January 8, 2008
The Granite State
Hillary! Who woulda thunk?
But it's good. It's now a race between Hillary and Obama, and Hillary & crew have the long knives out for the candidate of change. So it's sure to get messy.
The GOP is wide open with McCain's victory over Romney. Romney should have won New Hampshire easily, being from a neighboring state and spending as much as everyone else combined there.
I wonder if the Obama loss is not due to the media hype of his lead. In New Hampshire's open primary, independents might have said, "f*ck it, he's gonna win, I'll vote for McCain instead."
I've been split between Romney and Thompson, (who didn't even come to play in NH), so it's disappointing to see neither pull it out.
2008 Race Posted by AlexC at January 8, 2008 11:53 PM
I try to stay rational, but I really don't know how many more of Senator Clinton's victory speeches I can stand. I didn't know Terry McAuliffe was her campaign chair -- having him on TV was a pretty unwelcome sight.
Tactically, you're dead right, ac, let them both bloody each other up and spend their war chests on each other.
But please, please, please, don't let her win...
Posted by: jk at January 9, 2008 10:28 AMDon't let her win indeed, but Obama would be worse yet. At least Hillary said last night she would, "End the Iraq war the *right* way." B. Hussein O. said he would, "End the war immediately and bring our troops home where they belong."
I found it interesting that Edwards didn't mention Iraq at all in his speech: "There's no question about our goals. We need to work with the other nations of the world to address our common threats - terrorism and nuclear weapons, global warming and the environment, poverty and homelessness, and good paying jobs for every American." I'm paraphrasing slightly but it's frightening that terrorism and nuclear weapons didn't even rate their own sentence, without being lumped with the *horror* of hobos and hillbillies.
Posted by: johngalt at January 9, 2008 3:16 PMThere are a thousand quotes which support your point, jg. But here is where I leave the company of the "Rational Voter" (Bryan Caplan, call your office!)
One -- I think (surmise, assume, believe with no empirical evidence) that Senator Obama wants to "be President" (his Kindergartnal dissertation references this on page 27). Senator Clinton does not lack for ambition, but she has a track record of serious calls for collectivism that she cannot wait to establish. I envision an Obama presidency mirabile dictu as "Clinton 2.0:" some gridlock, some bipartisan initiatives, life goes on. An actual Clinton 2.0 would be a white knuckled endeavor to establish socialized medicine and the other 999,999 unaffordable ideas she once mentioned having.
Two -- Even more disconnected from reason, I just cannot watch and listen to Hill and Bill for another four to eight years. My Clinton fatigue dissipated on January 2001 and I looked back on the 90s fondly. Art Laffer brags that he voted for President Bill Clinton twice. That sounded sweet. Seeing and hearing those two, not to mention the reintroduction of the oleaginous Terry McAuliffe, and I JUST CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE [wipe back tear]I can't go back to that.
Three -- she might be better at national security, that’s the argument I always hear. But not better enough to matter -- either will follow the State Dept/U.N. line.
Posted by: jk at January 9, 2008 7:08 PM | What do you think? [3]