So, Hillary Clinton pulls off the unexpected victory in New Hampshire even though before the primary, polling data showed her trailing by as much as double digit points behind Obama. The embarrassment of Iowa, all but forgotten.
In a pre-primary newsconference, Clinton choked back tears as she reaffirmed her committment to carry on in the face of the Iowa loss and the brutal media coverage that came with it. This demonstrated to the voters that the usually rock-solid chick candidate had a soft side. We were made to feel her pain (in the words of another Clinton)
Fast forward to the closing of the polls in NH. Exit polling painted a very different picture than the day before. Oddly enough, the voters seemed to flock to her side. Did we feel for her plight and give her the support she was supposed to get in Iowa?
I think not.
Sure, the tears may have moved some people--a few; the weak minded, most likely. But I propose a different answer. One that has been demonstrated before.
In 1992, the buzz surrounding Bill Cinton's campaign was shattered by the Gennifer Flowers scandal. Clinton's aspirations appeared derailed like those of so many other big name dems from years past (Gary Hart comes to mind). But then there was a heartfelt appearance on 60 Minutes with his wife at his side. He was apologetic, ashamed, nearly tearful about the affair (as I recall). This sensitive display seemed to carry weight with the voters of the time by rebounding Clinton to come in respectable second place to Mass Sen. Paul Tsongas. Clinton then dubbed himself "The comeback Kid". Sound familiar yet?
With the Clinton's, nothing-NOTHING-is coincedental.
But tears alone won't have the effect that these two have shared. There's a funny little thing about NH voter registration. One can register the day of the primary--at the polling place, no less. The residencey restrictions are virtually non-existent. If there is an address in NH that you sometimes sleep at...or one you think you may want to live at sometime in the future, your in!
Its been widely speculated in the last few elections that voters are imported to place with these lax requirements to fluff up the numbers of a particular candidate who needs them. It doesn't take much to round up a few bus loads of homeless people, pay them a meager sum of money, and take them somewhere to vote. Or even using the personal info of the dead to obtain voter registration. I have no doubt that is what happened in NH in 92 and again in 08.
Nothing with Clintons is coincedence.
^JR^
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Monday, January 7, 2008
Presidential Campaign 2008 --The point that NO ONE seems to get.
The campaign regular season has begun with some perceived surprises.
Hillary Clinton was smited in Iowa, as was Mitt Romney. Barrack Obama looks to be carrying his momentum into New Hampshire. Mike Huckabee has been sparring with Romney directly in debate in response to Romney's attack ads. Giuliani is still using 9/11 as the bedrock of his campaign. Ron Paul's radio ads keep running during my favorite talk shows. And still,Fred Thompson still hasn't really said anything at all. Everyone is pointing fingers at everyone else and micro analyzing their opponents politcal voting records and, at the same time, calling themselves the candidate for change because they can win!
Geesh!
There in, lies the problem. The focus they want you to have is on who can win. Everyone likes to back a winner, after all. Makes you look like a friggen genius. But beyond that...beyond all the bold promises (remember the middle class tax cut??), it really does not matter who wins.
The winner will be voted in because they are the most "presidential" and have the "interests of the people at heart" and vow to shrink gov't, reduce taxes, reform health care, blah blah blah. This will be the mistake that the voters will make...the same as every presidential election.
No candidate...not Clinton, Romney, Huckabee, Obama, McCain,...not a single one will be able be an effective President if there is not a Congress that will work with them. Its that simple. The system of checks and balances will cripple the government as a whole and nothing will get done. No changes. No promises kept.
And the sad thing is, it will take no less than a generation to fix this.
^JR^
Hillary Clinton was smited in Iowa, as was Mitt Romney. Barrack Obama looks to be carrying his momentum into New Hampshire. Mike Huckabee has been sparring with Romney directly in debate in response to Romney's attack ads. Giuliani is still using 9/11 as the bedrock of his campaign. Ron Paul's radio ads keep running during my favorite talk shows. And still,Fred Thompson still hasn't really said anything at all. Everyone is pointing fingers at everyone else and micro analyzing their opponents politcal voting records and, at the same time, calling themselves the candidate for change because they can win!
Geesh!
There in, lies the problem. The focus they want you to have is on who can win. Everyone likes to back a winner, after all. Makes you look like a friggen genius. But beyond that...beyond all the bold promises (remember the middle class tax cut??), it really does not matter who wins.
The winner will be voted in because they are the most "presidential" and have the "interests of the people at heart" and vow to shrink gov't, reduce taxes, reform health care, blah blah blah. This will be the mistake that the voters will make...the same as every presidential election.
No candidate...not Clinton, Romney, Huckabee, Obama, McCain,...not a single one will be able be an effective President if there is not a Congress that will work with them. Its that simple. The system of checks and balances will cripple the government as a whole and nothing will get done. No changes. No promises kept.
And the sad thing is, it will take no less than a generation to fix this.
^JR^
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
