Hillary’s victory

Mark Jaws writes:

I can almost identify with your sudden rapprochement with the Hillary persona because I felt myself fleetingly feeling the same thing. Then I realized that if this broad ever had her way—and I mean really had her way—then she would have guys like you and me assigned to the Gulag or to the firing squad. She deserves no such sentiment or comment.

LA replies:

But you don’t see: the very thing about her that I picked up on and responded to positively and praised, that she had been knocked down and deflated, but was still gamely fighting, was the very quality that voters in New Hampshire responded to as well, carrying her to her surprise victory tonight and saving the country from being taken over by Obamania.

Paul K. writes:

Bet dollars to donuts that TIME had already laid out its cover story—“Obama—A New Dawn For America?”

LA replies:

That’s been the MSM’s refrain. Dirges for Hillary. The Dawning of the Age of Obama. On ABC News in the early evening, George Stephanapolous told Charles Gibson that while there had been a huge popular swell for McCain in New Hampshire in 2000, the popular swell for Obama dwarfed it. He made it almost sound as though the people were mystically emerging from the dark corners of society, rising out of the depths of the earth, coming together in a unity that has never existed before, like in the final passage of Grapes of Wrath. The media-political establishment and the Obama supporters seemed to be talking in variations on this theme for the last few days. The expectation was that Obama would win a big victory tonight, likely in double figures, and then it would all be over. One of the cable tv news hosts said he had had lunch today with two Obama compaign officials who explained to him how Obama had won the nomination. He said they were using the past tense. Obama said in a speech a couple of days ago that if he won New Hampshire, he truly believed that he would be the next president of the United States. If Obama had won, the country would be drowning in an millennial ecstasy right now, and no one would be allowed to disagree. Hillary Clinton saved us from that. Her victory changed Obama from a magical savior of humanity to a politician facing a long tough battle.

Thanks to Hillary, Michelle Obama has been confirmed in her fear that the people of New Hampshire are not ready to go beyond their fear (of blacks), to renounce their cynicism (about interracial relations), to transcend their isolation (from blacks). What a shame for the lovely and charming Michelle. But I’d much rather have her rage against white America, than to have her reside in the White House.

Dimitri K. writes:

I tend to disagree with the majority of commenters regarding Hillary. As far as I understand, Hillary represents the corrupt establishment of this country. But they hate her so that they are ready to ruin their own state (I mean the US) by inviting an alien, in order to fight that hated establishment. However bad Hillary is, her problems are our problems. You would not like to cure a headache by cutting off the head, but it seems to me that those guys would prefer the latter. I am really afraid of such a trend, and even more I am afraid of Mr. Hussein Obama. We must not ruin our house fighting each other, and preferring Obama for President seems to me exactly that—ruining America. Doesn’t matter from leftist or rightist motives.

Terry Morris writes:

You wrote:

“But you don’t see: the very thing about her that I picked up on and responded to positively and praised, that she had been knocked down and deflated, but was still gamely fighting, was the very quality that voters in New Hampshire responded to as well, carrying her to her surprise victory tonight and saving the country from being taken over by Obamania.”

You write as though by all rights and by everyone’s expectations Hillary’s being knocked down a notch in the Iowa defeat should have resulted in her throwing in the towel, yet to everyone’s utter shock she raised herself from the depths of being knocked down in round one and came out swinging in round two, as if she is a one-dimensional fighter with a faint heart and everyone sees her as a one-dimensional fighter with a faint heart.

What American is there, after nearly sixteen years of seeing Hillary front-and-center in our lives, believes she’s going to lay down after a first round knock down? Hillary is like Rocky, you have to knock her out. Obama doesn’t appear to me to have that one punch knockout power, he is more of a finesse fighter who caught her a bit off-balance in round one and capitalized on it.

All I can tell Obama is that he’d better stick-and-move, and win his rounds by decision. In other words, he better hope the judges (voters) appreciate finesse more than they appreciate sheer power and determination. He is in a fifteen rounder whether he’s prepared for it or not.

LA replies:

First, yes, she’s accustomed to being attacked, but that was a long time ago. During the last eight years she’s been a queen and presumptive next president. Second, her loss in Iowa, combined with Obama’s surging polls in N.H. and the hype of the Dawning of the Obama Age, was not just a matter of being knocked down a notch, but of being humiliated and defeated in her expectation of being president of the United States. The thing that impressed was not that she kept campaigning; of course no one expected her to give up. Rather it was the dramatic combination of her being visibly deflated personally as she continued to campaign hard. If, as the polls showed, she had lost soundly in New Hampshire, she would be seen as a loser now and everyone would be saying that Obama owned the nomination.

David B. writes:

Another point about Obama losing New Hampshire, even though narrowly, is that New Hampshire was a good state for him, even without the momentum he seemed to have. It now has a lot of white liberals who have left Massachusetts, plus not many blacks, and a liberal trend in general. Still, Obama lost. Obama will not do as well among whites in states that have large black populations.

On the other side, McCain’s victory is very, very bad for us. If Romney can’t win Michigan next week, he’s dead. When is he going to win anywhere? There is a real possibility of McCain being nominated. The voters of the Stupid Party will have done it again.

