Hilary's back! It was premature to count her out, and I agree with Paul the Regular Guy that abortion is a huge issue for Democratic activists who turn out for primaries. Hilary Clinton raising that issue against Obama may well explain her resurgence. But also: Clinton had "the Machine"--meaning she may well have done a better job on getting out the vote. And, maybe some women voters realized if they didn't vote for Hilary this time, she was on her way out. Finally, some are speculating about the "Wilder Effect"--referring to how the former governor of Virginia, Douglas Wilder, who was the first black governor of the Old Dominion, polled way better than his actual election results; the inference being that people will tell a pollster they will vote for the African-American candidate, but they don't actually pull the lever for him.
What about Hilary's tears? I don't care to accuse Hilary of calculation (since everyone else has, what can I add?), but I do think they help her. When you are routinely called "Ice Queen," "Iron Maiden," and "Lady MacBeth," among the nicer epithets, maybe you can afford a little softening.
Again, I wonder which the GOP would rather oppose, Obama or Clinton? My question for you: if you knew the Democrats would win the White House, which would you rather see get it, of these choices?
McCain's Back! This is truly remarkable, but it tells me how weak the GOP field is. At this point, it's a three-man race; Thompson hasn't done anything yet, but we'll see if he has any juice in South Carolina; ditto for Giuliani in Florida. Meanwhile, Ron Paul, the happy warrior, is right where he wants to be.
14 comments:
Thanks for the link, Father!
To answer your question, if I absolutely had to choose between Clinton and Obama, speaking as an Illinoisan, I'd choose Clinton. I think that as bad as she is, Obama would be even worse.
I find myself oddly grateful to live in a state in which the primary elections will be followed by a period of penance, fasting, abstinence and almsgiving.
Don't really understand american politics..hey don't understand English ones either!
Mrs Parkes:
Well, this broad-brush, but try this on:
The U.S. basically has the Big Business party vs. the Big Labor/Big Government party. For various reasons, our system makes a third party almost impossible, so these two parties have to form coalitions to win.
Big Business tries to bring along small business, and also certain religious folks, while Big Labor/Government brings along trial lawyers and the sexual-liberty crowd: contraception, abortion and "alternative lifestyles." To the extent blacks or Hispanics see themselves needing unions or government, they tend Democratic.
The Big Business party also likes to use government, and has been trying, lately, to out-Big Government the Big Government party; and it worked for awhile, but now its going badly. (Bush proposed new entitlements and goodies, but the Democrats always just up the ante.)
Currently, the Big Business party is more activist in foreign affairs, but that can change, and I expect it will change as soon as the Big Labor/Government party gets back in; both, currently, favor bigger government, just in different ways.
Since the Big Labor party has, as its major component government unions, then it has more of vested interest in government growth than the Big Business party; also, the Big Labor party sees long-term growth in promising government giveaways in order to bind voting groups to their party.
Hence the idea that it's politically disastrous to talk about limiting social security, even as everyone acknowledges its unsound on its present course.
Not all candidates fit perfectly into this paradigm; Ron Paul (nominally Republican) especially, which is why both parties hate him. Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat, is an ill-fit, but to a much lesser degree.
In my judgment, both only care about parts of the Constitution, and less than they'd have you think.
I am, unlike most of your readers, absolutely in favor of Obama -- he is articulate, calm and reasonable. He comes with none of the baggage that a Clinton Restoration would bring along with it. Leaving aside his regrettable position on abortion, he is the candidate with the platform I most agree with. I have no intention of supporting any of the Republicans, save perhaps for McCain if he faces off aginst Clinton.
Running against HRC is ideal.
And, Father, your Hudge/Gudge commentary is echoed by George Neumayr in the Amer. Spectator--albeit he's on a different course, discussing Huckabee.
Putting aside the abortion question I would have to agree that Clinton would be my choice over Obama. As bad as she is CLinton, like her husband is a slightly to left moderate. She is likely to take a hard line in foreign policy, just to prove she isn't a push over. Obama has no foreign policy experience, nor very much experience of any kind. He went to top drawer universities, did a stint in the consulting business, which lasted only a couple of years and worked for a Ralph Nader founded public research group. He is a real left wing liberal who has never been in an executive position. His politics are left wing. He is even more divisive than Clinton, and that's saying much.
Dad29:
What's "hudge/grudge" mean?
Also an Illinoisan here. I came after Obama's election. I thought he was Irish (like "O'Rielly") before I saw his photos. (I was living in NoVa). Putting aside abortion, amnesty for illegal aliens and socialized medicine which both espouse, Obama worries me on national security and reparations or other increased transfer payments to poor, primarily nonwhite. He also would seem hard to beat as he's some rock star or the new MLK. Hillary, I just really dislike. I don't want the Clintons (plural) back in power, nor their marital melodrama on center stage. [BTW, Rudy provides no relief from that.] She may or may not do better in foreign policy; that would be an issue of temperament.
If Dems win:
My Insane Conclusion: Obama. He is able to negotiate in domestic politics, whereas Hillary is not. He's the post-boomer candidate.
"Hudge" and "Gudge" were G K Chesterton's terms for "Big Gummint" and "Big Business"
Unfortunately, I can't recall which was which.
I have to confess, as a Canadian, I just don't understand this primary stuff. What's the point? Does it happen in every state, or just in a few, and if just a few, why those few?
I would perfer Hillary, because she'd be much easier to beat. If only for the "get out the Republican vote" factor and the fact that she can't comment on the ethics of any Republican candidate as might Obama.
I want her to get beaten either in the primary or the general in a way that will ruin her politically so we won't have to deal with her as the junior senator from New York any more.
Doesn't have anything to do with election, but since clinton is from NYC, thought I would put this up for comment...
Vocations video in NYC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dZsRK8soy4
Also shown in worldly version on The Anchoress at
http://theanchoressonline.com/
scroll down to under TGIF: Stand up at your desk and dance! great vocation video...
Obama. He's a wet behind the ears jerk, but the Hildabeast is pure evil and on no account is that scum sucking riffraff to be allowed anywhere near the White House. That witch with a capital "B" is a danger to the Republic, and I mean that from the bottom of my heart. Hell should freeze over before that woman gets anything near the power grab that she wants. And Terry, have you been living under a rock? Those losers know a lot of "people who died in mysterious circumstances." They are a plague on the body politic. I don't call trying to control 1/7th of the economy --- with her attempt at a health care grab and nazi rule -- anything mildly approaching "moderate."
Mc Cain is a traitor and a backstabber. I am furious that the only real conservative, Duncan Hunter dropped out for lack of funds.
Post a Comment