Thursday, January 31, 2008

Hillary Is Bill's Last Chance At A Legacy

Bill Clinton: Clawing for a Legacy
By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- Legacy? What legacy?

There was general amazement when (the now-muzzled) Bill Clinton did his red-faced, attack-dog, race-baiting performance in South Carolina. Friends, Democrats and longtime media sycophants were variously perplexed, repulsed, enraged, mystified and shocked that this beloved ex-president would so jeopardize his legacy by stooping so low.

What they don't understand is that for Clinton, there is no legacy. What he was doing on the low road from Iowa to South Carolina was fighting for a legacy -- a legacy that he knows history has denied him and that he has but one chance to redeem.

Clinton is a narcissist but also smart and analytic enough to distinguish adulation from achievement. Among Democrats, he is popular for twice giving them the White House, something no Democrat has done since FDR. And the bouquets he receives abroad are simply signs of the respect routinely given ex-presidents, though Clinton earns an extra dollop of fawning, with the accompanying fringe benefits, because he is (a) charming and (b) not George W. Bush.

But Clinton knows this is all written on sand. It is the stuff of celebrity. What gnaws at him is the verdict of history. What clearly enraged him more than anything this primary season was Barack Obama's statement that "Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that ... Bill Clinton did not."

The Clintons tried to use this against Obama by charging him with harboring secret Republican sympathies. It was a stupid charge that elicited only scorn. And not just because Obama is no Reaganite, but because Obama's assessment is so obviously true: Reagan was consequential. Clinton was not.

Reagan changed history. At home, he radically altered both the shape and perception of government. Abroad, he changed the entire structure of the international system by bringing down the Soviet empire, giving birth to a unipolar world of unprecedented American dominance.

By comparison, Clinton was a historical parenthesis. He can console himself -- with considerable justification -- that he simply drew the short straw in the chronological lottery: His time just happened to be the 1990s which, through no fault of his own, was the most inconsequential decade of the 20th century. His was the interval between the collapse of the Soviet Union on Dec. 26, 1991, and the return of history with a vengeance on Sept. 11, 2001.

Clinton's decade, that holiday from history, was certainly a time of peace and prosperity -- but a soporific Golden Age that made no great demands on leadership. What, after all, was his greatest crisis? A farcical sexual dalliance.

Clinton no doubt wishes he'd been president on 9/11. It is nearly impossible for a president to rise to greatness in the absence of a great crisis, preferably war. Theodore Roosevelt is the only clear counterexample, and Bill is no Teddy.

What is the legacy of the Clinton presidency? Consolidator of the Reagan revolution. As Dwight Eisenhower made permanent FDR's New Deal and Tony Blair institutionalized Thatcherism, Clinton consolidated Reaganism. He did so most symbolically with his 1996 State of the Union declaration that "the era of big government is over." And more concretely, with a presidency that only tinkered with such structural Reaganite changes as tax cuts and deregulation, and whose major domestic achievement was the abolition of welfare, Reagan's ultimate social bete noire.

These are serious achievements, but of a second order. Obama did little more than echo that truism. But one can imagine how it made Clinton burn. He is, after all, a relatively young man who has decades to brood over his lost opportunity for greatness and yet is constitutionally barred from doing anything about it.

Except for the spousal loophole. Hence his desperation, especially after Hillary's Iowa debacle, to rescue his only chance for historical vindication -- a return to the White House as Hillary's co-president. A chance to serve three, perhaps even four terms, the longest in history, longer even than FDR. The opportunity to have dominated a full quarter-century of American history, relegating the George W. Bush years to a parenthesis within Clinton's legacy.

It was to save this one chance, his last chance, to be historically consequential, that Bill Clinton blithely jeopardized principle, friendships, racial harmony in his own party and his own popularity in South Carolina.

Why not? Clinton knows that popularity is cheap, easily lost, easily regained. (See Lewinsky scandal.) But historical legacies are forever.

