The National Primary

Apparently there are going to be two national elections in America next year.

This proposed primary is very different from Super Tuesday because of when it happens. In the past, Super Tuesday has happened in early March. In 2008, there is a proposal afoot to have the five biggest states (California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois) and other significant ones (New Jersey, North Carolina) vote on February 5, 2008. The proposal is gaining a lot of supporters, most notably the Secretary of State for California.

This would completely change the way the U.S. Primary system works, and in my opinion, would make New Hampshire and Iowa (and now Nevada) even MORE important, not less. Depending on your type of meltdown, under the current system, you can come back from a loss in New Hampshire. Bill Clinton (1992) and George Bush (2000) being the two most recent and best examples- they lost in New Hampshire but did well enough that they could fundraise and raise their profile in time to win South Carolina, and secure the nomination on Super Tuesday.

But, if you don't have a month to raise money and rebuild momentum you might be in a little trouble. Especially if you are in a tight race.

On the Democrat side, Bill Clinton (D- Article two) has changed the tone all of a sudden. The most popular President ever with African Americans has finally made an appearance on behalf of his wife (D - Opportunism) at a rally in Selma, Alabama celebrating the Voting Rights Act. Walking onto the stage to speak with/for his wife does two huge things:

1) It reminds America that they were a team from 1992-2000. A lot of voters may think that by electing Hillary, they will get four to eight more years of Bill Clinton. I think to a certain extent they would be right, but for the obvious moves she would make to show the world that she isn't just "Clinton 2." I am not so naive as to think that this conclusion is also happening on the very fractured right. This is a very significant knock against Hillary2008 in Democratic circles - very much like Mr. Bush has unsuccessfully claimed to be - Hillary is a "uniter"- she would unite the right to the point of revolutionary insurrection.

2) It shows how very weak/exposed Hillary is. If she can't (pardon the awful and racist pun) whip up African American support for her campaign and needs her husband to do it for her, her campaign is as good as dead. This seems ridiculous to me because of all the declared candidates, the network upon which she is running has already worked...twice. If her husband's supporters don't want to support her already, she is beyond dead because the 50% of Americans who vote are already tiring of her and the Primaries are a year away.

Lamentations about the implications to feminism aside, she remains entirely a product of her husband's career, and is having a really tough time getting that same support. Her attempts to stand alone have not been perfect, and as a Democratic candidate, since 9-11 she has a very difficult voting record to defend. Maybe this is an attempt to remind her husband's supporters that they were a team before, damn the consequences that may carry.

Bill Clinton (D- Article 2) remains my first choice for 2008. Constitutional limitations aside, based on the current slate of declared candidates, I would rather have Hillary in charge with Bill pulling the strings than any other possibility because Hillary remains: a) a moderate and b) learned in the ways of government. The elephant in the atmosphere remains Al Gore (D- An Inconvenient Candidate).

On the republican side, Rudy's (R- President of 911) numbers remain impressive. He is the only Republican candidate who can put California in play- which would deliver a virtual lock on the electoral college. Success in the national primary hurts Rudy because it gives the Social Conservative right an extra month to get their shit together if it looks like he is going to win the Republican nomination. Never would the selection of a socially conservative running mate (like Brownback, Huckabee or - perish the though- a pro-life woman) be more important and timely than to cut off that movement from the outset.

If he can't get over that hurdle, the socon part of the party will either stay home or get a new candidate. There is already talk of an independent Brownback candidacy to push the issues that are most important to Religious Red-Staters. They don't seem willing to listen to reason about the ramifications of splitting the right believing the twice divorced and g-d less Rudy to be as bad as any Democrat. How short their memories are from the last two times the right split in America - It led directly to President Clinton in both 1992 and 1996 - this time the right would split the other way and it would probably lead to another President Clinton.