Giul to wear the crown

When I was a kid, my two favorite things in the world were sports and politics.

When I wasn't watching the Lions or the Tigers, I was reading about the Asian Tigers (NIEs in the Far East) and the so-called "Lion of Judah", Haile Selassie.

Politics, like sports, is competitive and truly dramatic; and it occurred to me at some point along the journey, that politics is actually sport in the truest sense.

It was no surprise, then, that Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia) and James Traficant (D-Ohio) were every bit as inspiring to me in my youth as Dominique Wilkins (F-Georgia) and Corey Dillon (RB-Ohio).

I shudder to think of it. (Gingrich, a noted history buff, turned out to be an adulterer while Traficant, of "beam me up Mr. Speaker" fame, is in jail serving time for extortion.)

But, for someone as disgusted with partisanship as I've become, it's still somewhat bizarre that the campaign trail has its same old appeal.

I can't get enough of this stuff.

And, what have I taken away from every presidential election in my lifetime (at least the ones I can remember)?

The issues are secondary; what matters most, it seems, is who you would have a beer with (root or otherwise). Who has that certain something that political wonks like me have come to know as "gravitas"?

And so, with that in mind, here are my projections for campaign 2008...

The Right's Big Three

Mitt Romney - He could be the first Republican to win Massachusetts in a general election since Reagan. To do that, he would first have to win the nomination. Unfortunately for the Religious Right, he won't. He is much too rehearsed and business-like in his approach to appear genuine (likeable) to the all too important swing voters.

His connection to the church of Latter Day Saints doesn't hurt him as much as many pundits had projected, mostly because he is the most culturally conservative of the big three. His gaffe (stating that he would consult lawyers before taking action against Iran) at Tuesday night's debate in Dearborn, Michigan, will follow him everywhere he goes. In a moment of national security urgency, do we really want someone wringing his hands over the War Powers Act?

Fred Thompson - The mainstream media's lovefest with Thompson is officially over. The tardy Thompson, inexplicably, turned his quasi-celebrity (he is a reoccuring character on NBC's "Law and Order") into excellent poll numbers based on nothing. His campaign, it seems, is more "Seinfield" than "Law and Order" to this point.

After Tuesday night's hum-drum performance at the debate, I am left wondering how the debate's organizers found a big enough lecturn to hold the guy up. He's not a bad man, but he couldn't inspire most people to zip-up their fly. He, like Bob Dole in 1996, appears to be setting aside his gregarious disposition in favor of a more laconic one; it's one that may, if relevance has anything to say about it, earn for him a spot somewhere between Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter in the next debate.

Rudy Giuliani - Rudy is the most skilled debater I've seen since Bill Clinton. He has a command of the issues to go along with a Clintonesque "I feel your pain" aura. How are you going to dislike this guy when you want to like him so bad? This phenomenon is quite functional, too, when you consider that Rudy, like Bill Clinton, has his share of skeltons in the closet.

Fringe Leftists hate Rudy because he's not progressive enough and fringe Rightists hate him because he's not conservative enough; it sounds like a perfect mix. At the very least, Rudy doesn't have to worry about appealing to a base that he doesn't have.

Also, if history is any indicator, Americans are somewhat less than inclined to perceive members of Congress as anything more than do-nothings. That, perhaps more than any other factor, has led Giuliani and Romney to the top of the heap. They have resumes and experience behind the desk where the buck stops. Romney will win the opening salvo in Iowa, but Giuliani will be the nominee. He's the only one with a popsicle's chance in hell of beating Hillary. Heck, my state of Michigan might actually be back in play in 2008.

Rudy is the only candidate who can beat Hillary in a general election. That alone should compel voters into the booth to pull the lever for Rudy, even if they have hold their nose while doing it.

The Left's Big Three

Barack Obama - Obama is still young, so his best days are ahead of him. Unfortunately for the Dems, I believe their best in brightest is not Obama, but Harold Ford who failed in his run for the Senate in Tennessee last year. Obama, unlike Ford could, simply does not appeal to the red states in middle America (known by many elitists as the "flyover states"). He is not as far left as John Edwards, but he's close enough to read the "kick me" sign on his back.

Sure he's playing well in Iowa, but he has invested more time and money in Iowa than any other candidate. He has to win the Hawkeye state to have any chance against Hillary. Further, his "audacity of Hope" is cute but hardly effective in a battle against the Clinton cabal. If he chooses not to go after Hillary, he will be heading back to the Land of Lincoln with his tail between his legs.

John Edwards - The North Carolinian looks fairly presidential in primary debates because, as is normally the case, he isn't challenged to a great extent. In a general debate, Edwards would try and fail to justify the great chasm between word and deed that his political life so aptly represents. It is, after all, Edwards who talks about "two Americas" during the day, the haves and have-nots, and at night hits the hay in a 20,000 square foot home on property worth millions. He is a guardian class elitist who doesn't even believe the tripe coming from his own mouth. Additionally, he has more than $500 haircuts to worry about. Republicans will kill him on the Iran issue (namely his vote against the characterization of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as "terrorist") as well as certain other peccadillos that will soon come to light.

Hillary Clinton - Mrs. Clinton is the prohibitive favorite not because of who her husband is, as odd as that sounds. She, perhaps as a result of her experiences with her husband, is the smartest politican on the Democratic side. She is the most conservative Democrat of the big three, despite what you might hear on conservative talk radio shows; she is, by comparison, a hawk with respect to national security issues. She knows that being seen as a moderate, while still being critical of the Bush Administration's failings, may be her ticket to the White House. She's tougher than Geraldine Ferraro; heck, she's tougher than Obama and Edwards. Obama may win Iowa, but Hillary wins the nomination.

2008 Prediction

Giuliani d. Clinton

"America's mayor" will be the 44th President of the United States. He will get the evangelical votes, despite their misgivings about his record on social issues (gay unions, gun control, abortion, etc.), as well as the votes of the moderate Republicans and the anti-Hillary bloc (and the swing voters therein). Hillary will turn out a lot of voters, and many of them for all the wrong reasons.

24 years of rule by the "two families" (an obvious organized crime reference) just reeks of old world monarchy, and I don't think that's lost on the minds of many Americans.