With “Super Tuesday” fast approaching, New York's primaries may not be cut and dried. Although Hillary Clinton maintains a comfortable lead in the Democratic field, I wouldn't be surprised if Barack Obama is able to squeak out a win.
Obama appeals to young voters and minorities, ironically the demographic that solidified Bill Clinton's presidency. Obama has also managed to garner some impressive endorsements, including Senator John Kerry, Caroline Kennedy and, it is rumored, Ted Kennedy.
A junior senator from New York, Clinton has the advantage of having campaigned heavily in the region. But Clinton has never been popular in rural upstate regions, outside of New York City. In fact, many Democrats believe as though Clinton spent most of her term in the Senate planning her presidency, as opposed to focusing on state issues. And John Edwards' distant third place finish in South Carolina proves that you can't count on loyalties at home.
Like Edwards, Rudy Giuliani is also trailing on the home front. Critics agree that Giuliani's concentrated efforts in Florida have left New York voters ostracized. A risky gamble that may not pay off, as Florida Gov. Charlie Crist recently threw his support behind Senator John McCain.
In what was supposed to have been a sure nomination for Giuliani, Mitt Romney and McCain have been consistently strong in the polls forcing Giuliani to modify his campaign strategy. Giuliani now argues that he is a perfect combination of his opponents, encompassing McCain's foreign policy strength and Romney's economic know-how; a move that only validates the increasing threat that both candidates pose to his campaign.
As for the Democrats, political analysts give Clinton the edge in New York, but no one denies that the race is still pretty tight. Clinton undoubtedly has the best funded and organized campaign, but as more and more prominent Democrats come out in favor of Obama, Clinton's funding may not be enough to offset the Kennedy aura.
On the Republican side, conservative Christian voters have responded favorably to the Romney campaign. A practicing Mormon, Romney's presence in the race was largely ignored early on. But Romney has managed to continue his momentum and is considered by many to be the best bet for the GOP nod.
Bottom line: if things keep unfolding as they have been, I wouldn't be surprised to see a Mormon and an African-American batting it out for the office of the presidency and frankly, I'd welcome such an outcome. Regardless of race, religion or party - I think everyone can agree that America is long overdue for a radical change.
Estabrook's column appears Mondays and she can be reached at estabrookcarole@yahoo.com
A junior senator from New York, Clinton has the advantage of having campaigned heavily in the region. But Clinton has never been popular in rural upstate regions, outside of New York City. In fact, many Democrats believe as though Clinton spent most of her term in the Senate planning her presidency, as opposed to focusing on state issues. And John Edwards' distant third place finish in South Carolina proves that you can't count on loyalties at home.
Like Edwards, Rudy Giuliani is also trailing on the home front. Critics agree that Giuliani's concentrated efforts in Florida have left New York voters ostracized. A risky gamble that may not pay off, as Florida Gov. Charlie Crist recently threw his support behind Senator John McCain.
In what was supposed to have been a sure nomination for Giuliani, Mitt Romney and McCain have been consistently strong in the polls forcing Giuliani to modify his campaign strategy. Giuliani now argues that he is a perfect combination of his opponents, encompassing McCain's foreign policy strength and Romney's economic know-how; a move that only validates the increasing threat that both candidates pose to his campaign.
As for the Democrats, political analysts give Clinton the edge in New York, but no one denies that the race is still pretty tight. Clinton undoubtedly has the best funded and organized campaign, but as more and more prominent Democrats come out in favor of Obama, Clinton's funding may not be enough to offset the Kennedy aura.
On the Republican side, conservative Christian voters have responded favorably to the Romney campaign. A practicing Mormon, Romney's presence in the race was largely ignored early on. But Romney has managed to continue his momentum and is considered by many to be the best bet for the GOP nod.
Bottom line: if things keep unfolding as they have been, I wouldn't be surprised to see a Mormon and an African-American batting it out for the office of the presidency and frankly, I'd welcome such an outcome. Regardless of race, religion or party - I think everyone can agree that America is long overdue for a radical change.
Estabrook's column appears Mondays and she can be reached at estabrookcarole@yahoo.com
Citizen
Hot Jobs
New! Off the Menu
The Citizens' Say
Post your comment - click hereThere are 4 comment(s)
MAB wrote on Jan 30, 2008 9:18 PM:
Google Ron Paul
"
Farmer's Gal wrote on Jan 30, 2008 11:31 AM:
The closest we had to that was Edwards, who just dropped out today, in part because he didn't take that corporate money and that left him short in comparison to the front runners.
(I mean, how can Hillary Clinton call herself a health reformer when she is taking major campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical industry?!??)
If you aren't part of "the best Congress money can buy," you don't stand much of a chance.
Edwards' wife also has breast cancer again, so I am certainly understanding of his decision, but his being out of it leaves me with very poor choices indeed.
End the war to save the economy -- think what we could do with all those wasted billions. Do something about ridiculous lawsuits and profit-hungry insurance companies to help our health care situation (corporate culprits again!) And do something drastic to cut off the power of corporate and special interests on our government and our lives.
Start be reversing the interpretation of the Constitution used by corporations to claim they have the same rights as human persons. That would really make a change for the better, because change for change sake isn't necessarily for the better.... "
hillbilly wrote on Jan 28, 2008 4:27 PM:
Mormons Are Christian wrote on Jan 28, 2008 2:45 PM:
The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) is often accused by Evangelical pastors of not believing in Christ and, therefore, not being a Christian religion. This article http://mormonsarechristian.blogspot.com/ helps to clarify such misconceptions by examining early Christianity's comprehension of baptism, the Godhead, the deity of Jesus Christ and His Atonement.
The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) adheres more closely to First Century Christianity and the New Testament than any other denomination. For example, Harper’s Bible Dictionary entry on the Trinity says “the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.”
One Baptist blogger stated “99 percent of the members of his Baptist church believe in the Mormon (and Early Christian) view of the Trinity. It is the preachers who insist on the Nicene Creed definition.” It seems to me the reason the pastors denigrate the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) is to protect their flock (and their livelihood).
Evangelicals should read:
http://brucewilson.blogspot.com/2008/01/unintended-consequences-of-vote-for.html
"