He wants one, desperately. But to get it he must return to the White House. And for that he must elect his wife. At any cost.

Why was he out of control in South Carolina? He wasn't. He was clawing for a second chance.

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

The Electability Factor

When it comes to presidential primaries, I’m what you call a strategic voter. What this means is that I cast my ballot, based on which one of the primary’s viable candidates is the best for the long-term prospects of the party.

For example, I am a Rudy Giuliani supporter. However, I believe that Giuliani will finish no better than third in Florida this evening and after that loss, he will cease to be viable in any way. Therefore, if I were voting in the Sunshine State, I would cast my ballot for John McCain who is currently polling even with Mitt Romney.

I like both of the GOP front-runners. I also have issues with both men. However, it appears that John McCain is the most electable of the remaining Republicans and first and foremost, I want a GOP victory in Novemeber.

Unfortunately, my primary is in Virginia on February 12. Things are likely to be wrapped up by then. My absentee ballot is on its way, just in case.

In 2004, I ordered an absentee ballot for the Virginia Democratic Primary. The plan was to cast a vote for Howard Dean in hopes that he would win the nomination, thus ensuring a general election landslide for President Bush in the fall. Of course, by the time the primary rolled around, John Kerry had the nomination locked up. That ballot is now carefully tucked away, a unique piece of Americana.

So as you can see, I’m not the only primary voter for whom electability is a top concern.

If John McCain wins Florida tonight, I believe the nomination is his. The momentum which he gains from a Florida victory will be nearly impossible for Romney to overcome on Super Tuesday, where he already trails McCain by double-digits in most of the big states.

If Romney pulls it off however, the GOP will have to seriously consider the general election appeal of all four of the major party candidates, one of whom will be the next President of The United States.

Here’s how I see it.

John McCain certainly has a chance of being elected president. GOP voters who are somewhat turned off by McCain’s positions on tax cuts, immigration and campaign finance reform will come home eventually. They will do so enthusiastically if faced with the prospect of a second Clinton presidency.

McCain will also likely nominate a very conservative Evangelical Christian as his running mate, brining the powerful voting bloc that put George W. Bush in the White House into the mix.

Finally, McCain will garner support from a significant number of independents who rightfully see the maverick as an individual who is not beholden to special interests and Washington partisanship, those political bogeymen which voters claim to hate so much.

Against Clinton, McCain would capture independents despite the fact that they are currently leaning towards the Democrats.

By contrast, it is my view that Mitt Romney would not be viable against Hillary Clinton in a general election.

His second place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire, states in which he spent an incredible amount of time and money, show us that folks have had a very hard time warming up to the former governor. He won Wyoming and Nevada where none of the other candidates campaigned and Michigan where he benefited from a family legacy.

In Florida, he is competitive only because so many conservatives have issues with McCain.

Romney comes across as over-polished and much like the Clintons, willing to say anything in order to win votes. You can do this in politics, but only if people don’t catch on. In this matter, Romney is transparent.

Romney’s faith also poses a potential problem. While open-minded individuals such as myself would have no problem voting for a Mormon candidate, I’m not confident that I can say the same for the rest of the electorate. Especially when Hillary’s surrogates begin equating Romney with his Mormon forefathers who had some beliefs and practices which the majority of Americans find repugnant. It’s not fair. But politics rarely is.

Despite Hillary Clinton’s high negatives and the viciousness with which she and her husband attack her opponents, her electability is an unfortunate political reality.

Women--espeically single women--will support her in large numbers even if many of them disagree with her politically.

The Clintons are experts at destroying their rivals. As her primary opponent is now learning, they do so by polarizing the nation along race, gender and economic lines,

Her political machine is so well oiled that she will make sure that every single person who is even considering casting a ballot for her will turn out at the polls, making it nearly impossible for her opponent to pick up a victory in any blue state in which she now leads. Once again, I expect her current opponent will learn this the hard way next Tuesday, when he runs up against her behemoth of a political machine.

