It's worth saying that if a month ago, Team Obama had said their plan was to win out of the two first states and go from there, I think people would have considered that a prudently optimistic plan for victory. The temptation to massively overreact to the last thing that happened is something I warned about during the Iowa-NH interregnum, and the same is true today. In an election where most Democrats think there's more than one candidate in the field who could make a good nominee, I think we should expect to see a lot of volatility.
« Clinton Wins | Main | That's Spanish for "Endorse Me In Nevada" »
Perspective
08 Jan 2008 10:40 pm
Comments (61)
Now we get to see if Clinton can reach 50% on 2/5 and shut the race down. I don't think she'll be able to.
Every instinct I have tells me we're looking at a long race.
Mark down March 4th on your calendar. It's going to be an important day.
Yep, we have a bona fide race now. Obama was down 15 points in NH just a few weeks ago. He got a big initial bounce out of Iowa, which then deflated a bit in the last few days. But it was still a big net plus.
The Obama campaign has to do a better job with Clinton's war and national security record. Bill and Hill went around the state lying shamelessly about their stance on the war over the past few days. Obama has to start to call them on it.
I hope the Democrats realize that they won't get this kind of turn-out in the general with Clinton as their candidate. You people will simply not show up to vote for a candidate who wanted to ban Grand Theft Auto, and functions as the servant of the Credit Card companies.
The New Hampshire Democratic party just committed suicide. Good luck trying to beat the Republicans in an election where the average age of a voter is 59. I won't vote for her, and I don't know anyone under the age of 40 who will either.
I don't think you can dismiss the Wilder effect entirely, especially among older voters, given the size of the discrepency. But there would be a lot of interesting questions for those who want to obsess over these things: how many women decided in the last two days? Did Edwards underperform among women? (Put those two together: did women switch from Edwards to Clinton in the last 24 hours?)
The "independents switched to McCain when it looked like an Obama blowout" theory would also be interesting to test. I guess we'd want to look at how many voters switched to McCain in the last 48 hours.
I won't vote for her, and I don't know anyone under the age of 40 who will either.
Really? I think you need to get out more. I'd prefer Obama or Edwards, but I'd happily vote for HRC over these Republican contenders and know plenty of people under 40 who feel the same way.
So, Petey, is Edwards dropping out now?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: don't discount regionalism.
Obama won a neighboring state to his own. Clinton won a neighboring state to her own.
Young*
I think Matt is right that most Democrats will vote for Hillary Clinton.
I won't. But my views may be ideosyncratic. The base of the party obviously has no problem with her, despite the war vote (which I find to be unmitigated evil) and the Clintons' conservative record.
Congratulations to her. She's got the money and the organization behind her and is the probable nominee after tonight's comeback. She can call herself the "Comeback Kid", just like Bill did.
"So, Petey, is Edwards dropping out now?"
So Al, is Giuliani ever going to finish in the top 3?
you spin with the best of them...are you on Obama's staff?
Petey, that would be OK with me; I vote in Ohio in March and haven't cast a meaningful primary vote since my first one 24 years ago.
I think this is mostly a bad day. Aside from it being terribly disillusioning for black Democrats, and aside from my refusal to cast any vote in November for a pro-war candidate, Hillary vs. McCain or even Hillary vs. Huckabeee would make Bush vs. Gore look like the epitome of media fairness by comparison.
Why the long faces?
Did you feel entitled to victory?
Hillary is inevitable, and you may as well accept it.
New Hampshire Democrats-- what racists.
I think Obama should cry like the Indian in the 70's TV commercials-- it worked wonders for Hill. That's all it takes to get the women to pull the lever.
I didn't mean it as a slam - but, look, Clinton's got to be favored again, right? Obama could use a transforming event in the race, and one of the few left left I can think of is when Edwards drops out.
Petey, are you sure that HRC is identified as a northeasterner in the popular mind? I think of her as a midwesterner (that voice is hard to ignore) or the Arkansas first lady, and a New Yorker tertiarily. I don't think New Hampshirites think "she's one of us".
Really? I think you need to get out more. I'd prefer Obama or Edwards, but I'd happily vote for HRC over these Republican contenders and know plenty of people under 40 who feel the same way.
Posted by Matthew Yglesias | January 8, 2008 10:50 PM
Thank you, thank you, thank you for taking a stand against echo chamber think. Use of polls does have many downsides, as we have seen tonight, but replacing them with "all my friends were going to vote for him/her" or "everyone on the blogs I go to hated him/her" is a few more step backwards from that, one that I have frustratingly watched happen two times now, ala "everyone I know hated George Bush" therefore, it must be a conspiracy."
So, if Hillary and Huckabee get the nominations, will the majority of Dems vote for the latter, while the majority of Repubs vote for the former?
"I think this is mostly a bad day."
Of course. The prime objective of the Democratic Party in this nomination race is to move beyond the Clintons, and today is not a step in that direction.
But again, this looks like a long race to me.
Some of the victimization cards that Clinton effectively played in the last 72 hours of the race don't necessarily help her in the long-term of the nomination race.
I still think she has trouble consolidating the Party.
-----
The GOP is going to have a long race because they've got no good candidates. The Dems are going to have a long race because we've got too many good candidates.
At this point is there any reason for any of the three to drop out before Feb 5th? Unless Edwards has money problems, I don't see it. Edwards will stay until at least South Carolina on Jan 26. and Florida is just three days after that. And then were one week away from the big day.
Edwards just announced again that he is on until the Convention, with 48 more states to go. I suspect the campaign is more likely to return to its origins with a style more like a national / local organizing drive.
Also, I don't think Hillary Clinton would beat John McCain.
"Clinton's got to be favored again, right?"
That's what Intrade says.
"Obama could use a transforming event in the race, and one of the few left left I can think of is when Edwards drops out."
It seems reasonably clear to me that if Edwards dropped dead tomorrow morning that Clinton's path to the nomination would be substantially easier. If you let Clinton have the beer-track and the older voters to herself, she's unstoppable.
Petey, it's not basketball, and you don't get to run 5 v. 5. It's mano a mano (o mano a mujer), and McCain lines up just fine against Hillary.
Edwards has no reason to drop out before South Carolina, but if he finishes third (and there's no reason to think he won't) after winning there in 2004, I don't know how he plausibly goes on.
The GOP is going to have a long race because they've got no good candidates. The Dems are going to have a long race because we've got too many good candidates.
Posted by Petey | January 8, 2008 11:03 PM
Petey, on that, see this Charlie Cook from 1/8 if you haven't already: The Enthusiasm Gap
(I am bummed out he stopped posting the National Journal pieces a week later on his website, he used to do that, this one is a republish by someone else.)
Most Democrats WILL vote for Clinton. However, she doesn't need MOST of them to vote for her. She needs 90+% of the Democratic party now, and she needs turn out to be decent.
I think we just massively depressed the black vote in the general election, and I know for a fact that we just gave up any hope for a real youth participation in the next general. Nominating Hillary is insanity.
It's easy to see her losing to Huckabee running an anti-corporate campign; and it's easy to see her getting the shit kicked out of her by McCain. She's running a gender based campaign now, and that makes McCain extremely dangerous in the general election.
I think today should destroy any notion that the futures markets have any predictive ability. They seem entirely reactionary to me. See Daniel Gross's article in Slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2181745/
"Petey, on that, see this Charlie Cook from 1/8 if you haven't already"
Thanks for the link.
I don't really agree with the Al Hunt take, though. I think this year is a bit like '92 in that a long nomination race won't hurt.
We're looking at a re-aligning year, and more politics than usual is necessary.
If you let Clinton have the beer-track and the older voters to herself, she's unstoppable.
Huh. I'd have thought the opposite - that Edwards and Obama are fighting for Netroots and other wine track voters. I guess I am under the impression that you've got Clinton and not-Clinton, and consolidating the not-Clinton vote would be paramount for the not-Clinton supporters, which seems to be most of the commenters.
Of course, Matt is right. We ARE overreacting to this a bit. This was a VERY favorable electorate for an older white woman. she's going to have a much harder time winning in a lot of states with Edwards splitting the old white vote with her.
"I think today should destroy any notion that the futures markets have any predictive ability. They seem entirely reactionary to me."
Jesus. Someone ought to write a FAQ. The futures markets are a concise aggregation of the CW at any given moment, no more and no less.
The problem, MY and others, is that Hillary will drive Republican turnout in a way that no one else will. She is--I'd argue--the worst general election candidate in the field.
"One of the greatest political upsets in history!"
Really, Tim Russert? REALLY?
What did Obama do to win Iowa: run to the right and win the independents.
What did Clinton do to win NH: run to the right and win independents.
For the most part all of the upcoming primaries are closed so running to the right to attract independents should not work in theory.
With apologies to Edwards who has been there all along, I will vote for whichever of the two winners decides to run to the left in the lead up to February 5.
"Huh. I'd have thought the opposite - that Edwards and Obama are fighting for Netroots"
Edwards owns the netroots, because they're ideological. Obama owns the kids. It's an RFK/McCarthy breakdown, with Clinton as Humphrey.
"I guess I am under the impression that you've got Clinton and not-Clinton, and consolidating the not-Clinton vote would be paramount for the not-Clinton supporters, which seems to be most of the commenters."
My bolding. Low education downscale Dems are not big commenters around here.
Seriously, (and I'm sure I'm reiterating), if Obama had come in a close second (37 to 39%) in both Iowa and New Hampshire, the media would now be annointing him as the likely nominee. But the media isn't very good at statistics; they're good at filing by deadline.
As an empirical economist, I'm hard-pressed to qualify Obama's result tonight as anything other than a "win". Clinton ought to have just *owned* this; yet she didn't.
Hypothesis: It's only the Iowa upset that's obscuring perceptions. Obama clearly outperformed relative to anyone's expectations taken as of more than a week ago. We should expect more of the same.
Humphrey won the nomination (although RFK wasn't around to contest at the convention, McCarthy was). And Mondale beat Hart, and Gore beat Bradley, and Kerry beat Dean. For all the talk about the Democrats being the wild-and-crazy guy party, the establishment candidate almost always wins.
By "wins," of course, I'm referring to stuff prior to November.
Of course. The prime objective of the Democratic Party in this nomination race is to move beyond the Clintons, and today is not a step in that direction.
That's what it is for me too Petey. I really can't believe Democrats want to go back to the 90's. Surely after the experiences of the past few years we've gotten beyond the DLC phase of Democratic Party history. How can we possibly nominate another member of the DLC leadership team?
And is it really possible that after seven years of knashing of teeth and rending of garments over a disastrous foreign policy and a murderous, stupid war, foreign policy goes right out the window? I have remained frustrated in talking to people in New Hampshire how many people know close to zero about her foreign policy record. Some really buy her buncombe about voting for the war in order to give Bush leverage to force Saddam to knuckle under, despite four succeeding years of uncompromising Bush-lite Middle East hawkishness. Some others actually think she voted against the war! They're no better than the wingers who think Saddam was behind 9/11.
It sickens me that we might end up again with that shameless lip-biting demagogue and his phony pandering, lobby-loving partner back in the White House. They've been lying to people their whole lives, and they might get away with it again.
And at 39 to 36, both candidates receive 8 delegates if I'm not mistaken.
This will make South Carolina that much sweeter. Instead of waiting around to see if they get to vote for Obama at all, they can actually win this thing for him. That ought to be a motivator.
Sometimes the lesser of two evils is so terrible that it doesn't really matter to you who wins. Hillary is that kind of evil. Sure, if you care mostly about Abortion, Gays rights, and all that bullshit the Democratic and Republican use to keep people from noticing that they're both fucking us over.
So no, I don't give a flying fuck if Hilly is only 78% scum when john McCain is 94% scum. I'd rather have a Republican scumbag than a Democratic one, because than their scumbaggery will only reflect poorly on the Republican party. IF we elect a pro-war, pro-business, anti-worker hack then the Democratic party doesn't deserve my vote, and no amount of scaremongering is going to change that. I don't care if Hillary will fuck over 4% less of the population than john McCain. I want a candidate that is on my side.
A little healthy competition among backers of two fine candidates is one thing, but commenters here and on so many sites seem to be focused on trashing the other Democratic candidate, especially Hillary. That seems to me to be a rather self-indulgent exercise, forgetting what's really important. The Dems have a slate of good candidates and this process out to winnow out who is best. But let's not go "circular firing squad" on this. We should always keep in mind the big picture-- winning in November.
Several factors: 1) women probably did react to the tearing-up moment, 2) remember that until very recently Hillary was streets ahead in New Hampshire, so it is not clear that (leaving aside the recent hyped polls) Obama did not, in fact, do pretty well, 3) The north-east may be closer to Hillary's NYC "base", as so tend to be more in her favour, much as Iowa is closer to Illinois, 4) McCain probably did pull away a number of independents, especially given his long-standing relationship with New Hampshire.
I think that 2 is clearly true, when one looks at overall polls and trends for the last couple of months. 3 may have played a part, although I am inclined to discount it somewhat. On the night I would guess that 4, and, more important, 1, made the difference. If this analysis stands, I would guess that Clinton will continue her drift down, since 1 and 4 will probably not have the same force in future (unless she manages to weep convincingly in multiple states on Super Tuesday). Given the importance of the black vote in the south, I still think Obama will come out of Super Tuesday looking more like the nominee than Hillary. If Edwards quits, I would guess Obama will be the gainer by quite a big margin, especially since Edwards has made it clear which of them he prefers. In sum, I anticipate a pretty solid victory for Obama in South Carolina. After that, probably another pretty solid victory in Super Tuesday, although Clinton will scrape out some wins. The big question seems to be how long Edwards wants to play an obviously losing hand, and how long we waste time on Richardson (and Kucinich and Gravel). My guess is that Edwards will quit after South Carolina, and most likely throw his support to Obama - which will make the big difference.
Perhaps this is the best explanation for the Hillary victory. We all know the corporatists want a Democratic nominee in their pocket, and I think they've pulled out all the stops to get it.
To reiterate: headlines aside, a 2% "win" is not a win. In a small population, that's pretty much a dead heat.
"Clinton's got to be favored again, right?"
That's what Intrade says.
Gosh, the predictive force of markets in knowing what's going to happen an hour ago.
"commenters here and on so many sites seem to be focused on trashing the other Democratic candidate, especially Hillary"
That's because we don't want Senator Clinton to be the Democratic nominee.
That's because we don't want Senator Clinton to be the Democratic nominee.
Yup.
She's really the only one who I think could lose.
"We should always keep in mind the big picture-- winning in November."
No, the "Big Picture" is who's going to be up for a war in 2009.
And Hillary unfortunately is a front runner Democratic candidate for that position - the position of war monger and AIPAC toady.
So even if she beats the Republicans - and it isn't certain that she even can, no matter what loser those morons produce as a candidate - the real question is how bad a President is she going to be.
She babbled yesterday during her crying jag about how this country is "falling back".
Yeah, falling back into the hands of the same corrupt war-mongering politicians that were running things before the current set of corrupt war-mongering politicians.
It's not all about November.
Obama has his own problems, specifically he's clueless about Iran and Pakistan. But he's better than Clinton in that respect, to some small degree. And he's clearly at least minimally better than Clinton on Iraq.
2008 is not the issue. 2009 and beyond is.
Maybe in the end this will be better for the Dem nominee, especially Obama. Had he killed HRC off tonight, and simply languished for the next 8 months, he would've been exposed to the GOP swift-boating machine for that much longer all by his lonesome. And people might've tired of him, or had buyer's remorse, or simply lost interest in the whole damn thing. Maybe he or Hillary (uggh) will emerge from a protracted nomination battle a lot stronger and a lot less isolated than they would have otherwise.
That reminds me... Does anyone know what our beloved President is up to these days, while the nation pays him absolutely no attention?
Could we drop the 'racist Dems support Clinton' meme.
Clinton has a fair amount of "traditional" African American support and does well with older voters of all races. http://www.palmbeachpost.com/state/content/state/epaper/2007/12/24/m1a_BLACKDEMS_1224.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004111161_blacks07.html
Obama is not the favorite among all segments of black America. Some of the harshest criticism of Obama has come from African-American writers/bloggers.
Obama and a swift-boating machine? I had NO IDEA that Obama served with John Kerry in Vietnam.
Good point, monique. I've heard criticism from elements of the African-American establishment that "Obama is not so much an African-American running for president as he is an African running to be the American President". FWIW.
...Obama is not the favorite among all segments of black America. Some of the harshest criticism of Obama has come from African-American writers/bloggers.Posted by monique | January 9, 2008 12:09 AM
Funny you should mention this Monique, because a little bird that knows South Carolina well told me tonight, before NH results came in, that Obama is in for a surprise if he thinks the black vote there is going to get all enthusiastic over him. I just took it as another opinion to consider, but now I have yours.
Soullite: "I want a candidate that is on my side."
Good luck.
Note: 1) People who call themselves independents are really Republicans -- and will overwhelmingly vote for McCain if he's the nominee; 2) The Doug Wilder factor -- if it is one -- is compounded in this case by Obama's youth and relative inexperience (poll tonight showed that he lost big in the "experience" category in both Iowa and NH, although he won in the "change" category in both). When people get into the voting booth, these concerns come to the fore; 3) Historically, the youth of this country don't vote. For some reason, they have tons of time to go to rock concert-like rallies, but can't spare 15-45 minutes to actually get to a voting booth on election day. Maybe it doesn't seem as "cool" an activity -- definitely is not as social as hanging out at a rally with friends or conversing with people on blogs.; 4) Getting an endorsement from Bill Bradley is like a death knell to one's election chances (I believe Al Gore got Bill Bradley's endorsement as well); 5) The NH primary is much more representative of how the country votes (at least in most primaries) than the Iowa caucuses. In terms of absolute numbers, Hillary has gotten more votes overall over the last week than Obama (because so few people caucus); 6) Politics is local, politics is retail, politics is about loyalty, politics is about organization, politics is about money, politics is about the economy most of all (as James Carville figured out -- BTW, he's back with the Clinton campaign); 7) I think Hillary's speech tonight was the best she's ever given -- when she said she listened to NH voters, and she found her voice, I actually teared up. When she ended it saying she was going to fight for the American people, I started cheering -- I want to fight, not unite!! If I hear Obama talk about the founding fathers anymore, I'm going to throw up! We have to deal with the here and now, especially with an economy that is (and has been) hurting a lot of regular people (polls showed Hillary getting many more votes from blue collar voters and single women, as opposed to the PhD'S and parent-supported students who are so enamored with BO). It's Hillary Clinton's time this time around, not Obama's. Women in this country -- particularly the older ones like me -- are going to make that happen. Matt -- kudos to you for telling everyone to keep their outsized expectations in check. There's still a long road ahead for all the candidates and a lot can happen. Remember, if Sen. Allen hadn't said the word "macaca" in the summer of '06, we'd still be dealing with a Republican Senate.
Note: 1) People who call themselves independents are really Republicans -- and will overwhelmingly vote for McCain if he's the nominee; 2) The Doug Wilder factor -- if it is one -- is compounded in this case by Obama's youth and relative inexperience (poll tonight showed that he lost big in the "experience" category in both Iowa and NH, although he won in the "change" category in both). When people get into the voting booth, these concerns come to the fore; 3) Historically, the youth of this country don't vote. For some reason, they have tons of time to go to rock concert-like rallies, but can't spare 15-45 minutes to actually get to a voting booth on election day. Maybe it doesn't seem as "cool" an activity -- definitely is not as social as hanging out at a rally with friends or conversing with people on blogs.; 4) Getting an endorsement from Bill Bradley is like a death knell to one's election chances (I believe Al Gore got Bill Bradley's endorsement as well); 5) The NH primary is much more representative of how the country votes (at least in most primaries) than the Iowa caucuses. In terms of absolute numbers, Hillary has gotten more votes overall over the last week than Obama (because so few people caucus); 6) Politics is local, politics is retail, politics is about loyalty, politics is about organization, politics is about money, politics is about the economy most of all (as James Carville figured out -- BTW, he's back with the Clinton campaign); 7) I think Hillary's speech tonight was the best she's ever given -- when she said she listened to NH voters, and she found her voice, I actually teared up. When she ended it saying she was going to fight for the American people, I started cheering -- I want to fight, not unite!! If I hear Obama talk about the founding fathers anymore, I'm going to throw up! We have to deal with the here and now, especially with an economy that is (and has been) hurting a lot of regular people (polls showed Hillary getting many more votes from blue collar voters and single women, as opposed to the PhD'S and parent-supported students who are so enamored with BO). It's Hillary Clinton's time this time around, not Obama's. Women in this country -- particularly the older ones like me -- are going to make that happen. Matt -- kudos to you for telling everyone to keep their outsized expectations in check. There's still a long road ahead for all the candidates and a lot can happen. Remember, if Sen. Allen hadn't said the word "macaca" in the summer of '06, we'd still be dealing with a Republican Senate.
Lisa, without being unkind, it is impossible to imagine that McCain would not wallop Clinton handily in a Presidential contest. You forget how much the Clinton name would energize the Republican base, and how many progressive democrats regard her as a tainted centrist for whom they have little enthusiasm. Secondly, New Hampshire is notoriously not typical, precisely because of its genuinely independent bloc of voters. No, they are NOT essentially or reliably Republican, or the Dems would never win New Hampshire. Remember that registered independents are the largest bloc of voters in that state. The Wilder factor hardly explains anything about New Hampshire - unless you think that Iowans are more honest and less implicitly racist? Yes, Hillary will fight - and lose, as she has lost on every major issue she has ever touched. What actaully happened in New Hampshire was more that Obama did remarkably well, considering how consistently New Hampshire favoured Clinton until the last few days. A win for her by 2 per cent there is not impressive in that context. I respect your loyalty to Clinton, but she has a very mixed record, is deeply detested by many Americans, and simply has no realistic chance of winning the Presidency. She has spent too long calculating and compromising to win anything but disdain from the Republicans, and mistrust from the Independents - and it is the last bloc that are crucial in the big race.
