http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print....party_98721.htm CLINTONS NO LONGER THE LIFE OF PARTY By CHARLES HURT January 4, 2008 -- DES MOINES, Iowa - Awaiting her coronation here last night, Hillary Rodham Clinton instead faced a seething revolt within her own party. VIDEO: Barack Obama's Victory Speech More than 70 percent of Iowa Democrats rejected her bid to get back into the White House. And so, after 15 years of domination, the Clinton dynasty has finally lost its grip on the Democratic Party. More than anything else, Clinton's campaign was built upon the aura of inevitability. That's now shattered and left in Iowa's frozen cornfields. What's devastating to her is that she lost so badly to such a political novice. Sure, Barack Obama is an incredibly impressive and appealing figure. He has magically turned the nasty politics of race on its head here in a state with a less than 3 percent black population. His hopeful determination to end the sordid politics that the Clintons are such masters of has even lifelong Republicans eager to vote for him. Still, Obama has four years less experience in the Senate than Clinton. And he didn't spend eight years in the White House as first lady like she did. He hasn't met one-tenth of the world leaders that she's met. Whatever. Adding insult to Clinton's real campaign injury is that she also lost to John Edwards, a retread loser from four years ago running a nasty class-warfare campaign that ultimately won't do any better this time than it did last time. It's certainly conceivable that Clinton can go on to stage a dramatic comeback in New Hampshire just as her husband did in 1992, forever billing him the "Comeback Kid." She maintains a solid lead there. But the same dynamics that worked in Iowa are now at work in New Hampshire. Carrying high the flag of "change," Obama will again attract all those people who are just sick and tired everybody in Washington. Add to the mix that Clinton goes there as a fallen star and Obama goes there as a rock star. The problem with caressing the jewels of the crown before the coronation is that it's really embarrassing when it turns out that the coronation goes to someone else. Clinton's invincibility has turned into inadequacy. She stumbled from Almighty to also-ran. The only question that remains now is whether she will be able to recover enough to go on. But does she really want to spend the rest of her viable political career on the national stage tearing down the man who is poised to become America's real first black president? churt@nypost.com
While I'm normally one to rag on the democrats, I've generally been a fan of Bill Clinton. He's not his wife, tho, and that is something everyone should keep in mind. Obama won his senate seat with massive support from the Clinton team. Now he's running against Hillary, and there's clearly a schism among the Clintonites - some support her, some support Obama. You could see the schism coming when various power players in hollywood threw their money and support to Obama early on, and spoke ill of the Clintons ("loose with the truth"). Bill Clinton was a conservative democrat; I never understood why conservative republicans had such a huge problem with the guy. He signed NAFTA and GATT, reformed welfare, and was probably the best president in my lifetime at reducing the size/growth of government. Aside from his personal foibles and character flaws, he never came across as being power hungry. It's clear to me that those around him, starting with Hillary, built an organization around him, and mostly behind the scenes. Bimbo Eruption Patrol, War Room, FBIGate, Web Hubbell, illegal campaign fund raising, mysterious disappearance and reappearance of Hillary's billing records, and all the rest of the scandals have one thing in common: The Rose Law Firm. Hillary, Hubbell, and Vince Foster (among others) all came from that horribly corrupt and criminal organization, and brought all that to the West Wing. While I say Bill didn't appear to be power hungry, the same is not true for Hillary. Aside from this organization that RICO statutes should have been applied to, she proposed to nationalize health care in a convoluted and corrupt way, she moved to NY to win a slam dunk senate seat as a carpetbagger, she's billed herself as the inevitable candidate, and so on. She clearly even stayed married to Bill for the path to power the marriage represented. I don't at all believe that electing her would be bringing back the Clinton years - she would not run the office as a conservative democrat, nor much in the style of her husband. She is a 60's radical, period. That said, the Clinton machine has been a reasoned mechanism for keeping the loonies of MoveOn.org and that wing of the party in check.
I'm not a fan of Bill Clinton due to his Middle East bumbling policy, but I loathe Hillary unreservedly for her personal actions as much as her completely self-serving machinations.
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content...ocratic_primary New Hampshire Obama 37%, Hillary 27% You go, guy.
It's not really about the man (or woman) at the top, it's who he surrounds himself with. The republic survived Nixon, Clinton, and Bush, it'll survive Obama, too.
Meanwhile: http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content...ublican_primary McCain 31%, Romney 26%, RON PAUL 14%, Huckabee 11%
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 5 2008, 06:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's not really about the man (or woman) at the top, it's who he surrounds himself with. The republic survived Nixon, Clinton, and Bush, it'll survive Obama, too.</div> True, he's no Hillary. I just wish his advisers were worth a damn...