If she can rein in her husband--who is becoming an increasing liability with the potential to turn off independents by reminding them of the partisanship and divisiveness which defined his presidency--she has a good chance of winning the election. Perhaps Al Gore was on to something in 2000

It’s to her credit that an individual as polarizing and as unauthentic as Mrs. Clinton still has a serious chance of becoming the leader of the free world.

So what about Barack Obama?

Democrats are so enamored of the golden boy’s charisma and speaking style that I don’t believe they have given a lick of thought to his prospects against a Republican in a general election.

I think he loses and it has nothing to do with the fact that he’s black, but rather due to the fact that he’s so green.

This is a candidate who is so inexperienced that it has enabled a woman with only slightly more “experience” to effectively run against him as the “experience candidate.”

John McCain would be able to bludgeon Obama as a political lightweight and create and atmosphere in which Obama’s rhetoric of “hope” and “change,” crumbles under the weight of real, proven leadership and nearly 30 years of political expertise.

Thus far, Obama has not been challenged much on his views, because he and Hillary essentially share the same ideological slant and are appealing to voters who agree with both of them on almost every issue.

Come summer, the GOP will have no problem whatsoever exposing Obama as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, because….well…that’s what he is. His meager voting record proves it. History shows us that if a candidate is perceived as being a true liberal, their chances of putting together a winning electoral coalition decrease dramatically.

Once Obama is forced to stake out positions and explain his votes on taxes, terror, immigration, abortion and homeland security, many independents who are now considering him as a candidate will run for the comparatively moderate hills of John McCain.

Finally, Democrats currently seem oblivious to the fact that Barack Obama has never had to take on anything even remotely resembling serious Republican opposition. What drives Democrats to believe that he is now prepared to take on the entire party is beyond me.

- Dan Joseph

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, January 28, 2008

I Still Love This Guy

An excellent speech tonight. An embarrassing night for Pelosi and the Democrats who could barely bring themselves to applaud the success of the surge strategy.

This was followed by the all-time worst Democratic response to a SOTU address, as Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius gave a speech that would have been slightly more appropriate had it been delivered 2 years ago. Sebelius could have revealed the meaning of life in her speech, and it still would have been mind-numbingly dull. Perhaps it was all part of the Democratic Party's master plan to make Hillary appear more likeable.

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Saddam Lied, Not Bush

CBS) Saddam Hussein initially didn't think the U.S. would invade Iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction, so he kept the fact that he had none a secret to prevent an Iranian invasion he believed could happen. The Iraqi dictator revealed this thinking to George Piro, the FBI agent assigned to interrogate him after his capture.

Piro, in his first television interview, relays this and other revelations to 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley this Sunday, Jan. 27, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Piro spent almost seven months debriefing Saddam in a plan based on winning his confidence by convincing him that Piro was an important envoy who answered to President Bush. This and being Saddam's sole provider of items like writing materials and toiletries made the toppled Iraqi president open up to Piro, a Lebanese-American and one of the few FBI agents who spoke Arabic.

"He told me he initially miscalculated... President Bush’s intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998...a four-day aerial attack," says Piro. "He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack." "He didn't believe the U.S. would invade?" asks Pelley, "No, not initially," answers Piro.

Once the invasion was certain, says Piro, Saddam asked his generals if they could hold the invaders for two weeks. "And at that point, it would go into what he called the secret war," Piro tells Pelley. But Piro isn’t convinced that the insurgency was Saddam's plan. "Well, he would like to take credit for the insurgency," says Piro.

Saddam still wouldn't admit he had no weapons of mass destruction, even when it was obvious there would be military action against him because of the perception he did. Because, says Piro, "For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that [faking having the weapons] would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq," he tells Pelley.

