December 12, 2005
Lookin' Great in '08
filed under: Idle ChatterI watched a good chunk of C-SPAN last night, for the first time ever. It was a show called "Looking Ahead to '08" or some such, and it focussed on a potential presidential nominee from each party: Mitt Romney, the Republican governor of Massachussetts who has been so active in the war against gay rights in that state; and Mark Warner, the outgoing (as in "his term is over," not as in "fun at parties" - see below) Virginia governor who is the Democratic flavor of the month thanks to his Lieutenant Tim Kaine's democratic gubernatorial win in Virginia last month.
C-SPAN, remarkably, didn't offer any commentary. They did 45 minutes on Romney, 45 minutes on Warner, which consisted of extended footage of each at recent party-operative dinners - working the room and giving a speech.
Romney's segment was first, and let me tell you: this man can work a room. He's charming, funny, easy, puts people at ease, listens really - REALLY - well, and he's tall and handsome. If you took Martin Sheen and stretched him like taffy to six foot two, you've got Mitt Romney.
His speech was great - self-deprecating humor, a "straight-talker" vibe that actually felt genuine, a ringing defense of "Republican values" that reminded you that many people - including, even, a few politicians - actually believe such a thing exists.
The weakest chunk rhetorically was also the most reprehensible ethically: his attempt to claim America's culture was "under attack," that his state's court had "damaged the institution of marriage," and that "every child deserves the chance to have a mother and a father - a right which is currently under attack." Huhwhuh? Don't get me started.
Lisa and I kept turning to each other in horror. "Oh shit," we said. "This guy is GOOD." Charming, "straight-talking," true believer, pragmatic conservative. Of course, he's also an ultra-right-pandering Mormon. Awesome.
I came into the show loathing the very idea of Mitt Romney, seething at the mention of his name. And watching him work, I couldn't help liking the guy.
We waited, anxiously, for the Warner segment to begin. "Come on, Warner!" cheered Lisa. "I've heard really quite good things about him," said I, hopefully.
They switched to Warner, answering questions before an event.
Three minutes later, the TV was off.
Look. Yesterday, I didn't know anything about Mark Warner except that Democrats are currently pretty excited about him, that he's been raising money well, and that Barack Obama has been sniffing around his camp. Today, I know only one more thing: he doesn't play well on TV.
He who plays better on TV wins. Period. The end.
Who knows who the eventual nominees will be. I will make this prediction right now: Romney vs. Warner would mean another 4 years of a Republican presidency. Romney vs. Clinton would mean the same.
When's the last time you saw a Democratic nominee on TV and thought "Gosh, I just sort of *like* this guy"?
Let me guess. '92 and '96, right?
Romney's got it. We need someone on our side who has it, too.
If you're a Democrat, do your party a favor: throw your weight behind the next candidate you get excited about *when you see them on TV.* Not when you read about them - not when you hear their ideas. When you see them on TV.
(ps: Obama '08)
Posted by rjt at December 12, 2005 11:53 AMRomney would never beat Clinton. And last I heard, Mitt isn't very popular in Mass. What's the point of nominating a Republican from the Northeast if his state won't vote for him, and they won't.
Not to mention New England Republicans aren't much loved by the rest of their party. Not to mention, yes, television is the only battleground. Bush is a hell of a shmoozer -- a terrifically charismatic guy, really warm and exciting. He looks like a moron on TV. And yet he's President. No one watches raw CSPAN footage (and god bless you for it)
And the ticket, btw, will be Clinton and NM Govenor Bill Richardson. Twenty dollars. She's the most brilliant politician the Democrats have, and the GOP fears her.
Remember that Bush was a divisive right winger who came out of nowhere to avenge the previous Administration. He rallied the base. Clinton can do the same.
Posted by: devore at December 13, 2005 02:16 PMOne question: can you listen to Hilary Clinton speak for longer than 90 seconds without wanting to claw out your eardrums? I can't. And that means, in this electorate, a three-toed sloth could beat her.
And *anyone we nominate with brainwaves and a pulse* could rally the base.
Posted by: rjt at December 13, 2005 05:13 PMHaven't been in the states for almost a year now so don't know much about Virginia guy but will say that Obama would defo rally the base and I would vote for him in a heartbeat. Don't think Reps will nominate a Northerner, no matter how anti-gay and TV friendly. Think Jeb would be up first. He's well liked in FL (for the most part), speaks Spanish fluently, has enourmous name recognition and the family dynaty on his side, and doesn't come across as big an idiot as his bro (prob because he's not)
Posted by: kylie at December 13, 2005 09:41 PMEverybody swears and swears that Jeb doesn't want to run. Maybe they're setting him up for a full-on, Richard III style "Oh, well, since my party needs me - but it's against my will..." kinda entry into the race.
Posted by: rjt at December 13, 2005 11:50 PMDon't be so cynical RJ. It's not all showbiz. Bush is a facile man, but he was fueled, funded, and backed by extrememly organized and dedicated ideologues with a specific agenda. Kerry didn't. Nor did Gore. Edwards was a stunner, but outside of a millionaire acknowledging that some folk are well off and some folk are broke, he had nothing behind his rhetoric.
We've enjoyed two President's who are both charismatic; born campaign superstars.
That Hillary is a little boring, a little serious, a little sober, might just be what people want. She's the leader so far. She's our George W. Bush.
I'm going to cry now.
Posted by: devore at December 14, 2005 06:03 PM