Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Hillary's Fall

Finally, Hillary Clinton’s bid for the presidency seems to have come to an end. Her last possible chance at the nomination—decisive Obama losses in Indiana and North Carolina—has gone up in smoke, as Obama crushed her by fourteen points in North Carolina, and Hillary could only squeak out a feeble two point victory in Indiana. Barack Obama is now less than 200 delegates from the nomination. Superdelegates are moving towards him, and party leaders are calling upon Hillary to end her bid. She is finished.

The only thing that remains in doubt is the question of how much longer she will fight on. She claims that she will fight all the way to the convention, apparently in the hope that the superdelegates will experience a mass conversion and flock to her banner. That won’t happen. Unless she is simply bent on helping the Republican cause, she should quit now.

Of course, perhaps she is bent on helping the GOP. When the campaign started, things looked very bad for the Republican Party. They were divided over their candidate, people were extremely dissatisfied with George Bush’s job performance, and the Democrats appeared to have a field of strong, well-liked candidates. Now, the GOP has (kinda) united around one man, the Democrat-controlled Congress has lower approval ratings than Bush, and supporters of each Democrat candidate hate each other. Wonderful.

Hillary can’t take credit for the first two (except for the fact that her Senate performance didn’t do much for its approval rating), but is almost solely responsible for the third.

Hillary never had much momentum in the race for the Democrat nomination—but never quite let Obama land that knockout blow. Had Obama won New Hampshire in the wake of his Iowa victory, he would have sealed the nomination. Hillary won. If he could have won a few more Super Tuesday states, Hillary probably would have been forced to drop out. He couldn’t quite do it. Then came Ohio and Texas—an Obama win in either state would have mortally wounded Clinton. After that came Pennsylvania, and Hillary managed to dodge a bullet one more time.

For quite some time, there has never been any serious doubt that Obama would reach the convention with more delegates than Hillary. But he could never quite deliver that knockout blow. This served to extend the Democrat race, giving Obama time to commit potentially fatal errors, something he is good at.

Really good. First came the Reverend Wright controversy, which revealed that his long-time pastor frequently preached extreme, racially divisive rhetoric from the pulpit. Then came revelations of Obama’s cordial relationship with Bill Ayers, a notorious and unrepentant former terrorist. (And Obama’s claims that Ayer’s terrorist past is far behind him rings http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2001/No-Regrets/false when it is revealed that Ayers posed for a picture five years ago while stomping on the American flag). After that came the “bitter” comments, in which Obama complained that “bitter” flyover country denizens “cling” to religion, racism, and guns. Most recently was Reverend Wright Scandal 2.0, in which Wright expanded on his racist and crazy rantings, forcing Obama to disown him.

These scandals would hurt at any time, but they hit much more deeply while Obama fights Hillary for the nomination. As long as McCain sits on the sidelines waiting for his opponent to be selected, the liberal media cannot simply dismiss such stories as McCain propaganda. Obama is still fighting Hillary, and these stories are framed as pivotal to that race. The media can set aside stories favorable to the conservative McCain. They can’t simply reject stories that would help a fellow liberal like Hillary Clinton.

Hillary’s final contribution to the Republican cause is to finally drive a stake through the heart of the Clinton dynasty. Now, the Family has no base left—they have angered the Democrat netroots, the black liberal population, and those young people who voted for Obama. They will never, ever be able to come to a Joe Lieberman-like rapport with the Republican party. No matter what happens this fall, it is comforting to know that there will never be another Clinton in the White House.

9 Comments:

At May 8, 2008 at 3:26 AM , Blogger Beth said...

She just lent her campaign $6.4 million to continue her fight, I would never count her out, she is if nothing else determined.

 
At May 8, 2008 at 5:38 AM , Blogger Name: Soapboxgod said...

So the Democratic nomination and the White House is Obama's to win. I stress the latter for no other reason than that I don't believe John McCain has what it takes to play the sort of politics that will be necessary for him to play if he wants to beat Obama in the general election. He's already opted out by distancing himself from the NC GOP ad.

Whoever would have that Hillary Clinton of all people would end up being the Centrist at this stage of the game??

 
At May 8, 2008 at 6:33 AM , Blogger DD2 aka Debonair Dude said...

