Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using.
SUBSCRIBE NOW FOR $34.97
JANUARY 16, 2007
BY TNR STAFF
Here's his video announcement.
share this article on facebook or twitter
print this article
Show all 12 comments
You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.
I just sent several emails to friends with links to the video. The subject for each was, "Am I silly for hoping so hard?" I feel very self-conscious at how excited I am over this news. Wouldn't it be wild if we really could change politics and governance, even a little bit?
January 16, 2007 at 11:20am
Hooray. I don't care if CW says this or that, whether or not it's too soon, or fear that he might burn out. At least he's running. All questions will be answered, and we'll soon know (and if anything else, Obama will get valuable experience for an eventual 2012/16.)
It's exciting to think how far we've come since "Hillary's it".
Imagine; Obama and Edwards already running (and Hillary running as well). This is going to be a campaign for the ages. You only need Gore (who doesn't appear to be planning a run, at least not now that Edwards is making an environmental pitch) with the most diverse and exciting field in a generation.
January 16, 2007 at 11:25am
If Gore gets in the race all the serious contenders will be on one side of the ledger (McCain excluded, but with the surge upcoming he's probably going to screw himself out of contention). Maybe this will dissuade Hillary from running. I love her, but I hope so. The mere thought of President Gore, Vice President Obama, and Senate Majority Leader Clinton in 2014 is enough to give my goosebumps goosebumps.
January 16, 2007 at 12:16pm
It's not foolish to think that Obama can run successfully. His message will carry over into formulating policies and working towards unifying all of us. If you're not sold yet, wait. He's got so much to offer this country.
January 16, 2007 at 2:24pm
achester99 - you're right on. The serious contenders, save McCain, are on the Democratic side. Whose on the GOP side? I Heart Huckabee's and a failed one term governor from Virginia. I can see the latter's campaign slogan now, stolen straight from Lamar Alexander: Jim!
January 16, 2007 at 2:34pm
Sorry to piss on the parade but if the Republicans nominate Giuliani it'll be a damn tough slog for our side. Don't assume they won't; for many Repubs, Rudy's the natural heir to Reagan.
January 16, 2007 at 4:50pm
but I love Michelle Obama - she seems every bit as centered and sensible and charismatic as he does - witty and erudite too. I think Rudy's wife is a total nitwit beyond belief, most women I know feel the same way. For better or worse first lady's matter alot (see Kerry). Rudy is a mix bag for women, good on the issues bad on the man. Petty and shallow? Yep. Definitive - often.
January 16, 2007 at 6:43pm
I don't think it will be that much tougher to beat Giuliani than say McCain. Every New Yorker I talk to seems to have something to add that is damaging to the former America's Mayor. "Sure, he was an effective mayor, but..." If the American people see past this -in a similar way that they did Clinton- then the GOP might have something, but for a change a Dem may take the high-road on caracter. Giuliani is prime for a Swiftboating. His personal life, his connections to sordid caracters and his mean-streak. He's tough, but nothing that I don't think a well-liked (or in Hillary's case, much admired) Democrat in a Democratic year after eight years of Republican rule, with a Giuliani which seems to be supporting "escalation".. Something tells me that 2008 won't be a different year just because one Democrat (Edwards) may win on a pure progressive campaign strategy, or that RINO's are favorites to become the GOP nominee, but also because it might be a year when the perfect GOP candidate positioned to win a mandate by a landslide won't, because he's simply a Bush Republican.
Naturally I am fearful that Giuliani might make it through and once again you'll have the press talk about how the Dems can't win the presidency (despite the country just having elected a charismatic Democrat with a GOP membership-card.)
Though equally hopeful that he'd then transcend partisan politics and not use the presidency to curry favors with the right/religion right in hope for reelection, because Giuliani has the potential of being a landslide-reelection president if he governs as an effective, non-partisan President.
January 16, 2007 at 7:30pm
As a New Yorker I concur. Giuliani just has too many skeletons in his closet, any one of which could wreck his chances of winning the nomination. Kerik was just the tip of the iceberg. Everyone in NYC know this, and soon the rest of the nation will, too.
