 |
Hillary’s Real Problem: Obamarama |
 |
Now that I’m on sabbatical from campaign politics, I’ve opened myself up to focus on the finer things in life. I’d like to read more, maybe spend more time with my cat, work on new songs with my band, get more tattoos etc… I’ve also allowed myself to fall right back into what I used to do best: Shake hands and take money.
On Monday before the New Hampshire primary, I went to a cocktail party in an affluent part of Seattle. Yea, I know what you’re thinking, who has a cocktail party on a Monday night? Well, there’s an answer for that: A) Rich people do, and B) it was more dessert and drinks after a dinner I didn’t attend so I could watch the BCS championship game.
Normally these functions are fundraisers for the candidate that these particular people support, but this affair was completely different: It was actually a small fundraising think-tank of rich Seattleites trying to decide if they should switch their support from Senator Hillary Clinton to Senator Barack Obama. There it is ladies and gentlemen: Hillary’s campaign dilemma.
Losing primaries is one thing, and losing fundraising support usually goes along with this, but to lose fundraisers because they want to give money to your rival, well, that’s bad news for Team Clinton. This goes along with things that I’ve said in the past: People want to back a winner, and sometimes it only takes one win to get a ton more support.
On Monday night, it appeared that we were in the midst of Obamarama. (Had the campaign been a bust at that point my other term was Obamonation…you might have to say it out loud to get it.) The Republican Party, however, was and still is in shambles.
I’ve said it before: I like Mike Huckabee and I think he’s exactly what the base of the Republican Party wants…but that doesn’t mean the guy isn’t a total right-wing nutjob. If he doesn’t win the nomination, which I don’t think he will, he’s pretty much a lock for the vice presidential nod. John McCain, the old man, might squeak out New Hampshire, and maybe even win Michigan, but he couldn’t win the south in 2000 and he can’t do it 8 years later. And Mitt Romney, the used car salesman, is having trust issues.
The problem with McCain and Romney is that they are the ones the Republican Party establishment wants to win the nomination. The establishment, I believe, meets tri-annually outside Richmond, VA and comes up with ways to keep screwing poor people. The meetings are led by a decomposing Senator Strom Thurmond. Still, while McCain, Romney, and Huckabee don’t have much in common, they do have two things that are similar: None of them have vision, and none of them can beat Barack Obama.
Now, in the wake of Hillary winning New Hampshire, I don’t think it means the end of Obama’s campaign, since losing by 3 points isn’t the end of the world. But I do think it’s the end for Senator Edwards.
With the upcoming primaries in South Carolina and Nevada, two states with large non-white populations, I’m interested to see who comes out on top before Super-Tuesday. Chances are Clinton will win Nevada and Obama will win South Carolina. Then, when Super-Tuesday hits, there will almost certainly be a shit-storm of who wins what and where. If Hillary wins the coasts and Obama wins the mid-west I still don’t think we’ll have a consensus nominee. So, the question then is, do Democrats want a candidate who can win Democratic states or do they want a candidate that can win anywhere? Let’s face it, California will vote Democratic in 2008, but will Ohio?
Today, I talked to the woman who hosted that cocktail party Monday. She’s still not convinced Clinton can pull it out. To put it in perspective, did winning New Hampshire really impact the Clinton campaign, or did she just win a state that she was supposed to win? I think that Obama’s victory in Iowa is much more impressive than Clinton’s victory in New Hampshire. Obama, doing as well as he has been doing, is still a threat to Clinton to win the nomination, and he’s also raking in the campaign dough at a much more impressive rate. It’s all a question of the establishment against the new guy…or the Empire versus the rebel alliance (Star Wars reference, you’re welcome).
Well, so much for my picks being 100% accurate, it’s not like I had any money on it or anything. The exciting news is that it won’t be over as soon as people thought, and this might actually turn in to an interesting election year.
Iowa women don’t vote for women. Iowa has never had a female Representative, Senator or Govenor. Basically, Iowan women vote for men. It is ridiculous to blame Hillary for not getting more of the female vote in Iowa. It is ridiculous to let 6% to 9%of the population of Iowa to choose our political candidates.
Hillary’s main problem is keeping her weight back and coming through the ball on a downward angle to produce more line drives. She flies out too much and we can’t have that from a lead off hitter. She needs to improve her on base percentage, have a keener eye, and be more aggressive when she reaches. Seriously, I don’t think Clinton can pull this one out. “Change” is the million dollar word. If this is the case there is no way we will elect another Clinton. Not that I don’t like Hillary, or the Clinton’s, but we’ve had two last names of our president’s for the last 20 years, Bush and Clinton. Simple mundane factors like that seem to effect these fickle elections in massive ways (i.e. Howard Dean’s rant, The make-up issue in televised debates - JFK-Nixon). if people desire change it starts with something as simple as a last name. She won NH but I have a feeling her victories will be more and more scarce as this plays out. Obama is the kid wash and rinse, I don’t see him losing to Hillary or a man named ‘Mitt’.