This was a very good blog Danial. To analyze this in a nutshell. Criticizing McCain like some of the “so called” Conservative loyalists do is surely not going to help.
Let them go ahead and find their own lunatic candidate and vote for him. 3rd party or 4th party or whatever.
McCain is a man with years of experience, honor, and knowledge to be President against a young man with no experience or knowledge to be President, and a lifetime’s history of being a racist like Obama.
Right now, the majority of liberals, moderates, and yes the “loyal conservatives” all think that we're on the "wrong track," in completely different ways. I'm a Republican who voted for Pres. Bush twice, and I think we're on the wrong track. In my opinion , we need to win in Iraq, and strongly confront Iran and North Korea, make the tax cuts permanent, cut Government spending, and kill this socialized medicine idea that keeps rearing its ugly head. among the Liberals. And the former mentioned are unhappy for all the opposite reasons.He has tried to go to the far right in his policies to capture the votes of the “loyal” conservatives of the Republican party. Even with this catering to, the conservatives still not vote for him. But that’s their call. Let them sit it out or do whatever they feel they must do. Even if they have to deal with a president Obama. Maybe that will make them happy.

To me the fact that McCain is willing to reach across the aisle is not necessarily a bad thing.
Of course there's also the question of who McCain's VP would be also.
The Republicans nominated the one man that can win this thing. Especially with the way the Democrats are fighting it out right now and acting as if they are total nut jobs. . There are a good number of people voting for Hillary that will never vote for Obama come the fall and that is a real problem with Obama. He is pulling blacks and the hard left and that is not a winning combo. If McCain paints the true picture of who he is, someone who actually does work across party lines, then Omama will be in for a long hard night come November. It is one thing to talk about it but another thing to live it. If they want to live with it, then we are in for a rocky road for God knows how long.
In the final analysis, I think that McCain will win on 3 issues:
Americans don't want to lose in Iraq;
Americans don't want a tax increase, especially with a recession occurring or imminent; and
Americans don't want 2 more far-left Supreme Court justices.
It’s very easy to say no and to disagree, but to offer an alternative is another thing. I haven’t yet heard any.
That's my 2 cents worth

 
At May 8, 2008 at 6:49 AM , Blogger Name: Soapboxgod said...

"He has tried to go to the far right in his policies to capture the votes of the “loyal” conservatives of the Republican party."

By "He", I presume your are referring to McCain are you? Aside from his change of heart on the Bush Tax Cuts and wanting to extend them (which is the right thing to do), what other policies or positions do you think he's taken in this presidential cycle that support your assertion?

I suppose you could bring up his recent comments with respect to Judicial appointees. And, that is, I suppose a fair point to make. However, we were told that W. was a conservative too back in 2000. Except for a couple of issues, he has been anything but. So, it is I think fair for Conservatives such as myself to be extremely wary and skeptical of any claims by any Republican presidential hopeful (this is especially true considering McCain's case where he has a historical record which makes such wariness and skepticism even that much more valid).

 
At May 8, 2008 at 7:05 AM , Blogger Name: Soapboxgod said...

Additionally DD, while my intentions aren't to get into some heated debate over ideology with you yet again (you have yours and I have mine), I'm not sure I understand your implication that Conservatives who remain opposed to McCain at present are 'so called' Conservatives.

Perhaps you might explain.

 
At May 8, 2008 at 7:41 AM , Blogger DD2 aka Debonair Dude said...

I might explain by saying the term I used was
“so called” Conservative loyalists.

Not as you re-wrote it.

 
At May 8, 2008 at 7:55 AM , Blogger Name: Soapboxgod said...

Fair enough. I still don't understand your implications.

Perhaps I've missunderstood you but it's as if you're suggesting that by one's being opposed to Senator McCain on the basis that he is not conservative; that those individuals are really not loyal to conservatism because of their opposition to McCain. Hence why you have said "so called" conservative loyalists.

 
At May 8, 2008 at 8:06 AM , Blogger DD2 aka Debonair Dude said...

No, not at all, my implication was exactly the opposite.
And that his views were not Conservative enough to the Conservative loyalists.

 
At May 8, 2008 at 8:18 AM , Blogger Name: Soapboxgod said...

I guess it depends upon which view of conservatism one adopts. If one subscribes themself as a Neo-conservative, then I think McCain indeed fits the bill given his assertive Foreign Policy positiions and his more moderate or liberal domestic policies.

Personally, I lean towards a much more fiscal, ideological, libertarian or of brand. With respect to the principles which define that brand, your assertion and implication is dead on.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home