If the election were today, I'd cut you guys some slack. But you act as if the coming months count for nothing in terms of fundraising, increased exposure; and let's not forget the chance that the Democrats will become so competitive that they'll shred each other into unelectability.
It's one thing to say that if it comes down to Rudy or Hillary, we have to rally behind Rudy. It's another thing to make active attempts to discredit the early candidacy of someone you admit to "liking." There's just no justification for that. Leave the psychic hotline predictions to the Democrats. "Cold political analysis" should recognize that there are too many factors in play for several months for such predictions to have any more reliability than next week's weather report. And when you as an individual have the ability to influence others, as presumably you are seeking to do on this forum, why would you not use such influence to better the odds of the candidate instead of denigrating him? To do so is to wave the white flag before the enemy is even in sight. That's what I mean by cowardly.
And for the record, "cold political analysis" by definition excludes active participation. So if you want to stand on the sidelines, that's your call. But the minute you stump for one of the "electable" candidates, you disqualify yourself as an objective observer, which renders your predictions suspect. Call it the Heisenberg Principle of politics.
Does that mean there is a Schroedinger's box with a Republican candidate in it, and he's both electible and unelectible until the election is over?
I cannot believe Hunter truly believes he has a chance and hope he is realistic enough to be trying to finagle the VP slot which would be an excellent means of becoming a viable candidate in the future. If there were only one or two roadblocks standing in his way I would not be so skeptical but there are many outside the huge one of no name recognition including history.
Those believing he has a chance are viewing a different electorate than the one I see. It was the latter which voted for Al Gore, which gave AN OUTRIGHT TRAITOR 48% of the vote and which threw out every Conservative star from the Senate last election. Where are all these conservatives who would put him in the White House hiding?
How do you figure an electorate which considers Bush and the GOP extreme right wingers will elect a man far more conservative than either?
"Cold political analysis" should recognize that there are too many factors in play for several months for such predictions to have any more reliability than next week's weather report. [I can predict with near certainty that the temperature next week will not be above 40 degrees in Chicago. Now I cannot predict that it will be exactly 38. Hence I can confidently and with near certainty predict that anyone who is unknown two years before the election will NOT beat all those whose names ARE known. Now I cannot predict with anything like that certainty that Mc will beat Guiliani or vice versa. I can predict with near certainty that Vilsek or Kukinch will NOT be the RAT nominee but not that Hillary will beat Obama or vice versa.]
I do not believe we have the resources to waste on Quixotic campaigns even if I would like the guy. My favorite would be Rumsfeld but I know that he would also have NO chance. Same with Cheney.
And for the record, "cold political analysis" by definition excludes active participation. [Not at all that only means I do not let my emotions swamp my analysis or confuse my wishes with the likely. If Guiliani did not become the subject of so many attacks here I would have little to say about him. Hell I even defend McCain from unfair attacks and he may be the most hated man for FReepers.]