LA replies:

Romney should win in Michigan. He won’t have the ridiculous Huckabee factor that he had in Iowa, and the ridiculous McCain factor that he had in N.H. Also note that Romney won among Republican voters in N.H. If Rudy then wins in Florida, there will be have been four different winners in four states going into Feb. 5., and the possibility of a long-drawn out fight. I agree that if Romney loses in Michigan it looks bad for him—and for the GOP, because he is not only their best prospect, but their only plausible prospect.

A reader writes:

Stanley Kurtz makes a case for Romney similar to yours. When the dust settles, it may be Romney who will still be standing. He says Romney should stay in even if he doesn’t win in Michigan. He’s not as negative about Giuliani as I’d like.

The reader continues:

Future states will not be open primaries I just heard. Romney may do better since it seems he did get Republicans last night, but not the Indies.

LA replies:

I can’t imagine anything more absurd, and more contrary to the idea of democracy that we supposedly all believe in, than having a party primary election in which non-members of that party are allowed to vote.

The reader writes:

Rush is commenting on Ann Lewis’s suddenly appearing again. He says she’s the chairman of what Monica Crowley has called the Hillary Clinton Ladies’ Intervention Team.

Rush is saying Clinton victory is all due to the tearfulness and backlash from women who didn’t like to see her kicked around, the whole humanizing factor.

He’s saying media has a lot of splainin’ to do, what with their crazy predictions and polls and we shouldn’t listen anymore to their saying this or that candidate is done if this or that doesn’t happen and so on.

Romney has small lead in Michigan but major Michigan newspapers have endorsed McCain. Don’t you have to feel for Romney? No one seems to want to give him a break! He’s like the allied troops in Italy, having to slog up the whole peninsula. But he is the guy who will be waiting to take the girl home from the prom, after she’s danced with everyone else. Some mixed metaphors there.

The reader continues:

I’ve been reading Romney’s poll numbers of the last few months. He is making steady progress. He’s gone from single to double digits in national polls as awareness of his campaign grows and people come to see his fine qualities.

KPA writes from Canada,

Terry Morris asks: why would Obama actually believe he is qualified to be the next president of the United States?

I have a similar question regarding Hillary, although mine would include “why would she want to be president?” So much so that she choked up and lost her normal control when someone asked her concernedly and kindly about her loss. I think she just found a sympathetic, non-judgmental shoulder to cry on. Diana West and Maureen Dowd are right.

I know you are touched by this episode. And that it brings the “human” out of her. But, her psychology is very strange—she’s no Margaret Thatcher. She (Clinton) fully uses whatever gains are in her way to plow ahead. I think her “emotional” moment, although not a prepared strategy, was part of that method.

Don’t you think it is a little embarrassing for a presidential candidate of the greatest country in the world to have a “personal moment” like that? And all because she felt sorry for herself? Even Queen Elizabeth I had her moments (usually angry outbursts), but she gave up everything for “her England.”

As for Obama. I agree perfectly. And if I recall, it was this video almost a year ago which alerted me to the other side of Obama. And you explained his reaction as “It was more of a neutral, polite expression.”

LA replies:

1. I think people, particularly females, and particularly Michelle Malkin who in today’s New York Post wrote a virtual hate column against Hillary, have been too hard on her over that moment. She was not “sobbing,” as some have absurdly said (my gosh, did they actually watch the video?), she was not “crying.” Her voice broke a little, and she had a more emotional tone in her voice. That was it. I think her critics have vastly exaggerated her behavior.

2. I don’t think she embarrassed herself or behaved in an inappropriate way for a presidential candidate She was having this face to face conversation with voters over a restaurant table, it was on camera, a woman asked her this personal question, and the enormously stressful sitation she was in, with the hopes of her lifetime seemingly being defeated, hit her, and she responded in a more personal way than she normally would. She kept her dignity, she did not act weak. In all fairness, I think it was perfectly fine.

3. There is nothing wrong with male politicians becoming more emotional either. The issue is not whether one is emotional, but IN WHAT MANNER one becomes emotional. It is not a matter of whether one chokes up, but IN WHAT MANNER one chokes up. Winston Churchill on occasion became very emotional in public. That was not seen as disqualifying. President Ford when he lost the ‘76 election to Carter couldn’t speak, partly because his voice was worn out, but also through emotion, so his wife read his concession statement, and Ford standing behind her look very emotional and teary. It was very human. There was nothing undignified or inappropriate about it.

By contrast, when Muskie choked up in ‘72, he actually lost his composure and broke down a little and seemed weak. Was he unfairly savaged over it? I’d have to see the incident again, in context.

Things have to be seen in context. There is not a single, one-dimensional, mechanical rule which says that politicians can’t be emotional in public. Of course, men and women being different, it’s natural that we have different kinds of behaivors that we see as appropriate for men and women.

4. As for Obama, the more recent evidence I saw regarding the lovely and charming Michelle O. indicates that you were right and I was wrong in our earlier discussion. Obama lets his wife have her racist views, not only does he let her have them in private, he lets her express them in public as his spokesman in his campaign. It was this realization that made me realize what bad news he is. He may not be a race man, but he will be empowering race men.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 09, 2008 01:40 AM | Send