Hillary compaign in disarray; Obama surging; Romney hated
(See John Hagan’s comment below about Obama’s popularity in New Hampshire and how it may help Romney.)
“The scope of Barack Obama’s victory in Iowa has shaken the Clinton machine down to its bolts,” writes Karen Tumulty in Time. Below is a selection from the L-dotters’ mostly gleeful responses to this news. (The one non-gleeful commenter thinks the Iowa loss is part of a deliberate strategy by the Hillary campaign to remove Hillary’s unappealing aura of inevitability.) If you want to get a full draught of campaign analysis, Real Clear Politics is chock full of interesting columns.
Reply 10—Posted by: Scout Finch, 1/5/2008 8:59:17 PM
Hmmmpf. I still say this is all part of the grand scheme to lose the “inevitable” moniker and look competitive. She still has the high national numbers PLUS the backing of the MSM. Those two things are a formidable force. And don’t forget the 1100 FBI files.
Hillary’s the one to beat in 2008. At the risk of sounding redundant.
Reply 39—Posted by: Dixie, 1/5/2008 11:00:40 PM
C’mon. Dick Morris was saying two weeks ago that the Clinton machine already knew Mrs. Clinton was going to lose Iowa, and probably New Hampshire. In fact, she was advised to withdraw, or not go into Iowa in the first place. Judgment mistake…and her loss could have been greater than they anticipated.
But Clinton is hardly down and out… no matter how much everyone (including Morris) wants to dance on her grave.
Reply 40—Posted by: ForNow, 1/5/2008 11:06:45 PM
The problem with the Dems is that they want to elect an experience, not a leader.
Reply 45—Posted by: OnTheBall, 1/5/2008 11:37:47 PM
#39 you are correct. Hillary was told months ago, to steer clear of Iowa! So like the true knucklehead she has always been, she forced a ‘no win’ situation, into a debacle. Travel-gate, file-gate, Livingstone-gate on and on, Hillary approaches what she sees as a ‘challenge to her position as a woman with power’ and turns them into huge defeats! Hillary is going to ‘doubledogdare’ the entire demo party into turning their backs against her or be called part of the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy”.
Reply 47—Posted by: nevernaught, 1/5/2008 11:42:23 PM
*Fundamentally, she is who she is; she can’t change who she is, and maybe this is not her time.*
Boy does that say it all. She’s dumpy, mean, clever but not overly smart, self centered without a knowledge of how normal Americans think and live. She’s a good example of what the Peter Principle is all about. Without her husband she was nothing, merely someone around to drag around and to tidy up his personal dirty laundry
Who thought up running on Bills record. He was impeached for heavens sake. He lied to the American people. He was disbarred and diddling around with your intern daughters. One would have to be naive to think that Monica was the only one. How many rapes and sexual assaults does he have on his record. What an experienced past to run on for a platform. That’s a record to run away from. Geesh she’s dumb.
LA comments:
I agree with the last comment. Voters aren’t interested in a candidate’s credentials, other than as a minimum threshhold. They’re interested in seeing someone who seems like the leader of the country. So, if it would be a mistake for a candidate with top-notch accomplishments and experience to make his experience the main reason to vote for him for president, how tone-deaf is it for a candidate to make her “experience” as the president’s wife the main reason to vote for her. As I said recently, wasn’t Hillary’s whole reason for getting elected to the U.S. Senate her need to acquire the independent political experience (independent of her husband that is) to present herself as a plausible presidential candidate? Instead, what does she do? She gets into the Senate for eight years, and runs for president based on her experience as First Lady. I think it’s just bizarre.
One of the articles currently linked at Real Clear Politics pointed out how when Bush the elder came in third in Iowa in 1988, he re-tooled himself in New Hampshire as a regular guy, and won. By contrast, the article continues, Hillary is giving exactly the same kind of policy-wonk-intensive speeches in New Hampshire that she gave in Iowa, where she did so poorly. This would tend to disprove the theory of Lucianne commenter No. 10 who says that Hillary’s Iowa debacle is part of a scheme to lose the “inevitable” label. If that were true, then Hillary has already lost the “inevitable” label and it is time for her to have her dramatic come-back in New Hampshire. But if she’s still using the same unappealing speeches in New Hampshire as in Iowa, that suggests that there is no such scheme in place.
