See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: The Empire Strikes Back: Return From the Dead in New Hampshire
Source:
CounterPunch
URL Source: http://counterpunch.com/
Published: Jan 9, 2008
Author: ALEXANDER COCKBURN and JEFFREY ST. CLAIR
Post Date: 2008-01-09 19:19:40 by aristeides
Keywords: None
Views: 442
Comments: 34
The Empire Strikes Back Return From the Dead in New Hampshire By ALEXANDER COCKBURN and JEFFREY ST. CLAIR Unlike her husband in New Hampshire in 1992, Hillary Clinton not only came back from premature announcements of her political demise. She actually won the Democratic primary by a narrow 2 per cent, 39-37. (In 1992 Bill, battered by reports of his infidelity, came second to Paul Tsongas by 8 per cent.) The prime reasons for her victory were a) women and b) the lower profile in New Hampshire of the war in Iraq. In Iowa, Barack Obama won the women's vote by more than 5 percentage points over Hillary Clinton. In New Hampshire, Hillary got 47 per cent of the women's vote, over 34 per cent for Obama. After looking at the devastating numbers in Iowa the Clinton campaign rushed out mailers stressing Obama's supposed softness on the abortion issue. Second, Hillary Clinton's moment of tearful victimhood with New Hampshire women was clearly effective, as was the footage of a post-debate session where the Democratic and Republican male candidates fraternized jovially, uncertain how to deal with the only woman in the locker room. "Defend our sister," was clearly a crucial rallying cry in New Hampshire for Hillary Clinton. In Iowa the war was foremost as a concern among Democratic and independent voters. In New Hampshire it was less of an issue. The Clintons learned quickly from the Iowa disaster. Hillary Clinton, as she stated in her victory speech in Manchester, "found my own voice", a disclosure perfectly in tune with the confessional dramatics of Oprah Winfrey and Dr Phil. The Clintons learned too how to calibrate an assault on Obama. That was Bill Clinton's role. His carefully prepared outburst the day before the primary, assailing Obama for lies and malicious slanders on his own character was an eerie reprise of his furious outbursts during the Lewinsky affair. This time Bill's flailings at Obama had, to the attentive ear, a racist timbre, nudging the black senator over into the "preacher of fairy tales" side of the ledger. Obama as "ole preacher" was the overt message of Hillary Clinton when she said that Martin Luther King may have talked a good game on change, but it took a white southern president to deliver it. As the Democrat in the race who most fiercely and unapologetically defends her support for the attack on Iraq in 2003, Hilary Clinton's win last night in New Hampshire was paralleled on the Republican side by John McCain's victory. (In 2000 McCain beat Bush in New Hampshire, 46-30. In 2008, with 86,000 votes, he beat Romney 37-32) New Hampshire is not Iowa, where the votes are almost always interesting and the voters are genuinely of an independent disposition. In New Hampshire the two candidates most closely approving of the war and the least emblematic of change came out on top. In her victory speech Hillary Clinton said she wants "to end the war the right way." John McCain, with the same pause, said he wants "to bring them home with honor." The day before, McCain told the press in New Hampshire he thought the US would be in Iraq "for the next 100 years." As in Jacobean tragedies, the time is coming for the stage grips to haul the dead and dying off the stage. Gone: Fred Thompson (1 per cent of the vote in New Hampshire, after an incredible amount of press); Mike Gravel, 396 votes; Dennis Kucinich, 3,800 votes, the same number of UFOs Shirley MacLaine sees on a clear night; Bill Richardson, 12,845 votes, 5 per cent. Giuliani? It doesn't look good for him. This is the north-east. It's his quarter of the Homeland. He got 19,500 votes, 9 per cent ahead of Ron Paul. Paul got around 18,000 votes absent those who had no time to get to the polling both because they were still picketing outside Sean Hannity's hotel. (He won more than the other antiwar candidates, Richardson, Kucinich and Gravel got, combined. Romney? He's a north-eastern governor. If he can't score in New Hampshire, where else, aside from Utah? Among the corpses to be dragged off should be those of the pundits and the pollsters, not excluding James Zogby, often on the money. He called it right in Iowa. In New Hampshire he was exactly right on Richardson and Edwards but had Obama at 42 and Hillary at 29, a huge polling gaffe. Were the New Hampshire voters simply not divulging their true feelings? The "closest" of all the polls on the Democratic side was the Suffolk/WHDH survey, and its last poll had Obama up by 5 points, still wildly wrong. That same poll had Romney winning by 5 points. Ron Paul has to decide. If Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, whoever the Republican, there will be no straightforward, uncompromising anti-war candidate in the race. Ron Paul thus far has won such support as he got in Iowa and New Hampshire thanks to the fact that they are both open states that allowed independents to vote for a Democratic or Republican. Most future primaries don't allow this option. He has about $20 million raised from the most enthusiastic supporters yet visible in Election 2008, antiwar, pro-Bill of Rights. He should immediately run as an Independent candidate or on the Libertarian ticket, the latter being the easier option for him. Are there any other independents who would raise the antiwar standard? Certainly not Michael Bloomberg. Ralph Nader? His endorsement of John Edwards in the final moments of the Iowa caucus was bizarre. Why suddenly support someone he had run against in 2004, who supported the war and the Patriot Act, whose populism had as much authenticity as Al Gore's lunge into populism at the Democratic convention in 2000? Nader should probably leave the battlefield to Paul. Message to the young supporters of Obama. Politics is not one quick dash. You have to stay and work. The Clintons have been at the game for 30 years. They don't give up. They've come back from the dead many, many times.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: aristeides, *Ron Paul for President 2008* (#0)
hmmmm
