Frank Rich Doesn't Get It

Frank Rich can't see the forest through the trees in his analysis of the 2008 Presidential race. I credit him with seeing that Bill and Hillary Clinton are more exposed and ultimately less electable than Obama would be. However - he completely misses the mark when it comes to understanding the Republicans.

Rich seems to think that John McCain would be the Republican who would give Hillary the most trouble in a general election. He's completely off the mark there.

No matter who is nominated for the Republicans - they will hold the upper hand when it comes to National Security. The Clintons will be peppered with questions about old quotes condemning Saddam Hussein and his WMD, questions about Sandy "the document buglar" Berger and why they did not go after Osama bin Laden. Not to mention her cut and run strategy of pulling out of Iraq ASAP which plays nice to the far left but not so well with the general centrist population who will chose the President.

If Mitt Romney is nominated - he can point directly to his accomplishments as Governor and in the private sector as his economic bona fides. Hillary is no match on the subject of the economy. Sure her husband was a good steward of the economy but how does that qualify her? My wife does a great job with our checking - that doesn't make me a banking expert. Romney also has a huge trump card when it comes to health care. Massachusetts actually has a workable plan in place whereas Hillary's healthcare plan was a complete disaster. So much a disaster - as Frank Rich points out - she hasn't released the documents about what was going on behind the scenes and how much a a clusterf*ck her managerial style actually was.

Rudy Guiliani would hold the edge in National Security and also appeal to the people who want fiscal responsibility but with a certain liberality on social issues. McCain would be the least effective of the three.

Rich doesn't even mention what will perhaps be the deciding factor in the 2008 election - the choice of running mate. For the Democrats it's a non-factor because if Hillary is nominated then Bill will be the defacto running mate. The person named as VP wouldn't be worth a warm bucket of spit when it comes to actually doing anything.

If Mitt Romney heads the ticket - he could add John McCain, Rudy or a General Petraeus as VP with the selling point that the VP would focus on military matters and on winning the war on terror. That would be tough to beat.

Frank Rich writes well and is liberal in his views - which is why he flourishes at the New York Times. However, he is hardly ever correct in his analysis. This is another example. I have to think that in reality he's just toeing the company line. The New York Times endorsed McCain and now Rich is trying to make it out that McCain is the most viable Republican. That just isn't the case.