He's well prepared to be president if he has to do it, and he's the voice of experience in the ear of a relatively untested presidential nominee, George W. Bush."

To put it bluntly, Cheney has blown it. One would have expected a classic Washington establishment insider to know how to keep his reputation intact through innumerable controversies--calling the "right" people here, consulting the "wise" men and women of D.C. there, taking the puffed-up press poobahs of the Capital City to lunch at the White House here and there. Anybody recall how Henry Kissinger came out of the Nixon sleaze and the Vietnam disaster smelling like a bouquet of yellow roses--at least with the bunch that counts in D.C. and New York--despite the fact that he was in both situations up to his eyeballs?

Instead of being Kissinger, Cheney has been Nixon in the Bush term. He has hunkered down in the White House and "undisclosed locations." He's been uncommunicative with the broader public and unconcerned about his image until it's too late. He's often appeared to be the sinister puppeteer, pulling Bush's strings on critical matters like Iraq. He's more associated with the Halliburton scandal than anything else in the public mind. And most importantly from a political standpoint, Dick Cheney is now seen as a rigid ideologue, unconcerned about facts that do not fit into his preconceived notions of the world, too closely tied to the far right and too unacceptable to the voters as a whole to be what he once was: workable standby equipment, a potential president who could take office with popular support.

In short, Cheney has failed his president and become a significant liability.

And look at the results of that failure in the 2004 campaign. It has permitted John Kerry to choose a governmental lightweight, and be praised for it. John Edwards's single term of office in the Senate has been remarkably undistinguished, noted mainly for his overweening ambition. Just one-and-a-half years into his sole elective office--which he had won narrowly--Edwards was the runner-up for veep in Al Gore's search. Having been bitten by the presidential political bug (the queen bee of the species), Edwards all but abandoned his Senate seat to seek the presidency. With a left-wing voting record and a shockingly low attendance record on roll call votes that would make any serious senator blush with embarrassment, Edwards gambled that a long-shot bid for national office would be wiser than a questionable chance at reelection to a North Carolina Senate seat that has turned over to the opposition party every six years since 1974.

Many observers have already noted the contrast between the reaction to Edwards's selection as veep and the 1988 pick of Indiana U.S. Senator Dan Quayle by Republican presidential nominee George H.W. Bush. Quayle had served eight years in the Senate and four in the U.S. House, but he was derided as too inexperienced to be a heartbeat away from the Oval Office. The news media had a field day and produced a massive feeding frenzy that stands to this day as second only to Bill Clinton's scandals among campaign frenzies. Yet Edwards, with half of Quayle's office experience, was greeted with media hosannas and flowers strewn in his path. The negative media coverage for Quayle--according to political science research--likely cost the first President Bush a point or two in the final tally on Election Day 1988. The positive media coverage for Edwards has added several points to Kerry's total so far, at least in some surveys.

For Republicans, this is just more evidence of Democratic bias among the news media. Be that as it may, there is a deeper story here: The thin resume of Edwards looks so much better because the thick resume of Cheney now looks so bad. Politics is all about contrast, and Edwards is interpreted by the voters in part by their perceptions of his opponent, the incumbent vice president. On paper, Cheney should easily have the better of the man that Republicans see as nothing more than a young pup, a smoothie, a pretty boy. In reality, Edwards will almost certainly continue to be a relative plus for Kerry, just as Cheney will be a minus for Bush. (For a more balanced look at Edwards's pluses and minuses, see the Crystal Ball's instant analysis on the morning Edwards was chosen. http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/updates_04-07-06.htm)

Can Bush do anything about it? Nope. The streets of Washington's political district are filled with rumors and scenarios where Cheney disappears from the GOP ticket. Yet if Bush drops Cheney, the party conservatives--ever sensitive to a slight--will wail and gnash their teeth, threaten to go fishing on Election Day, and ruin any bounce Bush might get from a substitute veep. If Cheney wants Bush to win, he might want to help the process along by stepping aside. Have you stopped laughing yet? We all know that Cheney still labors under the illusion that he is a plus for Bush, and if doubts ever occur to him, the addiction of the power and the glory of high office acts quickly to banish the thought.

Strange enough, both tickets could be much stronger in the veep slot, though in opposite ways. The Democrats could have someone who is truly seasoned governmentally, and the Republicans could have someone who is actually advantageous politically. But Edwards and Cheney it will be. And, as always, the Republic--which draws its strength from the talents and diversity of the people, not the politicians--will survive and prosper. So will John Kerry. But will George Bush?
Click to expand...
 
Looks like it's becoming an issue on values-

The politics of virtue

Jul 15th 2004
From The Economist print edition

John Kerry invades territory that the Republicans normally control

THE Republicans usually trounce the Democrats when it comes to “values”. Richard Nixon championed the silent majority against the seditious liberal minority. Poppy Bush dismissed Michael Dukakis as a Harvard Yard liberal who believed in letting black rapists roam the streets. In 2000 George Bush neutralised Al Gore's advantages—peace, prosperity and incumbency—by pointing to skulduggery in Washington.