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Follow The Source

Today,CBS News web page posted a story, proclaiming in big bold letters that "False Pretenses Lead US to War: Journalism Groups' Research Finds 935 False Statements By Bush Administration"

The implication of course is that Bush lied and we expect that kind of dishonest reporting from left-wing blogs and other Bush-bashers. This however is CBS News. Generally CBS is to the left, but not misleading.

Apparently those days are over.

The "journalism group" which the story cites is

  • "The Center For Public Integrity"
  • is little more than a liberal watchdog group, funded by none other than George Soros and Bill Moyers.

    So now the AP, who started this story rolling, is getting its info from left-wing web-sites and then handing them off to CBS who doesn't even mention the fact that the study in question was being handled by an organization which is funded by two of the biggest Bush-haters in the business.

    This hit-piece has been picked up by The New York Times, CNN and NPR.

    Once again dishonest voices in the media are using unreliable, partisan sources in order to push the lie that there was an "orchestrated deception" created by the administration in the lead up to the Iraq war.

    Pass it on.

    Sphere: Related Content

    Monday, January 21, 2008

    Yeah. That Makes Sense.

    Let's trust the guy who once said "Does anybody make a connection between the 2000 election and the events of September 11th?" to make a fair and balanced film on President George W. Bush.

    Then we'll let this notoriously liberal director cast Barbra Streisand's stepson, Josh Brolin, as the president in the movie.

    Ok. That's fair.

    Let's hope the writer's strike continues for a couple more years.

    Sphere: Related Content

    Wednesday, January 16, 2008



    With 15% of precincts reporting, Falling Panda is ready to declare Congressman Dennis Kucinich the winner of the little noticed Democratic primary in Munchkinland.

    Kucinich, who campaigned hard in the state as part of his "Munchkinland strategy", is hoping that the win gives him the momentum necessary to catapult him into contention for the Democratic nomination, now largely considered a two-way battle between Hillary Clinton and "Uncommitted" who had a surprisingly strong showing in Tuesday's Michigan Primary.

    Kucinich is considered a "favorite son" of sorts in the area, having been born and raised in Munchkinland before moving to Ohio and beginning his political career.

    His father was Munchkinland's Mayor for two terms during the late 30's. He was soundly defeated for a third term after, he called for the creation of a Munchkinland "Department of Peace" in response to several attacks from the Wicked Witch of The West.

    Kucinich won nearly 70% of the vote here with 25% going to Mike Gravel and the remaining voters writing in the name of the Munchkinland's popular coroner.

    Exit polls show that among voters who were "looking for a candidate who understands the problems of people like them" Kucinich won a whopping 99%.

    Many pundits credit his campaign slogans:

    "Things Are Looking Up With Kucinich"


    "Dennis Kucinich. He Can't Reach That Either"

    for appealing to Munchkin sensibilities. No word on how it will play in the rest of the country.

    Kucinich also had strong support from unions, receiving endorsements from the Lollipop Guild, The Lullaby League and Lenny, the sole Munchkin representative of United Steel Workers Local #315.

    By contrast, among voters whose top concern was security from flying monkeys and falling houses, Kucinich only received a 3% of the vote.

    Gravel scored a big majority of security voters. This is largely thought to be due to his answer at the Munchkinland debate when he was asked how he would prevent future flying monkey attacks, to which Gravel simply replied, "Monkeys are delicious!" And then began laughing wildly.

    This answer was perplexing but most Munchkins found his response far more satisfying than that of Kucinich, who when asked the same question answered:

    "Well, if flying monkeys are attacking Munchkinland, it's probably because of something you guys did. I'd just ignore it and hope it goes away."

    Despite this, Kucinich sailed to an easy victory in this largely Democratic area where security falls just behind the issues of filling the potholes in the Yellow Brick Road and Oz Warming, on the list of voter concerns.

    Kucinich is ready to take the podium and make his victory speech. Let's listen in.

    "Thank you Munchkinland."

    (Wild Applause)

    "Tonight we scored a great victory for the little guy."


    "Tonight Munchkinlanders said no to the military industrial complex which targets innocent Oz Munchkins for the benefit of big oil and multi-billion dollar corporations."


    "Tonight you said no to a culture of fear, that tries to scare up votes by repeatedly reminding you that over 300 Munchkins have been taken by flying monkeys in the past year alone."

    (slightly less enthusiastic applause)

    "And you said yes to a bunch of crazy ideas, that are not possible and will never be implemented."

    (confused mumbling)

    "Tonight is a great victory for America. But this is only the beginning. We will ride this wave of enthusiasm and support all the way to South Carolina, then to Florida, through Super Tuesday and all the way to The White House, where I will go up to whoever actually wins the presidency, shake his hand and take a picture of it.
    I will then send an autographed copy of it to every single one of you that voted for me."

    "So friends, when you look up into the sky and see an object flying towards Munchkinland, don't fear. It's not a house that will flatten you or a monkey that is coming to take your family. It's just me and Shirley MacLaine, in my UFO, which has come to whisk you away to a brighter tomorrow.So fly away with me Munchkinland and together we can build a ladder, to that out of reach cabinet which holds the American dream."

    And there you have it folks. Dennis Kucinich is the winner or the 2008 Munchkinland primary and its half-a-delegate.

    Stay logged onto Falling Panda for all of the latest on the 2008 presidential race.

    Sphere: Related Content

    Tuesday, January 15, 2008


    Wow! Romney just cut off McCain to give his victory speech. Those two guys just don't get along.

    Sphere: Related Content

    Saturday, January 12, 2008

    Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Change. Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Change.....

    As the viability of Barack Obama proves, many Americans are suckers for rhetoric. Representing the party of rhetoric, the three leading Democratic candidates have insisted that each one of them can bring about "change" and in typical Democratic fashion they prove it by saying the word "change" as much as they can. The four Democrats said the word over 60 times at their recent debate in New Hampshire. I was watching the debate with some friends and we turned it into a drinking game, taking a swig every time the magic word was uttered. By the end of the debate, we were hammered.

    Well, I've got some really good news for all of you change-obsessed Dems. Are you ready? Next year, we will have a new president of the United States. It's true. I guarantee it. We will make a change. On Jan 21st 2009, the occupant of the Oval Office will change.This will happen regardless of how many time Hillary Clinton says the word "change".(23)

    So when Barack Obama says the word "change" it's completely meaningless and a waste of everyone's time, even though it sounds really, really good when he says it.

    But while the Democrats love talking about "change" what's their record when it comes to actually changing things?

    Hillary Clinton failed to change our health care system in the early nineties.

    She was never able to change her husbands cheating ways.

    She voted against a change of strategy in Iraq, which ended up being incredibly successful.

    The only things that Hillary Clinton has ever changed is her hairstyle and her accent when visiting southern states.

    John Edwards changed from a moderate Democrat with potential to take back the Clinton coalition of southern states for his party, to a socialist who couldn't get elected dog catcher in his own state.

    He changed from a supporter of the Iraq war to one of its biggest detractors.

    And then there's the golden boy, Barack Obama.

    As far as I know Barack Obama has never changed squat. He sure can dance though.

    The reality is, that the leading Democrats have no experience in bringing about change and when they try to bring about change, they generally fail.

    So, what about the GOP candidates?

    John McCain was the major force behind the surge strategy, the change that was needed in Iraq.

    Rudy Giuliani took a city that was busting at the seems with crime, corruption and pornography shops and changed it from the inside out. He changed the city's reputation and made it so that Michael Bloomberg can walk the streets at night without fear.

    Mitt Romney changed the 2002 winter games from a money losing debacle sprinkled with allegations of bribery, to a profitable Olympiad that Salt Lake City could be proud of. Curling and all.
    He has also changed his positions on abortion, gun control and gay marriage.