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! I would add to the authors' point the fact that, if Ron Paul starts a third- party run, one of the things that will accomplish will be to put pressure on the Democrats to nominate an anti-war candidate, instead of Hillary.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I missed that point, it's a good one. At work today I spoke with a liberal co-worker who is dismayed at the lack of anti-war candidates. I mentioned to him that last night Obama said he would bring home the troops from Iraq; something new I believe. This co-worker felt that Hillary has boxed herself into a corner on that subject. At any rate, a McCain or Hillary election = 100 years in Iraq.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! And the odds are that is what it will be..... McCain against Hiltery, but what is the difference? Even if it is someone else, how many times do 'they' have to compaign, and lie, and people still believe them? There is no difference, and if there is, they will not be a candidate, period.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
In the process, Ron Paul will educate many sheeple. It's painfully slow and may be too late, but it's something.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! Funny how MSM declared a winner before the hand counts came in. Amazing how they got an eight percent average with all the electronic voting machines. I don't have much time to write, but I want to make one thing clear. As for myself, I got involved with the campaign regardless of the outcome because it's the right thing to do. The number of electronic voting machines is greatly diminished for the Super Tuesday Primaries, and the party is fragmented. We're in this for the long haul, and we've stepped in to what the campaign is all about. Time to regroup and continue our efforts. richmond is hand count 34% for Dr. Paul...100% reporting "Most of the trouble in this world has been caused by folks who can't mind their own business, because they have no business of their own to mind, any more than a smallpox virus has." - William S Burroughs
Wow! What a difference! That's more like it!
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
The message I have for Obama supporters is that the Clintons stole the election.
The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
The message I have for Obama supporters is that the Clintons stole the election. Yep, and he cannot even wink in that direction, if he wants a future in politics.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! Lying media hype...the machine ensured a Hillary 1st place showing. The tears and laundry sound bites were entirely scripted as was the hype that Hillary might come in 3rd. These people have nothing but time and money.
Live free or die.
If you're referring to this article, maybe you ought to read it more carefully. The authors appear to favor Ron Paul's candidacy. They are certainly firmly anti-war and anti-Hillary.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
When is the last "debate"? I think that's when it may happen.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
Good point. If it should wind up Hitlery vs Mussaliniani it would be good for our cause, but would make for a dismal four years for America.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
If you're referring to this article, maybe you ought to read it more carefully. The authors appear to favor Ron Paul's candidacy. They are certainly firmly anti-war and anti-Hillary. I guess it's a clear example of where my screen moniker comes from, but I find the constant harping and whining about MSM about as fresh and exhilarating as an old Elvis record. My observation is that Ron has gotten a pretty polite, friendly reception by interviewers and reporters of all stripes. Not 100% of course, but not what many seem to expect or imply. On the other hand, their distaste for Hillary is often not at all thinly veiled.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
I'm referring to the lying media hype surrounding the Clinton "comeback kid" press in the aftermath of the rigged NH primary.
Live free or die.
And yes, good that RP gets a nod. But so what when the elections are stolen and the media is complicit.
Live free or die.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
It was most emphatically a comeback and therefore news. Several commentators (non rightists) reacted to her crying act with rolling eyes and knowing chuckles. Blame the "comeback" on the sisterhood, not MSM and other "conspirators".
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
Every word in your post is right on. Third party candidates can have a profound influence on election outcomes. But, help me out on my history, when if ever has a third party candidate prevailed?
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
When Abraham Lincoln was elected president with 40% of the popular vote in 1860 in an election with four major parties, the Republicans were a relatively new party running their second ticket in a presidential election. Whether they are to be considered a third party at that point is a matter of one's definitions. I suppose the case is stronger for considering the Republicans a third party in the 1856 election, their first, which they came very close to winning with John Fremont at the head of the ticket. Remnants of what had been the second party, the Whig Party, did (along with the new Know Nothing "American Party") run former President Millard Fillmore as their candidate that year, and he did reasonably well, winning 21.6% of the popular vote.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
McCain said 100 years, I don't know how many years Hillary is planning in Iraq.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
I get the feeling that someone or some group thinks it does.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
I think you could be correct. In fact, the domestic economic problems we are having now seem to be beyond their control. Dick "deficits don't matter" Cheney who flunked out of Yale twice (only admitted because of a letter from a neighbor), and the rest of 'em are way out of their league. Their overwhelming evil and hubris is astonishing even by our jaded sensibilities. No wonder we assume they are intentionally destroying our nation, along with other selective areas of the globe.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! In the late 1800's, railroads were the most powerful corporations.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
I agree completely, the "internet thingy" took them by surprise. Further proof of their feeble mindedness and incompetence that can be overtaken.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
We aren't leaving Iraq until we've pumped every drop of oil from them.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Thanks a. Very interesting, 1860 in particular ... especially when contrasted to 1856.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
He should immediately run as an Independent candidate or on the Libertarian ticket, the latter being the easier option for him.