The Republicans' two best cards have always been God and country. Republicans are never happier than when they are battling subversives trying to remove the phrase “under God” from the pledge of allegiance; stopping the varmints from burning the flag or trampling over the Ten Commandments; or just reminding unAmerican sophisticates of the difference between right and wrong, patriotism and treason.

Yet there have been occasions when the Republicans have stumbled over values. In 1992, Pat Buchanan used the Republican convention to announce “a religious war” for “the soul of America”. In 1998, the congressional Republicans tried to impeach Bill Clinton out of office. Now there are signs that it is happening again, not least because the Democrats have been doing a quietly impressive job of invading Republican turf.

John Kerry claims that values will be “the heart of our campaign” (he recently mentioned the V-word eight times in a 36-minute speech). John Edwards waxes lyrical about the values he grew up with in a small town in North Carolina—faith, family, opportunity and responsibility. One of the most ominous current poll figures for Mr Bush is that he trails Mr Kerry by a couple of points on the question, which candidate shares your values?

The most striking turnaround for the Republicans is on patriotism. Suge Knight, the founder of Death Row records, hardly a conservative label, summed up the national mood in the aftermath of September 11th: “We're supporting Bush, we're supporting the USA. At this moment, there's no such thing as ghetto, middle-class or rich. There's only the United States.” The Iraq war has changed this. Most Americans now think the war was a mistake, and many are deeply ashamed of the mistreatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib. One of Mr Kerry's new slogans—“Let America be America again”—taps into the idea that America cannot win the war on terrorism if it loses its values in the process.

The Kerry campaign is skilfully using doubts about Iraq to reinforce more general doubts about Mr Bush's personal values, particularly about his honesty. Mr Bush is vulnerable to the charge—never quite stated by Mr Kerry but always in the back of people's minds—that he bullied the intelligence agencies into producing evidence to support his long-cherished plan to invade Iraq. He is also vulnerable to the charge that his administration has frequently played fast and loose with facts (as when the White House claimed in public that the Medicare drugs bill would cost only $400 billion when it knew full well that it would cost much more than that). Mr Kerry is now 13 points ahead on the question of honesty and trustworthiness.

Turning to “family values”, homosexual marriage should have been a slam dunk for Mr Bush—something that revved up the Christian right while reinforcing more widespread doubts about Massachusetts liberalism. This ploy might work at the state level, but at the federal level even senior Bush people admit it is backfiring. This week the Senate Republicans went through the motions of trying to pass a constitutional amendment on marriage, which duly died when six of their number, including John McCain, voted with the Democrats to stop the measure being discussed any further.

Most Americans believe that gay marriage is a step too far, but they are reluctant to stigmatise minorities—and doubly reluctant to change the constitution. The amendment is not even having the galvanising effect on evangelical foot-soldiers that the Republican high command expected. Many regard the constitution as divinely inspired, and prefer the issue to be dealt with at the state level (40 states already have laws against gay marriage).

The Kerry campaign's new emphasis on values is aimed at two groups of voters. The first is what pollsters call “secular-values voters”: people concerned with questions such as corporate ethics and America's image in the world. Mr Bush looks vulnerable among these voters on several scores. The second is non-evangelical Christians in rural and small-town America. Mr Edwards will spend much of his time charming them with tales of his small-town upbringing.

The values deficit
More generally—and more ambitiously—Mr Kerry wants to raise the same question about a “values deficit” in the Bush White House that Mr Bush did about the Clinton White House. Enron, Halliburton and Abu Ghraib could become Mr Bush's Monica Lewinsky. There will be countless pictures of Mr Kerry in Vietnam, the grunt in uniform, to compare with those cowardly war-mongering neo-conservatives around Mr Bush.

Of course, Mr Kerry may over-reach himself. How on earth can he claim to represent true conservative values (as he implied he did last week) when he hangs out with Hollywood stars like Whoopi Goldberg, who make cheap jokes about Mr Bush's name? How can a veteran senator claim to be an outsider? And how can he pose as a champion of ordinary people when his wife is worth $1 billion? A White House insider jokes that the Democratic ticket is a perfect example of Mr Edwards's two Americas: billionaires and millionaires. Already Laura Bush, the librarian, is being wheeled out for voters to compare her with the more exotic and eccentric Teresa Kerry.

In short, Mr Bush will defend his home turf fiercely. Yet it is noticeable that, this time, the Democrats are trying to grab it. And so far at least they have not done at all badly.
Click to expand...
 
Problem with Powell is that his wife doesn't want him becoming President, but yes, he would draw a lot of sympathy. Perhaps had Powell been there and not Cheney, things would have worked out different- but I doubt it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top