    Mike Huckabee changed the governors office in Arkansas from one which was ridden with scandal from the Clinton and Tucker years and restored dignity to the position.

    He also changed his lifestyle when doctors told him he would die if he didn't get healthy. He lost 110 pounds. Take note Bill Richardson.

    So for all of you folks thirsty for change, logically it only makes sense that you would vote for one of these four guys, since their record in bringing about change is far superior to that of their Democratic counterparts.

    The most worrisome thing about all of this meaningless talk of change is that it's clouding over the most important issue of our time. An issue in regards to which change is not preferable to the status quo.

    Thanks to President Bush, the Patriot Act, The United States military, Michael Chertoff, Tom Ridge and others, America has not been attacked since 9/11. If a change in leadership means that this fact will change, then perhaps we should amend the Constitution and give W. a third term.

    - Dan Joseph

    Sphere: Related Content

    Wednesday, January 09, 2008

    Reading The Granite

    Last night we were treated to one of the most surprising nights in modern political history as Hillary Clinton beat the Obama juggernaut, defying polls that showed her losing handily, perhaps by double digits.

    Despite the fact that guys like me who try and read political tea leaves are eating a heaping helping of crow this evening, I'm going to take a stab at why New Hampshire went down the way it did. I believe the reasons are as follows:

    1. The Hillary Machine beat Obama's momentum. For months we have heard that Hillary's ability to find her voters and get them to the polls was going to make this primary process a rout for Clinton. The machinery in New Hampshire that Hillary has been oiling up for the past eight years proved effective and my guess is that she was able to get just about every one of her voters out last night.

    2. Obama voters didn't come out. At least not in the numbers we thought they would. There are a couple of reasons for this. Obama might have suffered from the sense that he was inevitably headed for a big win last night. Therefore his legions of young, college age supporters, decided not to wait in the long lines at the polling station and went straight to the victory party.

    In addition to this, many of the independents who were supporting Obama, may have concluded that he was going to win with or without them and they therefore went where their votes would mean more. Namely, to the GOP primary, where they cast their ballots for John McCain.

    3. The Edwards factor. Edwards came out well behind Clinton and Obama last night, but he still scored 17%. Most believe that the Edwards vote is, like the Obama vote, an anti-establishment, anti-Clinton vote. Therefore it only stands to reason that more Edwards voters would go to Obama if he were to drop out. Some of his union support would probably go to Hillary, however I would guess that he would have easily been able to make up the three or four percentage points that he needed, had Edwards not been there.

    This leads us to what happens next in Nevada and South Carolina. In an attempt to regain some of my pundit credibility I am going to take a pass in trying to predict the outcome of either, however, depending on the factors which I pointed out above: Hillary's machine, the presence of Obama's young voters and whether or not Edwards is still in the race, we will either see a very close race or a sizable Obama victory. Especially in South Carolina.

    On the Republican side let me just say this to Mitt Romney. You're a smart guy Mitt. You are clearly a brilliant executive and an able leader. Unfortunately, the fact that you put the majority of your focus and spent obscene amounts of money into Iowa and New Hampshire and still got handily beat in both, doesn't give me a lot of confidence in your ability to put together a winning campaign for November. I mean you lost New Hampshire. It's practically the same state as Massachusetts, where you were governor. They get all of their media from Boston. Maybe if you had cried more, it would have turned out better.

    If you don't win Michigan, the state where your father was a popular governor, then it's time to call it quits. We'll take another look at you the next time around, but it's almost time for you to step aside and make an endorsement.

    Oh, and Ron Paul. You can go too. It's been real.

    Sphere: Related Content

    Tuesday, January 08, 2008

    I Give Up...

    You hear that? That's the sound of every political analyst and pundit in America simultaneously being fired.

    More tomorrow.

