It's New York, baby!
Comments (6)
Monday, December 18, 2006 | 06:13 PM ET
By Henry Champ
It's hard to believe, given the media power of The Big Apple, not to mention New York's population, wealth and energy, that there have been only two American presidents from the state in the last century or so: The Roosevelts, Teddy and FDR.
Mind you, as this year draws to a close and the 2008 presidential election campaign begins in earnest, that could well change. Big time.
Think about Hillary and Rudy.
In this early going, the polls indicate both are leading their respective parties.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former first lady, versus Rudy Giuliani, the hero of 9/11. If you like horse races, this could be a beaut.
Both are larger-than-life political pros with serious accomplishments under their belts, and all of this comes at you with the glare of Times Square and the Statue of Liberty in the background.
When Old Blue Eyes sang, "if you make it here, you can make anywhere," everyone in the U.S. nodded in agreement.
So this race would be a lot of fun.
But it could also signify something else. Like evidence of real electoral change in the U.S.
The fight for the centre
Nelson Rockefeller, a former governor of New York and a perennial presidential candidate was once approached by a female fan who gushed, " Governor, you are so perfect on the issues, why have you never been elected president." To which the governor replied, "Madam have you ever been to a Republican Convention?"
Rockefeller's fate was to continually go to conventions as the public favourite only to lose to party conservatives who controlled the vote.
Rudy Giuliani, it might be said, is Rockefeller redux. He's pro-choice and a supporter of gay unions. Normally at this point you would turn the pages on Rudy's chances.
But as pollster John Zogby recently wrote in the aftermath of the 2006 mid-term elections: "The message for the 2008 election for the Republicans is to find a way to get to the middle. They must triangulate, present a middle class program and brush up on their Spanish."
The 2008 presidential election, he went on, "will be won in the middle and the Democrats are already scurrying to stake their claim on that middle ground."
Zogby wrote that, but candidate Clinton could have said it.
Senator Clinton has moved mountains to get to the centre of American politics. Even today, she turned down an invitation to meet with French Socialist presidential candidate Segolene Royal, one of the most dynamic of the high-powered women candidates on the continent.
Too busy, said Clinton's office. But many observers said the real reason was that Clilnton didn't want to be even remotely associated with Royal's left-wing leanings or her recent comments on the Middle East.
The new Hillary
Clinton has taken pains to soften her image as a liberal democrat, and she has spent the last six years in the Senate building consensus with the full range of her colleagues there.
Campaign strategists say that both Giuliani and Clinton are square with public opinion and the Iraq war. Giuliani always focussed on the war on terrorism, but like Clinton supported the President on Iraq. Clinton has made up ground by saying that while she originally supported Bush, she is no longer "going to believe this president again." Both now say they don't believe the troops should be taken out of Iraq quickly.
So if they are together on the war, and if both are refusing to advance the extremes of their parties, then for the first time in decades the issues of the middle, issues such as health care, minimum wage, tax reform, law and order and prescription drug prices will be the stuff of the campaign trail.
There is another welcome possibility: Giuliani has survived a messy divorce, one that had its hint of marital infidelity, and Clinton was a victim of her husband's wandering eye. Could that mean we'd be spared a campaign of moralistic attack ads?
The polls that show they are leading their respective party's current choices for president indicate that people are saying it's time to move on.
Bright, intelligent, battle-tested politicians, Rudy and Hillary could give Americans something they haven't had for a while, a campaign of real intellect and issues.
Though there is always a word of caution on that front. Consider Adlai Stevenson, the great intellectual of Democratic politics, who was approached by a voter who shouted out, "Mr. Stevenson, every thinking American is for you."
"That's a pity," Stevenson replied, "because I need a majority."
« Previous Post | Main | Next Post »
This discussion is now Open. Submit your Comment.
« Previous Post | Main | Next Post »
Post a Comment
Washington File »
About the Author
Henry Champ is CBC Newsworld's correspondent in Washington, D.C., delivering Canadian viewers the latest developments in the U.S. political arena. Recently, he has been a leading Canadian voice on coverage of the war on terrorism, the war in Iraq and the growing concerns over the Canada-U.S. relationship.
Recent Posts
- Vapour ads create successful campaign smokescreens
- Henry Champ
- Thursday, September 11, 2008
- The parties are over
- Henry Champ
- Friday, September 5, 2008
- The attack dog fights back
- Henry Champ
- Thursday, September 4, 2008
- The plan for Sarah Palin
- Henry Champ
- Wednesday, September 3, 2008
- Paying a high price for Palin
- Henry Champ
- Tuesday, September 2, 2008
- Subscribe to this blog
Recent Comments
- I am not going into the politics re: this topic, but I wo...
- It's New York, baby!
- The Republicans are on the run and they know it. McCain's...
- It's New York, baby!
- I suppose Henry will be carrying Hillary's water from her...
- It's New York, baby!
- I bet you there is no way in which either will ultimately...
- It's New York, baby!
- Personally, I cannot wait to see what comes with the next...
- It's New York, baby!
