Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Why Clinton May Have Lost To Obama

Written from Malaga, Spain--

(Pre-Note: Sad word comes from the Massachusetts General Hospital today that Sen. Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy has been diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. For decades, Kennedy has been a stalwart in the Senate and in American politics. There will be many bipartisan statements today, and prayers for his recovery).

Let's hope that New York Times writer Adam Nagourney was not jumping the gun when he wrote the article headlined today in the International Herald Tribune, "Clinton's decline: Blunders, bad luck and Bill."

Nagourney, who has not always been up to date about what is happening in the scintillating presidential race, puts it down to a variety of unfortunate happenstances and so forth. But, if she is gone, and I certainly hope she is, I don't think he has it right even now.

If Obama has prevailed in the impassioned race for the Democratic presidential nomination, I'd put it down primarily to these major factors:

1--He is superior to Clinton in both intellect and ethical sensitivity.

2--He has had a superb campaign, organized so wisely and carefully that it provides a solid indication he would also administer the White House well.

3--Like Charles de Gaulle, he never loses his composure.

4--Clinton unwisely put all her planning on the assumption she would clinch the nomination by Super Tuesday, Feb. 5. She unwisely spent extravagantly before that, and, then, when she did not, she had essentially inadequate resources left to contest Obama in the primaries and caucuses that followed later in February, when he built up a margin he has never given up in pledged delegates, and began making inroads in superdelegates.

I agree with Nagourney on one thing: Bill Clinton was not an asset to Hillary Clinton.

Now, there are those saying Obama will be another Michael Dukakis or John Kerry, if he wins the Democratic nomination.

This is bunk. As I suggested recently, Obama has never been, is not now, and will never be, a patsy. Already, he is firing back whenever Sen. John McCain, or anyone else, attacks him. And he is often quite personable about it, such as when he warned Tennessee Republicans, "Lay off my wife."

I recently offered to bet someone that Obama wins the election by getting at least 350 electoral votes. Sounds about right. Put me down for it.



Anonymous another old fool said...

"I agree with Nagourney on one thing: Bill Clinton was not an asset to Hillary Clinton."

Where would Hillary Clinton be if she wasn't Bill Clinton's wife? Not Senator from New York since 2000. Not the "frontrunner" for the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential nominee a few months ago. Being the spouse of an former president does have certain political advantages.

5/20/2008 10:05 AM  
Anonymous another old fool said...

Another thing.

Senator Obama and the National Democratic Party owe it to the Clintons that Hillary is staying in after it was obvious she won't get the nomination (Indiana and North Carolina). It would have been too embarrassing to Obama and the Democratic party for their presumptive nominee to lose to a candidate that had already quit such as would have happened if Hillary had quit before the West Virginia primary or will happen today in Kentucky.

Oregon? In 1968, Eugene McCarthy (that year's Obama) topped Robert Kennedy in the Oregon primary breaking a string of Kennedy primary wins. Kennedy would have been the strongest Democratic candidate in 1968. Yeah, I know, ancient political history. But the more things change, the more they stay the same.

5/20/2008 10:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

another reason is that Obama,the man whose composure you refer to in grotesque fashion to Charles DeGaulle's, is a man. But Clinton, a woman, obviously has more "testicular fortitude" than he does and that upsets sexist assholes like yourself.

5/20/2008 8:20 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home