    Sphere: Related Content

    Monday, January 07, 2008

    Hillary's Obama Problem

    Hillary Clinton is not completely responsible for what is shaping up to be her meteoric fall from her status as the Democratic front-runner. In fact it's really not her fault at all. There's probably nothing she can do about it, which I would imagine is a very discouraging position for an uber-ambitious individual, such as Mrs. Clinton, to be in. She's crying at her rallies. Not a good sign.

    Mr. Obama is running solely on his charisma. This completely undefined concept of "hope" and his incredible speaking skills have catapulted him ahead of Clinton in every early primary state. That's all! There's nothing else to it.

    By contrast, Mrs. Clinton has no charisma, and her presentation style ranges from phony to shrill with very few points in between. However, to give this charisma dividend all of the credit for Clinton's troubles would be a vast oversimplification, even when handicapping a Democratic party which frequently favors style over substance. Especially younger members of the party.

    If you watch the five GOP front-runners, they're attacking each other non-stop, for minutia such as who raised taxes, when and by how much or what their policy regarding immigration was 15-years ago, before anyone cared, and make no mistake, these attacks are effective, as is evident in the GOP logjam which has developed in the primary polls and national polls as well.

    Clinton doesn't have this luxury. She can't attack Obama on his record, because he doesn't have one. That puts her at a huge disadvantage. He's only been in the Senate for 3 years and has spent a huge portion of that time running for president. He was not a senator for the initial vote on Iraq and he can therefore say that he opposed it when he was a State Senator. In reality, I believe he would have voted as Clinton did if he was in the Senate at the time, as most of the perspective POTUS candidates did. Regardless of this, Obama has benefited immensely from the fact that no one really cared about where he stood on Iraq when Clinton was casting her vote for the war.

    Another big Clinton disadvantage is that the two are really not that much different from each other in terms of their ideological beliefs. Both are liberal Democrats. Their voting record in the Senate is similar, as is the platform on which they are running for the presidency. Clinton can't attack Obama on policy, because by doing so, she would essentially be attacking her own policy positions.

    These two factors, the lack of an Obama paper trail that Hillary can criticize and the fact that Obama holds the same positions as Hillary on every issue that could potentially benefit her, are making things very difficult for the Jr. Senator from New York. Not that I'm complaining. Having Obama take care of Hillary early is fine with me, and I can guarantee that the GOP will have plenty of ammunition when it comes to convincing Americans as to why the young upstart from Illinois should not be president.

    - Dan Joseph

    Sphere: Related Content

    Friday, January 04, 2008

    A Substance Free Caucus

    Hillary Clinton ran as the candidate with the experience to run the country. Iowa Democrats decided to go with the least experienced of all the candidates, in either party, in Barack Obama.

    Hillary Clinton ran as the inevitable and invincible candidate who could take on a Republican in the general election. She came in third.

    Mike Huckabee won because of his charisma and support from evangelical Christians.

    Obama won simply because of his charisma.

    The only way either one of them is electable is if they run against each other.

    John Edward's speech last night was ridiculous. I hope we never have to hear from this man again after New Hampshire.

    Iowa voters said “yes” to “change” last night, but more importantly, they said “no” to the way in which certain individuals have run their campaigns.

    In saying “no” to Clinton, Dems said no to a representative of the past, in favor of a representative of the future.(By "representative of the future" I mean, someone who they don't know as well as Clinton.

    They said “no” to a robotic, uncharismatic, establishment individual in favor of a talented speaker with a clean slate. (He’s barely had any public service experience, how could the slate be dirty?)

    In saying “no” to Romney, Iowa Republicans told him that you can’t buy an election, especially if there are questions about your dedication to Republican orthodoxy.

    Just some thoughts.

    More after New Hampshire.


    McCain will win, knocking Romney out and turning it into a three-way race between McCain, Huckabee and Giuliani.

    Obama will win New Hampshire with Clinton coming in second. Two way race the rest of the way.

    Sphere: Related Content