Bush: Clinton Will Beat Obama

Bush: Clinton Will Beat Obama
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

President Bush seems confident that Hillary Clinton will top Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination, and that Clinton will lose to the eventual Republican nominee.

How quaint.

With due respect for the office of the President and for its current occupant, George W. Bush doesn't know a damned thing about the mindset of Democratic primary voters in 2008. Why not? Because he didn't know anything about them in 2004, and he didn't know anything about them in 2000. It's not that he's blind to Democrats as American citizens -- really, it's not. But never once has President Bush had to contend with Democratic voters on a national scale. His victories have been crafted through careful cultivation of a conservative message designed to rally his reactionary conservative base and draw in just enough independents to get to that nebulous "50%+1" that campaign managers love to tout.

Surprised that Giuliani's still leading the Republican field despite some, ahem, family values issues that drive reactionary conservatives like Pat Robertson nuts? Name-recognition, Mr. President. People know who he is. In mid-2003, Joe Lieberman led the Democratic field, because poll respondents knew his name from his appearance on the 2000 ticket. How does Giuliani fare in state-by-state polls, one might wonder? Not quite as well -- this blogger's home state of Minnesota is a somewhat muddled picture, but at last check Rudolph was running behind the Democratic contenders in Ohio, Iowa, and er, um...Kentucky.

Yes, Kentucky.

Back to the point at hand. That's the entire length and breadth of President Bush's prognostication -- conventional wisdom. Poll numbers. Beltway consultants consulting on consultable topics. He can spend weeks at a time clearing brush on his Texas ranch, but he has still been absorbed by the same Washington culture he swore to change when coronated by Supreme Court edict in 2000.

So call me contrarian for not putting too much stock in the Prognosticator-in-Chief's predictions. I just can't see many strong reasons to take them into serious account.

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot