February 05, 2008
Super Tuesday
Well, wasn't that special?
Huckabee took a handful of states in the South, Romney took a few more than Huck (in the West and Mountain states), and McCain took a few more than both -- leaving McCain with a substantial lead in the delegate race.
He did it without my vote, 'though. California's GOP doesn't allow independents to vote in the primary, and I quit the Republican Party in disgust back in 2000, repelled even then by its pork-barrel ways.
So, when I went to vote, I had the option of getting the non-affiliated voter ballot, the American Independent Party ballot, or the Democratic Party ballot.
Who did I vote for?
Hillary Clinton.
Yeah, I know. I feel dirty.
But I have my reasons.
First, as between Clinton and Obama, I think the GOP nominee has a better chance of defeating her than him. Clinton is a tremendously divisive candidate, capable of rousing even a dispirited conservative electorate to come to the polls to vote agin' her, even if they've no one they particularly want to vote for.
Obama, on the other hand, is a more difficult proposition. Although a hollow man, given to spouting platitudes in a honied voice, with no noteworthy accomplishments to show for his career in politics, he is an inspirational figure, a tall, good-looking candidate who happens to be black. Obama is youthful and vigorous and, even if he doesn't really have anything substantial to say, he allows voters to use him as a receptacle -- a conduit, if you will -- for their aspirations and dreams, making him the candidate they want him to be. Obama appeals to voters' emotions, and that's a difficult connection to attack with logic or facts.
Given that the likely GOP candidate will be the cranky, old, red-faced white guy, the contrast with Obama is almost hilariously stark. McCain's experience advantage will evaporate in the heat and light of Obama's charisma like an open can of Ensure set next to the space heater at the old folk's home.
If, on the other hand, Clinton actually wins the White House, I'm convinced that she'll be a remarkably tough commander-in-chief for the war in Iraq.
Hear me out.
Clinton would be the nation's first female president, and if there's one thing we've learned about the Clintons, it's that they're ruthless when it comes to protecting their reputation, their legacy.
Given that the Democratic party has for the last forty years been thought of as the party that got us into Vietnam (Thanks, Kennedy and LBJ) and then cut off promised funding and military supplies to the South Vietnamese government -- leading to its downfall -- Clinton has an opportunity to re-write her party's reputation as the weak-kneed sob sister of foreign policy and national defense to the GOP's tough guy you can trust with your family's safety.
It's clear to me that Clinton will do anything to avoid having the history books note that America's first female president lost the war in Iraq and brought about a humanitarian disaster in the Middle East as a result of a feckless, reckless and precipitous flight from the region.
Clinton must be strong, following the footsteps of pioneers like Israel's Golda Meir and Great Britain's Margaret Thatcher -- both of whom were foreign policy hawks.
I don't care what Clinton's been telling her base about plans to leave Iraq shortly after she takes office; she's trying to win the nomination, and to do that she needs the anti-war Code Pink types, so she'll say whatever she must to win.
But when she takes office, she'll own the war, and although Democratic activists would like to be able to lay the blame for a military disaster at the feet of Pres, Bush, the reality is that the last year has gone very well, and there's no reason to believe that the situation will deteriorate between now and inauguration day next January.
That means Clinton will have to make the war -- and its outcome -- a part of her legacy, and trust me, she ain't gonna let a few campaign promises stand between her and victory.
So, the bottom line for me is this: Clinton might be the best candidate for the GOP to defeat, and if she wins, she might be the best candidate to safeguard American interests in the Middle East because of her need to protect her place in the history books.
How 'bout them apples?
Posted by Mike Lief at February 5, 2008 11:45 PM
| TrackBack
Comments
I have always felt that Hillary Clinton is far more liberal than her husband and that her move to the middle on a variety of issues has more to do with a cold political calculation to take power. (Remember the East German style health care system she proposed in the early 90's?)
Her heart truly lies with the radical left. I see nothing from what I know of her historical record to suggest that she is anything on the order of the "Iron Lady," Margaret Thatcher.
If you take her at her word, she will move expeditiously to withdraw troops from Iraq.
Like her husband, I believe that she will be lawyer-like in her appoach to radical Islam, deferring to traditional law enforcement agencies like the FBI and US Attorney's Office to arrest, prosecute and convict terrorist operatives in open courts of law.
Clinton would be followed into the White House by an army of party loyalists cloaked in political correctness. Her political appointees will certainly be left of center and may affect the aggressive posture federal law enforcement agencies currently demonstrate when looking at "suspected" terrorist cells operating inside the United States. Given Al Qaeda's operational method of infiltrating and methodically plotting inside a foreign target before striking, this is actually a far greater problem to the defense of the country than the issue of whether we stay the course in Iraq.
In a time of war, we need a Commander In Chief who thinks like a soldier, not an ACLU lawyer. As distasteful as McCain is to conservatives, he will be resolute in the defense of the country.
Posted by: Bill H at February 7, 2008 05:54 AM
In a time of war, we need a Commander In Chief who thinks like a soldier, not an ACLU lawyer.
If that's true, then who are you going to support? After all, McCain agrees with the ACLU that Gitmo should be closed; that the terrorists should receive greater rights and protections than U.S. troops.
McCain is onboard with the ACLU's position that the terrorists should be brought to the U.S., where they'll have Habeas rights, as well as full access to the U.S. courts.
Remind me again which candidate wants to wage lawfare against our enemies, which candidate wants to treat them like small-time Mafia goomba gunmen, rather than brigands who've earned a date with a firing squad?
Your faith in McCain's fortitude is heartwarming -- although unsupported by the man's recent record.
Posted by: Mike Lief at February 7, 2008 07:15 AM
I'd check your facts on McCain's statements on Guantanamo. He has not said it should be closed, and he has not said terrorists should be given the same rights as criminal suspects.
Posted by: Doug at February 7, 2008 10:28 AM
It just gets worse, of course. McCain's victory over the conservatives will now be uncontested, if you believe that the Huckster is only hanging around to establish his vice-presidential credentials. As we know, McCain is a very unpleasant winner. The national election is a nightmare, however it turns out. Time to rally locally for congressmen and state legislators who can try to stem the socialist wave.
Posted by: The Little Coach at February 7, 2008 10:38 AM
Although he may be against harsh interrogation techniques such as waterboarding and Guantanamo Bay, I still feel that at his core he is a realist on the issue of Islamic Radicalism. McCain is certainly not my choice for president. I voted for Romney when Rudy and Fred pulled the pin. However, if given the choice between McCain and Clinton, I believe that McCain will be far better at defending the country.
When Clinton steps into the White House, she will be followed by an army of individuals with a leftist political ideology. I expect to see the likes of Janet Reno heading up the Justice Department. In my view, Clinton will show a much greater hesitancy to use physical surveilance, electronic intercepts, and other necessary law enforcement techniques designed to detect terrorist precursor activity inside the continental United States.
Although both Clinton and McCain voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in 2006, my sense has always been that her vote was rooted in a political calculation in light of the looming presidential race.
If given the choice between Clinton and McCain, I'll hold my nose and cast a ballot for McCain. I believe the threat of Islamic radicalism and the planned use of a weapon of mass destruction against the United States is real. (Flip/flop)...I'll go with McCain.
Posted by: Bill H at February 7, 2008 12:03 PM