... of the electorate this year. Her mantra in Iowa was "who is the candidate who can beat a Republican this year" and "who can do the job from day one?" Yet, her rhetoric seems to be "we have to be careful about how fast we get out of Iraq" and very little unorthodox or new in the way of running the US government. To me, that is an appeal to voting for the same old thing Democrats have been voting for since her husband left office. The results of the Iowa caucuses would seem to indicate that voters are looking in the direction of something entirely new -- a relatively obscure Arkansas ex-governor and a black Democrat. Yet, in spite of this, Hillary is sticking to her position that people should vote for her because a). she's the most electable Democrat, and b). she's prepared to do the job better than any other Democrat "from day one." Both of these are debatable assertions in my mind.
Illegitimi non carborundum.
I've begun to think of Iowa and New Hampshire less as some key determiners of where the electorate is- for a variety of reasons- and more as the first step in screening the job applications from the candidates. You know, the step where any little mistake is used to whittle the paperwork down. No resume? Gone. Misspelled more than two words? Gone. And so on. But a serious statement about who's going to come out on top? Hardly.
Why this opinion? Because the process in Iowa and New Hampshire seem so removed from the way political campaigns will run the rest of the way out. For one thing, candidates have to be for things more than they can be against them-- and yet many voters, near as I can tell, pick on the basis of who they'd rather not see in office. Bush was the "not-Gore" in 2000, Kerry was the "not-Bush" in 2004, and the early discussion regarding the Republican candidates has often- and not just from the "liberal media" side- been about which one is the best "anti-Hillary". Until these two races are over, the top candidates, IMO, are essentially running with one arm tied behind their back.
The other reason, and less idiosyncratic, is sheer size. A lot more candidates can get a campaign organization large enough to run in two states; a lot fewer can pull off a ten state, or twenty even, level of activity. McCain and Bradley didn't have it in 2000, and Dean, IIRC, was already flopping on this front even before the scream. Hillary already has this network in place, and the next month will show if Obama is a serious contender as well. Giuliani, I'd guess, is out, because he lost the "establishment candidate" mantle to Romney; Huckabee doesn't sound like he's got the mojo on that front, at least in comparison to Ron Paul; and IMO Thompson's run has been exposed as the vanity move it always was. (Running for president without any chance to win can be a lot of fun, apparently, which was why Pat Buchanan (among others) did it repeatedly.) But all this could change in a month.
Short summation, though: Hillary is far from dead with a third place finish. If it had been a third in a 40/30/20 affair, it would be bad, but third in an (essentially) 30/30/30 split is OK. (Edwards has no stamina, so those votes have to go somewhere, and anyone willing to vote for Edwards would seem to have no qualms voting for a Clinton.) Huckabee and Romney are in a duel for the top spot, with Paul lobbing grenades into the mix until the end. And as always, the biggest losers are us television viewers who have to deal with a nearly year long election cycle getting hyped and spun by a dimwitted (at best) media machine . . .
Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras
Only two Democrats still have any chance of winning Democratic nomination, Barack H. Obama and Hillary R. Clinton. If Obama wins New Hampshire on Tuesday night, it will be down to one, no matter what Clinton thinks about her chances on Super Duper Tuesday.
Obama's first call after he wins next Tuesday should be to Hillary, inviting her to be his vice president. She will be perfect attack dog for when Republicans start flinging mud at Obama. Edwards may be nice fellow but would make terrible VP selection, as he demonstrated when he didn't come out slashing at Swift Boat Veterans For Truth on Kerry's behalf in 2004. That was his job, but he refused to do it because he wanted to preserve his "nice guy" image. Kerry didn't need "nice guy", he needed someone willing to call Swift Vote Veterans cowards and liars, ready to take offense on behalf of all Vietnam veterans, ready to make ugly jokes about Bush in Alabama Air National Guard encouraging Swift Boat Veterans to defame people who made sacrifices Bush would never make.
Hillary Clinton will not win nomination precisely because of her attack dog qualities, yet those very qualities make her perfect to serve as Vice President. She saves face after failure to secure presidential nomination, Bill saves face (and campaigns hard for Democratic ticket in Arkansas and elsewhere), money flows like water, and Bill becomes next Secretary of State, tasked with restoring America's reputation abroad.
Now that your Vision Quest is at an end, you can get back to being what you were always best cut out for -- being a good Senator from Delaware. I'm hoping that whomever the Democrat is that wins the election in November doesn't dangle the State Department in front of Biden.
Illegitimi non carborundum.