The Revolution will not be televised!
#2. To: robin (#1)
#3. To: aristeides (#2)
The Revolution will not be televised!
#4. To: robin (#3)
a McCain or Hillary election = 100 years in Iraq.
#5. To: richard9151 (#4)
The Revolution will not be televised!
#6. To: robin, christine (#5)
from someone in my meetup group:
lyman is hand count 28.7% for Dr. Paul...100% reporting
Orange is hand count 25% for Dr. Paul...100% reporting
Harts location is hand count 25% for Dr. Paul...100% reporting
wentworth is hand count 24% for Dr. Paul...100% reporting
goshen is hand count 17.68% for Dr. Paul...100% reporting
marlow is hand count 16.6% for Dr. Paul...100% reporting
cornish is hand count 14.8% for dr. Paul...100% reporting
Rumney is hand count 14.5% for Dr. Paul...100% reporting
croydon is hand count 14 % for Dr. Paul...100% reporting
dorchester is hand count 13.89% for Dr. Paul...100% reporting
effingham is hand count 13% for Dr. Paul...100% reporting
albany is hand count 12.9% for Dr. Paul...100% reporting
antrim is hand count 12% for Dr. Paul...100% reporting
south hampton is hand count 12% for Dr. Paul...100% reporting
sullivan is hand count 12.61% for Dr. Paul...100% reporting
troy is hand count 12.21% for Dr. Paul...100% reporting
mason is hand count 11.88% for Dr. Paul...100% reporting
newport is hand count 11.45% for Dr. Paul...100% reporting
charlstown is hand count 11.3% for Dr. Paul...100% reporting
Allenstown is hand count 11.16% for Dr. Paul...100% reporting
bristol is hand count 11% for Dr. Paul...100% reporting
warren is hand count 11% for Dr. Paul...100% reporting
Strafford is hand count 11% for Dr. Paul...100% reporting
washington is hand count 11.02% for Dr. Paul...100% reporting
lancaster is hand count 10.9% for Dr. Paul...100% reporting
springfield is hand count 10.6% for Dr.Paul...100% reporting
wilton is hand count 10.37% for Dr. Paul...100% reporting
Northfield is hand count 10.3% for Dr. Paul...100% reporting
mont vernon is hand count 10.25% for Dr. Paul...100% reporting
#7. To: Dakmar, TwentyTwelve, *Ron Paul for President 2008* (#6)
The Revolution will not be televised!
#8. To: aristeides (#0)
#9. To: robin, Dakmar, TwentyTwelve (#7)
Message to the young supporters of Obama.
#10. To: Horse (#9)
Message to the young supporters of Obama.
The Revolution will not be televised!
#11. To: aristeides (#0)
#12. To: angle (#11)
Lying media hype
#13. To: robin (#1)
He should immediately run as an Independent candidate or on the Libertarian ticket, the latter being the easier option for him.
#14. To: aristeides (#2)
I would add to the authors' point the fact that, if Ron Paul starts a third- party run, one of the things that will accomplish will be to put pressure on the Democrats to nominate an anti-war candidate, instead of Hillary.
#15. To: aristeides (#12)
Lying media hype
#16. To: aristeides, iconoclast (#12)
Lying media hype
#17. To: aristeides (#12)
#18. To: robin (#3)
#19. To: angle, aristeides (#16)
I'm referring to the lying media hype surrounding the Clinton "comeback kid" press in the aftermath of the rigged NH primary.
#20. To: ghostdogtxn (#18)
if RP is on a Libertarian ticket at that time, he could do well, but he can't win the WH without being the nominee of one of the two fraud parties.
#21. To: iconoclast (#20)
(Edited)
#22. To: ghostdogtxn (#18)
The Revolution will not be televised!
#23. To: robin (#22)
#24. To: ghostdogtxn (#23)
The Revolution will not be televised!
#25. To: robin (#24)
#26. To: ghostdogtxn (#25)
big events are coming that will shake up the status quo tremendously.
The Revolution will not be televised!
#27. To: ghostdogtxn (#25)
#28. To: aristeides (#27)
#29. To: robin (#26)
#30. To: ghostdogtxn (#29)
The Revolution will not be televised!
#31. To: robin (#30)
#32. To: ghostdogtxn (#18)
It means 4 more years in Iraq, not 100.
#33. To: Arete (#32)
#34. To: aristeides (#21)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest