Publius Pundit

« Previous · Home · Next »

Democratic Doings in New Hampshire

Filed under: US Elections

Hillary%20Clinton.bmpNew Hampshire went to the polls to choose presidential candidates in the nation's first primary election yesterday. Hillary Clinton, just like her husband before her, became the "comeback kid" (she actually won, her husband only came in second in 1992, but still claimed victory in a classic bit of Slick Willy) and John McCain once again fueled the flames of hope that this nation might once again have a real foreign policy.

As an excellent analysis on Pajamas Media points out, many pundits (including William Kristol) were left with a bit of egg on their faces, having predicted Obama would be anointed in New Hampshire based on polling data that proved utterly false. Clinton squeaked by him 39-36. What these pundits failed to remember is that while Clinton may be weak, Obama may be even weaker. The American people have always demanded elected executive experience from their presidents since JFK (who didn't have it and didn't live out his first term), and Clinton is much more associated in the public mind with that kind of experience than Obama (which is not to say, of course, that her claims to it are legit -- as we've said before, they're inherently fraudulent and harmful to feminism, as was her recent bout of sobbing).

Don't forget: the last time the Democrats nominated a man without executive experience (John Kerry), they lost. The time before that they nominated a Veep, and they won (Gore took the popular vote, though getting edged out in the electoral college). You may say: What about Dukakis? He was a governor who lost. But he lost to a vice president, and the kicker is that it's much better to be a governor from a non-Northern state (Clinton, Carter, Bush). Northern credentials undermine the nominee, another point of vulnerability for both Obama and Clinton (as well as, of course, Giuliani and Romney, and a major factor explaining Huckabee's success).

Obama showed remarkable weakness last night. The polling errors in his favor only served to undermine the quality of illusion that surrounds him. He's an unqualified paper tiger, and nothing anyone says will change that. His fans repeatedly make reference to the quality of his oratory -- a telling indicator that there's little beneath the surface to praise. New Yorker editor David Remick wrote in a recent editorial:

After two thousand five hundred and thirty-nine days of the failed and benighted Administration led by George W. Bush, the victory of Barack Obama in Iowa last Thursday night -- and the embracing speech he delivered in Des Moines to celebrate -- was a thrillingly hopeful, and potentially transformative, moment in American political life. Obama distinguished himself in a talented field by pulling in young voters who normally disdain the ballot box and Republicans and Independents who normally disdain Democrats, and by offering an increasingly clear vision of a way out of the moral and policy depredations that have brought the national spirit to its lowest ebb in memory.

This is classic gibberish from a blathering liberal. Over 60% of Iowa voted against Obama. If he needs to rely on young voters and Republicans to win, his goose is cooked. There's no connection between pretty words and pretty policies, no matter how much the humanities gurus at the New Yorker might like to think otherwise. If they ran the country, we wouldn't even have got around to adding a 14th state.

Still, as commenter (and outlaw?) Josey Wales wrote our last post, the right has little to fear from Clinton either. JW stated: "I think Clinton would be easier to beat than Obama, but I'd rather not take that chance." He echoes the feeling that Clinton will, better than anyone, probably better than any Republican, mobilize the Republican base, which views her with seething contempt. With two governors and the mayor of the nation's largest city in the race, the Republicans have a strong staging ground against the Democrats, who are foolishly focusing on three Senators.

Moreover, it's obviously good news for Republicans that the Democrats have a horse race on their hands, as this will force the two candidates to savage each other and squander their precious financial resources, rather than unifying to go after the vulnerable Bush legacy. The Democrats have two fundamentally weak candidates fighting each other. That's got to make them feel comfy.

What was actually "thrillingly hopeful" was to see a true American hero like McCain fight back from the brink of elimination, holding out the possibility that we would see America stand up to the malodorous horror that is the neo-Soviet Union. But in the end, New Hampshire settles nothing. The state failed to correctly identify the Democratic nominee in 1992 (chose Tsongas), 1984 (chose Hart) and 1972 (chose Muskie). It failed to ID the Republican nominee in 2000 (chose McCain), 1996 (chose Buchanan) and 1964 (chose Cabot Lodge). In 2000, neither primary winner received a majority of the state's delegates, though both McCain and Kerry were close. The judgment of a state that would choose a lunatic like Pat Buchanan must be questioned, although the state did pick Muskie over the even loopier McGovern, who the nation actually nominated.

So maybe what's most thrilling of all is just to see American democracy in action. We rapidly move from West (Iowa) to East (New Hampshire) then North (Michigan) and South (Carolina). We include two different forms of voting at the outset (caucus and primary) and we vote to choose the candidates -- contrast this with the anti-democratic apocalypse that is today's Russia, where the people don't choose the candidates and there are no true rivalries among the parties. Never once in all of Russia's long history has an election passed power from one rival party to another, something America has done many times without national breakdown (indeed, we even did it during the midst of a civil war!). No matter which side of the fence you are on, you should stop and smile with pride a moment at the vibrancy of our national decision-making.

God bless America!

Social Bookmarking:
Del.icio.us this del.icio.us | digg this digg | Add to Technorati technorati | StumbleUpon Toolbar stumble upon | Furl this furl | Reddit this reddit

Comments


elmer says:

I don't see that there is all that much to be happy about for Hitlery-Billary.

She has been doing nothing except trying to fulfill a blindly ambitious grab for power now for the past 20 years.

This was supposed to be her coronation, she portrayed herself as the pseudo-incumbent (after all, according to her, she was "co-president") and all of the little people were supposed to bow down to the smartest woman on the planet, and accept the inevitable coronation.

But, as has become the popular phrase - the people made her evitable.

Along comes Obama, who is smarter than Billary, much more honest, and infinitely more likeable. Hitlery originally viewed Obama as just a nuisance, a sort of gnat.

The best-laid plans of mice and men oft gang aglay.

Hitlery and her so-called hubby, Slick, pulled out all of their best delusional slimy slickness to attack Obama, including a fiere and vicious media blitz lying about Obama's vote on the Iraq war.

Billary has nothing to be proud of in New Hampshire, other than the fact that she survived.


elmer says:

One more thing.

The pollsters make a mistake - and somehow this translates to some sort of "comeback" for Billary.

Seems to me that a virtual dead heat does not amount to any sort of a "comeback," but proof of Obama's strength.

And if the womenz in New Hampshire did indeed come out in droves for Billary just because she's a woman, than I have even more respect for the women in Iowa.

Because the women in Iowa didn't vote just based on whether Billary is a woman, and they saw through all that phoniness and blind ambition that is Billary.

The only thing I see is the Slick Hilly machine, which cares only for one thing - Slick Hilly-Willy.


David M says:

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 01/09/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.


elmer says:

In the upcoming Michigan primary, there was a disagreement between the national HQ of the Democrat party, and the state Democrats about the date of the primary.

The state Dems decided not to go along with the national Dems, so the national Dems "invalidated" all of the Michigan delegates.

Every Dem candidate pulled out of the Michigan primary, except one, as a result.

Can you guess which one? Yep, Slick Hilly.

If you want to vote for any other Dem candidate in Michigan, you have to mark "uncommitted" on the Michigan Dem ballot.

No doubt, the Slick Hilly machine will "claim victory" in Michigan.


elmer says:

In case anyone had any doubt, I do not like ol' Bobblehead Googoo Eyes.

Harpo Marx did the Googoo Eyes much better - and was better looking, too.

Saw a new slogan for Billary on another blog -

"Will cry for votes."


Vova says:

Ain't she ugly? Really, things are finally falling into place: a Mr. Nobody (albeit a nice guy) vs. Ms. Progressive Fascist. Ideal Democrat Party choice. None should have a rat's ass chance in a fair contest with a true American Hero.
On my penultimate day in the Russian hinterlands I cannot repeat the mostly politically incorrect comments on U.S. primaries heard on неподконтрольные (not under Kremlin conrol) media. Suffice it to say that an overwhelming majority of pundits and callers to Moscow Echo live shows think that the Georgians--unlike the Russians--were offered a real choice and that U.S. elections were exciting precisely because of their unpredictability. The putinoid drones think that the Georgian and U.S. societies are split (judging from the poll results) whereas the rooskies are solidly united behind their Fuhrer. Socially they are still in the stone age






Post a comment


(will not be published)



Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)




TrackBack

TrackBack URL: http://publiuspundit.com/mt/contages.cgi/582