Will 2008′s Choice Be Between “Fear And Loathing?”

The ever-debate-sparking Andrew Sullivan frames the (for now) likely 2008 Presidential tickets as a choice between “Fear And Loathing” and says this:

Lying awake the other early morning, I found the twin images of Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton coming into my mind. Maybe it was the Ambien, but inevitably the choice between those two haunts the fevered brow in the dead of night. I realized that beyond the policy arguments, my psyche sees the decision between the two of them as the choice, baldly put, between fear and loathing. I loathe Clinton; I fear Giuliani. Which emotion surges most? Clinton could still pull it out as my least favorite, but right now, my fear of Giuliani is outweighing my loathing of Clinton. David Brooks reminds me today how that didn’t use to be the case. I always admired Giuliani, marveled at what he did with New York City, liked his social liberalism, admired his way with bureaucracies, enjoyed his knockabout style. Any pol who’s happy to put a dress on for a bit of fun is fine by me.

But then he writes about his sinking feelings about the campaign 2007 Rudy Giuliani, and news stories involving him. And, he writes, the choice of Hillary Clinton seems a better one to him.

Read the entire post.

And, indeed:

On Thanksgiving Day this independent voter (who has been in both parties and been both a conservative and liberal in his voting lifetime) talked to a relative who favors former Governor Mitt Romney for President. And I found myself saying something unexpected: “I’ve always liked Rudy Giuliani. I liked him before 911 and on 911. But I’ve found some of the way he’s campaigning by in effect suggesting ‘Vote for me if you don’t want the terrorists to kill you because the Democrats can’t protect you..’ troubling and alarming and the news stories about his loyalty to dubious people are turning me off.”

If you use Sullivan’s scenario about a Clinton-Giuliani face-off (even though this could not really be what voters are offered) you could offer this thumbnail, quick sketch of the two candidates:

CLINTON is not inevitable. She’s getting better on TV but still seems programmed. Still, she comes across as highly-intelligent and capable. And she is indeed now afflicted with Frontrunner’s Syndrome where the press that spent lots of time doing stories about her rise now shifts to a new narrative looking for signs of her impending fall or falls (she is in the media Danger Zone). You get the sense that, if she gets the Democratic nomination, it will be a down to the wire (again) vote after one of the most brutal Presidential campaigns in American history. And you increasingly sense that if she’s in office her biggest problem will be to serve four years while somehow defusing a partisan polarization explosion that could mean her 2008 election benefits Republicans in 2010 or even 2012. She is trying to keep her party’s base and the center in the unfolding primary campaign. The continued existence of the periodically-raised “dynasty issue” suggests the press and pundits aren’t yet convinced that she is where she is had she had not been married to who she is married to.

GIULIANI is the best overall politician in the GOP race. He has diffused some of the opposition to him, “adjusted” positions in ways where he suffered minimum political consequences, and done what Arizona Senator John McCain could not — win over some elements of the GOP that considered him anathema before he started to run. But the tone of his campaign (defining Democrats as soft on terror and risks to the nation”s security), loyalty to some associates who’ve gotten in trouble with the law, and some comments suggesting he would continue or even expand the muscular use of executive branch power increasingly suggest he could well be a President who emerges as a cross between George W. Bush and Richard Nixon. Giuliani is not reassuring if you’re concerned about strong checks-and-balances and separation-of-powers. He is mostly trying to woo his party’s conservative base in the primary campaign. He comes across as an intelligent policy-maker who will do anything he has to do implement his chosen policy and achieve his goals — and that is part of the problem.

Sullivan nails it. Re-read his post again.

P.S.: But in the end it won’t matter a fig to voters whether Ms. C is polarizing or Mr. G is like Nixon or whatever. Whoever runs the best-organized, most-aggressive campaign will win. And whichever party loses a chunk of its constituency on voting day due to anger over their party’s nominee will lose.

But then…what if Ralph Nader jumps in as a third party candidate? And what if New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg jumps in?

So it’s still early and there could still be some consequential twists…but some impressions are starting to harden about some of the candidates, their pluses — and their risks.