Lisa: "We have to deal with the here and now, especially with an economy that is (and has been) hurting a lot of regular people..."
And if Hillary starts a war with Iran, and the oil price spike and China dumping the dollar in retaliation crashes the economy, who do you think is going to be hurt?
AIPAC? The war profiteers that made the campaign contributions to her? The oil companies?
Get a clue. Foreign policy is CRITICAL today for the future of the US security and economy. And Hillary is wrong on just about every foreign policy issue. She may not be as bad as that loon Giuliani, but she's going to end up in the same place because her basic premises and her entanglements with the wrong people are incorrect.
We're already on the verge of a severe recession in this country. If the wrong candidate gets elected in 2008, by 2009 this country's economy could be headed into the worst recession in US history - because of bad foreign policy, not bad domestic policy.
Two days ago I was ready to jump on the Obama bandwagon too, if he ended up being the Democratic nominee. I felt that if that's the way large numbers of people were feeling, then I'd go with it (especially since I'd been going back and forth between the two of them for one year). However, I came to the conclusion that on Feb. 12th in the Virginia primary, I was still going to vote for Hillary Clinton, even if she was still behind in the polls, because I felt that I just could not pull the voting lever at that time for someone that young and inexperienced (that's what my gut was saying, whether or not it's true). I also felt that if the Democratic nominee is Obama, that he was going to need all the help he could get, because people may like change in theory, but it's hard for them to deal with it in reality. I just look at my experiences here in Virginia, a purple state. Jim Webb won against racist George Allen with only 8,000 votes. Tester won out west with less than 1000 votes. Think about Obama versus McCain or even Romney. The contrast in age and years of experience is striking. Maybe it's the agism in me. Obama is going to need literally every single Democrat vote in this country and a large number of other people willing to go for major change (literally and figuratively) to pull off a win. If he's the nominee because people like him, then let's go with it, but winning the general election in my view will be an incredible uphill battle. For some reason, my old, middle age woman's gut is telling me that Hillary (while apparantly intensely disliked in many quarters, although not last night!) would not have quite the same uphill battle. Maybe because she's already more battle-scarred. Remember, being a Democrat in the latter 20th Century, the only Democratic presidential candidate I ever voted in 27 years that actually won was Bill Clinton. Since I began voting in 1980 (I'm dating myself). Think about that.
@Lisa
We'll I certainly respect your choices, but for me it will come down to the group of uncommitted independents. They really are the pivotal vote, especially in the purples states you mention. Frankly, I can't see Hillary getting them into her column, partly because of the personal dislike issue (which is not going to go away), and partly because, in the last analysis, Hillary actually has no significant achievements to point to in legislative terms, despite her claims of experience. Her resume essentially reads: White House - 8 years. Key achievement - denial of husband's adulteries. Key memory - abyssmal healthcare failure. Senator - 8 years. Key achievement - winning two races in generally Democratic New York. Key memory - voting for the Iraq war. This simply is not much to throw into the scales, whether you are prepared to disregard the personality issue or not. What happens if she faces e.g. McCain (war record, known appeal to independents, sponsorship of campaign reform, opposition to torture etc)? I am a pretty vehement Democrat - and if I can see these things as an issue, I am pretty sure the Republicans will exploit them mercilessly. If you want one candidate to bring out the Republican base, then that person is Hillary. Obama starts with a good personal record, is well-respected in Illinois, has a clean record on Iraq, despite Bill Clinton's contemptible smear tactics. He is a much better speaker than Clinton, would bring out the independents and moderates, and genuinely offers a fresh start. To me, the choice is not a difficult one. Hillary's battle scars are mostly self-inflicted (allegations of conspiracy, arrogance in the White House, defending the chronically dishonest Bill Clinton), and have not produced much change, achievement, or anything but mockery by the Republicans. Finally, do you really want to run a candidate who can now be pilloried as "the crying woman who can't take the heat"? Imagine what the Republicans can make of that ignominious moment? It turns off Democratic men, and won't attract Republican women. I wish I didn't feel this way, but to me there is no way Hillary is electable.
Comments closed January 22, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
It's over. The Clinton borg has won.
Posted by blah | January 8, 2008 10:45 PM