I've been writing about Hillary Clinton's unelectability for years, so I'm very conflicted over the results of the Democrats' caucus in Iowa last night. On the one hand, few people are slimier, more corrupt, or less qualified than Hillary Clinton, so I'm saddened to see her lose because I think she would have been easy for any Republican to beat in November. On the other hand, no one wants face the prospect of an America saddled with such a slimy, corrupt, unqualified president of either party.
I disagree with Barack Obama on every political issue I can think of. Barack Obama's "Christian" church is literally insane. And yet, he doesn't come across as slimy and corrupt as Hillary Clinton which means that -- despite sharing her inexperience -- America would likely do much better with an Obama presidency than a Hillary presidency. If I had to pick a Democrat for President, Obama would be near the top of my list, so in that sense it's good that he trounced the Hilldabeast in Iowa.
If Obama wins the nomination, as seems likely, the Republicans will have a hard time beating him. Huckabee certainly won't stand a chance. Hopefully Romney or Giuliani will shine over the course of the next month and one of them will turn out to be a diamond.
I think that Obama will break down in the crucible of the actual election, much as Kerry did. Obama is apparently likable, but there's no substance to him. He was an Illinois state legislator who gave a good speech at the 2004 Democratic convention and got elected to the US Senate. After four years of doing not much in the Senate, suddenly he wants to be president?
I favor Thompson and Romney. Thompson is the better conservative, but Romney has the more solid resume. Either man would make Obama look like a clueless little boy. Obama is almost certainly the best the Democrats can do this year, but I'm not pessimistic about the general election.
I am for Thompson who is by far the best candidate in my opinion.
I really can't even watch the democraps anymore as everytime they speak, it is empty platitudes and general garbage that has no substance in their speeches. The food equivalent of Cotton Candy. This is especially a problem with Obama. I want to like him but he says nothing all the time.... a walking talking cliche.
> do much better with an Obama presidency
> than a Hillary presidency.
No way. Let's step through this:
Economic policy - indistiguishable. Taxes up the wazoo and spend, spend, spend. Both will attempt some sort of national health plan, and both will try to restrict trade.
Social policy - indistiguishable. Everything from gay marriage to what types of judges they nominate, there will be no difference.
Foreign policy - who do you want going against the Iranian Mullas? The inexperienced man-child or the bitch from hell? I'll take cut-throat over naive any day of the week on foreign policy. For me that fact that she voted FOR the war means that she can be realistic about the world we leave in. Not Obama.
That's not to say I want her as president, but if I have to watch the democrats win next year, I will take more comfort in Hillary than Obama.
The other thing that bothers me about Obama is that he claims to "bring America together", but his history in the senate is partisan and bitter. At least with Hillary there is no pretending and the press won't buy the "hands across the isle" BS hook, line, and sinker like they have with Obama.
DM: I definitely see where you're coming from. I think Obama is a "good person" in a way Hillary will never be, and that means that I think he has the capacity to see where his current positions are misguided and perhaps "see the light" or what-have-you. If he were really a leftist true-believer he'd be a lot more popular with the Kossacks.