I've heard that Giuliani's big strategy was to put all his eggs in one basket: Florida. He didn't bother with what came
before because he figured that he'd be the big winner among the legion of New York retirees living in the Sunshine State. Thus
a nice solid win in a major state would be enough to bolster him for the rest of the race. Why waste time in Iowa, New
Hampshire, and South Carolina?
It was a mistake, certainly. Even while still mayor of New York City, Giuliani traveled the country giving speeches, and he
became a hero after 9/11. So he had enough name recognition to give him a good chance in those states. But it's not only the
fact that he could've done better there, but that he should've done better there. The media determine who's a viable candidate
and who's not based on who's winning and who's not, and they apportion their coverage of the candidates accordingly. That
Giuliani had no presence in those particular states meant that he also had no presence nationwide, since it wasn't just Iowans,
New Hampshirites (is that the right word?), and South Carolinians who were following those races. So, he lost the
valuable time he needed to establish himself as a serious candidate, and he lost the opportunity to pick up momentum, as if he
could run a race from mid-sprint.
Of course, I am relieved that he's gone because he'd be a not-so-great president. He doesn't work well with others, a skill
he'd need as president, and he's arrogant and given to taking credit for the achievements of others (e.g. Willy Bratton).
Giuliani was not very popular in New York as he neared the end of his tenure. 9/11 made him.
I'm also relieved because, God forbid, he might have been electable in November. Might have been, I should emphasize,
since his belated attempts to sound conservative on abortion and immigration didn't fool many conservative Republicans, and
there are MANY conservative Republicans. As they say, you can win with the political middle, but you cannot win it
from the political middle. If you try, you'll be squeezed out by those on your left and/or right. Giuliani may have been
electable in November, when he would have had to please the general voter population, but he probably wouldn't have succeeded
in the Republican primaries, where he would have to please the far more conservative population of Republicans active
enough to vote in those primaries. Whew!
As for the description of liberals who believe that Islamists are good people, that Islamists are our friends...that's just
nonsense. I'm sorry, but it is simply not true. Many, most, probably all, liberals think otherwise. So, if we get a Democrat in
the White House, it doesn't mean that we'll play nicey nicey with bin Laden. What it does mean is that we'll have another
crack, maybe, at national health insurance, and that we won't go around invading other countries when the mood hits us. As for
Iraq, there's nothing much a Democrat or a Republican can do at this point. Bush left us in a total mess, and it will be a
long, long time...and it will cost us many lives and a lot of money...before we'll get out of that.
The Democratic New York primary is tomorrow and I'm not sure whom to vote for...Hillary or Obama. I'm not sure I'll even
bother to vote because I'm so undecided. Hillary has a lot of good things to say about the economy, but I can't trust her to
keep to her word. About Obama, I just know very little. I'll read a pile of articles I have waiting for me before I make up my
mind, if I can make up my mind. Suggestions, anyone? Not that I'll necessarily listen to you, as you'll probably advise
me to support the candidate with the lesser chance of winning in November. But I'd be curious to hear.
