Anyone reading the title of this blog can pretty quickly pick up the fact I don't like (and in-fact am terrified of) a Hillary Clinton Presidency.
So it was not without some trepidation I picked up my morning paper. First relief: Omaba had won (don't like his policies, but he's the best chance of beating Hillary on the Democrat side). And then came the icing on the cake: Hillary didn't win, she didn't even come in second. SHE CAME IN THIRD!
Of course the Clinton camp is doing everything they can, which isn't much, to downplay the loss. And they're back on message, if not a little harsher: “We can’t have false hopes,” Hillary told Reuters. “We’ve got to have a person who can walk into that Oval office on day one and start doing the hard work that it takes to deliver change.”
So now Obama is a "false hope". Gee Hillary, that's not a very nice thing to say. I thought we were running a positive campaign?
And notice how she dropped the words "deliver change" into her message. Now she's the policy wonk who knows the White House like the back of her hand, but can "deliver change". She's talking out of both sides of her mouth again....somethings never change.
And I'm still waiting to hear why exactly she thinks she can walk into the Oval Office on Day 1 and start work. Granted, she won't need a tour or have to ask where the bathrooms are. She also knows exactly where in the White House bedroom the congressionally "requested" papers which had been missing for years mysteriously just "showed up" one day?
Other than being a figure-head first lady with visions of Universal Health Care dancing through her head, how is she the only one ready for Day 1? John Edwards is a Senator too and has more experience in Congress than Hillary. Why can't he take a 5 minute tour and get down to work?
And what if the Bush people vandalized the White House the way the Clinton's did when they left...taking keys off of keyboards, disconnecting phones, etc. That would put a crimp in Day 1.
On the Republican side, a huge loss for Romney considering the time and money he spent in Iowa, a big win for Huckabee, who for some reason, seems capable to me of doing a Republican version of Howard Dean on himself and goodbye Rudy.
But to me, the big (and predictably way under-reported) story was that Ron Paul got 10% of the votes. In contrast, Rudy only got 3%. Thompson and McCain only received 13% or 3% more than Ron Paul. And aside from what he paid for, Paul received little if any media attention at all. Not a bad showing at all, considering. And while Fox is still banning Paul from their Presidential Debate, ABC news has just announced Paul will be included in theirs. Interesting.
New Hampshire is next and that will be a lot more telling than Iowa. They're an independent bunch up there (did you know New Hampshire has no State or Sales taxes?). And while Iowa was a caucus, New Hampshire will be the first true primary of 2008.
Will the Iowa results hold? Will Romney make a comeback? Will Hillary be able to come across as the policy wonk of change? We'll know in less than a week.
As to my preference, it is, as always, Anyone But Hillary in 2008!
Sincerely, Mr. Unloadingzone
Technorati Tags:2008 election, iowa caucus, new hampshire primary, anyone but hillary, anti-hillary, barack obama, democrat, rudy, hillary clinton, mike huckabee, missing documents, mitt romney, ron paul, republican
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
del.icio.us Tags:2008 election, iowa caucus, new hampshire primary, anyone but hillary, anti-hillary, barack obama, democrat, rudy, hillary clinton, mike huckabee, missing documents, mitt romney, ron paul, republican
Generated By del.icio.us Tag Generator
0 comments:
Post a Comment