Archives
- September 2008
- (6 postings)
- August 2008
- (6 postings)
- June 2008
- (3 postings)
- May 2008
- (6 postings)
- April 2008
- (3 postings)
- March 2008
- (4 postings)
- February 2008
- (5 postings)
- January 2008
- (7 postings)
- November 2007
- (2 postings)
- October 2007
- (7 postings)
- September 2007
- (1 postings)
- July 2007
- (6 postings)
- June 2007
- (5 postings)
- May 2007
- (6 postings)
- April 2007
- (6 postings)
- March 2007
- (5 postings)
- February 2007
- (7 postings)
- January 2007
- (8 postings)
- December 2006
- (7 postings)
- November 2006
- (8 postings)
- October 2006
- (10 postings)
- September 2006
- (9 postings)
- August 2006
- (9 postings)
Comments (6)
MOBY PREEK
Alberta
I am not going into the politics re: this topic, but I would like to point out that Rudy Giuliani was a mayor who did what he was paid for. His actions during 9-11 were appreciated. In North America, we dub people who have performed well, especially when they are shown on TV, Heroes.
In North America, I guess, there are more heroes than the rest of the entire world. Just watch the 6:00 news:
Fireman climbs tree, rescues cat, kid happy. Fireman now hero.
Dad was a baker in the army. Stray bullet killed him while he was in the army latrine. Dad now hero.
Hero is now a commonplace word. It does not have the same meaning as yesteryear.
Who are the real heroes of North America.
Have we ever considered the farmer who goes out at 4am at -35 degrees to feed the cows in order to feed the nation or the fisherman who braves the lashing waves of the North Atlantic, risking his life, looking for fish to feed the nation.
Before we look at electing someone on account of his apparent heroism, just ask yourself the question, will the new job be exactly like the one in which he succeeded.
Heroism reflects a short period of time in the past and does not guarantee such good performance in the future. Heroes tend to rest on their laurels!
Be careful America, let your heroes go and pick a good and strong administrator with sufficient experience to govern and most of all, who will listen to the cries of the people.
Posted January 13, 2007 05:01 PM
Kelly
The Republicans are on the run and they know it. McCain's age will now be an issue, as will Giuliani's relative lack of exposure in the years since 9/11. Neither would garner much support among the religious right; conversely, the Bible Belt's found itself hobbled by the elections last month and now faces an reinvigorated populace and a scramble by both parties back to the middle ground.
The Democrats would do well not to settle for a Hillary or Obama dilemma. The party brass should find a way to put both one ticket and push for a decisive if not total victory. This is definitely the Democrats' election to lose.
Posted December 21, 2006 01:21 AM
Jerry
seattle
I suppose Henry will be carrying Hillary's water from here on in but the scenario for this particular article is a nonstarter. Firstly, I don't know if Henry or anybody noticed but there has never been a US president or vice President of Italian heritage in our entire history. Why? Either they were catholic, which, until John Kennedy stole the 1960 election, appeared to disqualify them in the voter's mind, or they were percieved to have mob connections. Unfairly or not, that's what Giuliani is looking at and no doubt looking very hard. As for Henry's dream candidate Hillary Clinton, just wait until the voters get a load of her screaming speech from the podium at the Demo convention. Lights out.
Posted December 19, 2006 06:42 PM
"Sherlock Scultz"
U.S.A.
I bet you there is no way in which either will ultimately be selected by their respective parties. Giuliani is too awkard and too NewYorkish for the southern and mid-western republican, and Hilary is perceived as too mean, willing to do anything to anyone for political gain and has too much personal baggage. I have a feeling that Obama or Edwards will prevail for the Democrats, and th republicans will chose someone else...no way Rudy though...
Posted December 19, 2006 01:15 PM
D. Burton
Personally, I cannot wait to see what comes with the next Presidential race.
I'm absolutely ecstatic at the prospect of two people with brains vying for the big job. And not only intelligence, but social intelligence as well. Even Rudy Giuliani, as the Republican, is downright "liberal" compared with the current administration.
As for the ultra-conservative, pro-white, anti-progressive, bible-belt dwellers, I think they've had their kick at the can and look where the U.S. ended up... With a dangerous idiot sitting in the most powerful position on the planet.
So, I'll be staring at the poll results, popcorn in hand. And I'll be praying that what Mr. Champ suggests comes true. It'll come down to a race between two equally viable, intelligent, tolerant, strong, likeable candidates. In the end, I'm pulling for Hillary, but I'd be almost as happy with Rudy.
Either way, it's a win-win for America... And (fortunately or unfortunatley), a win-win for America is a win-win for the world.
Posted December 19, 2006 12:50 PM
Joe
Halifax
Hasn't it been nearly 50 years since a northerner won the White House? Giuliani the "hero" certainly has a good story to boost his shot and senators don't usually do very well at this sort of thing so Hillary could have problems but overall, at least it would be a more interesting race.
If nothing else, it would certainly be nice to see a shift toward candidates who are not forced to downplay their intellectual ability for a change. As I am sure many have noticed, when political races take on that sort of climate sometimes we can sadly get what we pay for.
What would be perhaps most interesting to see would be how these two intelligent, more ideologically mid-range, northern candidates would deal with the many hard right-wing, less tolerant, "countrified" southern voters they so desperately need.
I wonder if we will soon see Rudy and Hillary at an Alabama Baptist BBQ trying to explain what they "really" meant by being pro-choice and supporting gay unions. If we do then I guess there's always 2012
Posted December 19, 2006 09:52 AM