Giuliani may have cleaned up the city, if by cleaning up we mean shoving all non-white minorities to the fringes of the 5 boroughs, and he may have been a reassuring presence in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 (although it was more a case of being told by the national media how reassured we New Yorkers felt with Rudy at the helm, rather than vice versa), but the man is distinguished in the history of this city for his authoritarian streak, his self-belief bleeding into megalomania, his willingness to break laws in order to achieve his larger aims (sound familiar?), and his concomitant tolerance for corruption in his closest associates. If one puts aside his support for gay rights (which apparently he too has put aside) and his lack of religiosity (which, according to a recent Atlantic Monthly article, he has been trying to correct through learning 'evangelese'), he is a slightly more intelligent version of Bush, or rather an amalgam of the less attractive traits of the leading personae in the Bush administration.
McCain may be a liar and a pandering shit, and his true Penelope may be the MSM, but he has indicated at times a basic respect for the rule of law, habeas corpus, the separation of church and state (notwithstanding recent visits to Bob Jones U), and so forth.
I strongly disagree with Hustveit's final paragraph. There is no reason to think that Giuliani of all people is the man to transcend partisan politics (as if that were an end in itself, not a governing style), or rather the forces that would constrain Giuliani to a bipartisan mode of governance would be equally active if McCain or even Brownback won. Anyone who "governs as an effective, non-partisan President" has the "potential of being a landslide-reelection president", including HRC and Obama. Lastly, how do you expect Giuliani to win the GOP nomination in the first place if not by currying favor with the right/religion?
Bloomberg is the Democrat who ran as a Republican to improve his chances. Giuliani, whose charisma I blink at my inability to perceive, was as Republican as he could be in NYC at the time when we was running for mayor, in 1993. There is no reason to think that he adopted pro-choice, pro-gay positions back then out of anything other than expediency; he may well be much more conservative than his record as mayor would lead us to believe.
Ask yourself too what kinds of compromises a President Giuliani would have to make. Vice President Brownback? Two, maybe three more conservative justices on the Supreme Court, in exchange for the support of the religious right? Even if it were a Democrat wolf in GOP sheep's clothing, these are decisions which the nature of the national GOP voting bloc would force on him.
Lastly (for real this time), Giuliani's desire to "serve" as President is clearly the expression of his personal will to power, rather than the logical next step in his CV (as it is for McCain and, arguably, HRC) or the result of a vision for this nation (as for Edwards and, if he were to run, Gore). True, all who run for the presidency have this quality to some extent; it comes with the territory. But Giuliani has it to a disturbing degree, reminiscent, again, of certain characters in the Bush administration, or of Richard Nixon. Have we not had enough of this?
January 17, 2007 at 11:50am
"...for many Repubs, Rudy's the natural heir to Reagan."
Isn't this just a meme that gets kicked around by media consultants? I mean, you could make a case that McCain's crusading neocon tendencies reflect the Reagan legacy as much as Rudy's law and order mentality.
Also, Bush was represented to the US public by his media surrogates as the true heir of Reaganite conservatism. In some unintended sense he was, presiding as he did over a radical expansion of governmental power and the military-industrial complex, and appearing a man of the people whose charisma resides in his gut instincts and his unvarnished simplicity. But all that led to sub-30% approval ratings and the earliest onset of lame-duck syndrome in US history. I know we live in the United States of Amnesia, but don't you think even conservatives are going to start questioning the questionable way in which every four years each Republican hopeful positions himself as the heir of Reaganism?
January 17, 2007 at 12:00pm
Interesting stuff, Alberti. I've come across the name Nixon before in regards to Giuliani. When several New Yorkers bring up the same name there must be something to it.
I humbly stand corrected on the point about bipartisanship. I completely agree with your points there, especially that it could as easily be Democrats. I guess I just got a bit blinded by recent history, f.ex. how Clinton got suckerpunched when trying to be bi-partisan (with everything from Foster-conspiracies, via government shutdown to Whitewater.)
January 17, 2007 at 4:44pm
0 CHARACTERS SELECTED
POST TO TUMBLR
SHARE ON FACEBOOK