- end of initial entry -
John Hagan writes:
I’ve seen a lot of campaigns in NH, but I have never seen the level of intensity, and crowd euphoria, that Obama is generating up here. I don’t know how he is going to play in other states, but it’s a very impressive campaign to watch on the ground. If this momentum carries on he’s going to be difficult to stop. NH has a 40% independent voting base, and from what I understand, at least two thirds of that voting block are leaning toward Obama.
This might work in Romney’s favor since McCain gets a lot of his support from NH independent voters. The only saving grace I see for Clinton right now is that besides the Nevada caucus, there is a two week break before the next big primary. She may be able to regroup, and his momentum may fade.
LA replies:
Mr. Hagan’s point about how the independent vote voing for Giuliani may drain independent votes from McCain and so help Romney is the first positive news I’ve heard for Romney in days. I’ve never seen such a unanimous piling on against a decent candidate before. The hyper quality of the attacks on him tells me that this is not about Romney’s actual flaws, which I myself have often discussed; there is something else going on here, , the desire to tear him down as the front runner, or as the conservative standard bearer, or just envy of someone who is rich, handsome, smart, religious, ethical, happily married, and has it all.
John Hagan replies:
I watched Romney get slaughtered in Massachusetts in the 1994 election against Senator Kennedy, and much of the vitriol directed at Mitt was of a highly personal nature. Mockery of his family, his marriage, his wealth, his religion. It was like his life was no longer considered “the norm” by the powers that be, or what an American family should aspire to be. There was no dysfunction. Just a man faithful to his wife and children all his life.
James W. writes:
Quite aside from the personal attacks mounted against Romney in 1994 and now, there are reasons to be very concerned about him. He took personal credit for the Universal Health Care plan passed in Massachussetts. He’s flipped on abortion and gun rights and responsibilities. Whoever the Republican might be in the White House, he will be in a sea of Democrats. Is this a man who knows how to say no for an entire term?
Hillary is looking better and better to me. She is so easy to dislike earnestly and honestly, she truly has a tin ear, and is unable to control her worst impulses because she doesn’t have any other kind. Her presidency would give greater clarity than any present Republican could provide. How long do we want to play keep-away in place of providing a powerful agenda? That is a losing game. Do we need more proof?
LA replies:
“Her presidency would give greater clarity than any present Republican could provide.”
I’ve made the same argument myself. I admit to being unclear in my own thought whether I would personally prefer Hillary or Obama to win the nomination. On one hand, I want the Clinton thing purged from the national life. On the other hand, the election of a non-white president would be a major step in weakening America’s majority identity and making it harder to defend it. On the other hand, Obama does not carry the Clintonite corruption and is personally likeable. On the other hand it doesn’t matter since they’re both socialists who would turn us into a European-type country. How many hands can a person have?
Here’s what I see as the best outcome: Obama beats Hillary and purges Clintonism. Then Romney beats Obama in November.
On the other hand, given the uncertainty of Romney’s conservatism, it may be better, as I’ve said many times in the context of the 2004 campaign and also of a possible Giuliani victory in ‘08, to have a leftist Democrat win, as that is the only thing that can possibly re-awaken the Republicans and conservatives against liberalism.
So I confess to not being sure about any of this. I keep trying to bring out different aspects of the campaign. But my working position is that Romney is the only acceptable and viable GOP candidate and that he should be defended against unfair attacks.
Alex H. writes:
I don’t envy Romney his wealth (or anything else), but I do strongly identify him with the Wall Street Journal/Chamber of Commerce crowd who tried to throw us under the bus by giving amnesty to illegal aliens. So if he now is experiencing, in reverse, the same sense of abandonment and contempt as that lavished upon conservatives by President Bush (“I’ll see ya at the bill signin’!”), I’m glad. [LA replies: This is not fair. Romney opposed last year’s bill, and he’s never expressed the kind of contempt for the American people on immigration and other race-related issues that Bush routinely expresses.] I know the arguments for voting against the other side—judicial appointments; avoidance of Stalinist government; a leader who sets a good example in his personal affairs [which I concede Romney does]—but none of it matters if the Presidential victor will not keep out the Third World horde.
FYI, here’s what we in Massachusetts now have to deal with, thanks to Romney’s health care “mandate”:
Tax form (note item 2. where you have to tell them your insurance policy number). Press release (penalty). Penalty.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 06, 2008 01:45 AM | Send