By: E&P Staff
In his column for TIME magazine, out on Friday, William Kristol examine the 2008 race for president, along this theme: Is this mainly a “change” election (polls show Americans do want a change of direction) or a “war” election (maybe we want the same party to stay in charge)?
He concludes: “So what will dominate: War or change? My sense is that war trumps everything. And so, despite the Bush Administration’s problems, if I had to bet, I would put my money (nervously) on a hawkish Republican over a dovish Democrat in 2008.”
Kristol says all of this hurts Hillary Clinton, as she doesn’t seem like much of a “change.” Barack Obama does have that, and is”just about the perfect candidate for a change election. But not for a war election.” And this will be, in the end, all about war.
He admits that sometimes a a party loses the White House during a war — witness the Democrats in ’52 and in ’68. But he counters: In both those cases the more hawkish candidate (Eisenhower and Nixon) won. He points out that despite Bush’s problems, and the need for change, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain are both running ahead of Democrats in most polls.