Posted on 02/07/2008 4:13:32 AM PST by Clive
Any way you cut it, Barack Obama was the big winner of Super Tuesday's primaries aimed at choosing who the candidates will be for the U.S. presidential election in November.
The thing about these primaries, is that they're Democrats vs. Democrats, and Republicans vs. Republicans, until each party chooses a candidate.
Then they tear into the other party, demonizing their rival.
Obama's triumph (which doesn't translate into delegates ... yet) is that a few weeks ago he lagged Hillary Clinton by 20 or 30 points in some states. On Tuesday he won 13 states -- more than any other candidate, and not all of those states loaded with African-Americans.
Hillary won eight states -- the delegate-rich states.
For the Republicans, John McCain won 10 states (the big ones), Mitt Romney won six, and the surprising Mike Huckabee won five. A misleading split, since only McCain has roots that span the country.
Obama's surge is mindful of John Kennedy's transformation in 1960 from a dilettante candidate into leading contender. Obama invokes that magical time for America, even though he's the most liberal or left-leaning of the candidates, making Hillary Clinton seem hawkish on Iraq by comparison.
In fact, arguably Obama is the most leftist of all Democratic Senators. But he's personable, and people (left and right) like him. He's smart enough not to poormouth the intentions and beliefs of political opponents, acknowledging that sometimes Republicans might be correct. So Hillary has reason to worry -- not to mention Bill, who lusts to be back in the White House, this time as First Spouse.
Hillary's coronation as president is on hold. The more one sees of Obama, the more people seem to realize that they (and the country) have had a bellyful of the Clintons. Obama's momentum is unlikely to fade.
BIG STATES
As for the Republicans on Super Tuesday, John McCain performed as expected and won the big states (New York, Illinois, New Jersey, California, etc.), but in a way, it was former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee who defied the odds, and won the south and U.S. religious belt.
Those who expected (hoped?) Super Tuesday to be his last hurrah, will have to wait a bit. He clearly dislikes Mitt Romney, and will eventually urge his delegates to join McCain. Right now, McCain has close to half the 1,191 delegates to assure his candidacy -- more than Huckabee's and Romney's delegates combined.
When the time is ripe, The Huck would like to be McCain's choice for vice president.
As for Romney, the darling of America's conservative talk show hosts who've been building him up as the only true conservative, and Ronald Reagan's heir, Super Tuesday marginalized him. Romney won in northwestern states adjacent to Utah, his Mormon spiritual home, and in the Massachusetts area where he was once a governor.
Romney's failure to wow voters reflects on the influence of the talk show conservatives who slag McCain all day, every day. Voters, apparently, pay them little heed. Rush Limbaugh, dean of the pack, has made an ass of himself by his McCain venom, as has conservative radio host Laura Ingraham, and the likes of nutty Ann Coulter. All overstate Romney's conservative credentials.
It's hard to see why Romney will continue his crusade, since he seems to be spinning his wheels, and not attracting outside funding so long as he's willing to personally finance his extravagant campaign. Maybe running for the nomination is his way of re-distributing his own considerable wealth?
Romney lost badly to McCain in winner-take-all, delegate-rich California and New York. In states other than those he's won. Romney often lagged behind the dogged Huckabee.
Some think Romney would be an ideal running mate for McCain, who's weak on economics. One is reminded of how John Kennedy had Lyndon Johnson -- whom he detested -- as an effective Veep.
Politics is about winning, not friendship.
Right now, McCain is the only Republican with a chance of beating whoever the Democratic candidate is in November. Personally, it would be more exciting seeing McCain take on the Clintons, rather than the gentlemanly Barack Obama.
-
Feel that rush of heat? That’s Bills face getting red!
I’m actually looking at Obama as the least bad of the big 3 candidates right now. hillary is evil, mcaien is nuts. Obama is a commie, but in the back of my mind, I keep thinking that he is way over his head as POTUS. He won’t get his agenda accomplished domestically because he won’t know how to do so. As for foreign policy, none of the 3 will be anything but a disaster. So we weather 4 years and get a strong leader in ‘12, like Reagan, who can set things right again.
I’m not gonna vote for him, no way. I’m sitting out this presidential election if mciean is nominated.
I’m starting to think that the GOP’s only chance is if Obama gets the most actually-elected delegates but Hillary gets nominated because the party-insider “superdelegates” give her the margin of victory. That would be widely seen as a stolen nomination (rules aren’t as important as the Will Of The Peepul, ya know?) and enrage much of their voting bloc.
NO. McCain, as bad as he is, at least would aggressively pursue the War on Terror. He would finish Iraq and take on Iran. That's certainly a lot better than Obamas total and immediate withdrawal from the region. Obama is the worst of the three. He is the Muslim mole.
If McCain has to run against Obama the contrast of age and oratorical styles will be so distinct it will be embarrassing.
Switch that around. Obama is the worst of the 3. Don’t buy into the hype. With a Democrat Congress, he can do anything he wants. If he doesn’t know how to do it, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Kerry will all give him plenty of help. Scared yet?
Well said and I agree...we can re group if Obama is pres. The Clinton machine will destroy the GOP..McCain will destroy it from with in.
Looks like the consensus is that all 3 are bad. Just different ways.
I don’t see how an open border is how you pursue a war on terror. I see an open border and a “bomb everyone else” as being the worst approach. If our own house is not in order we can’t fight abroad effectively.
“He won’t get his agenda accomplished domestically ...”
Clinton governed like a dictator by writing a blizzard of executive orders, bypassing congress. These EOs destroyed big chunks of our freedom.
Obama will do the same. The Marxist agenda will be advanced through the federal bureaucracy via executive orders.
The jackboot of federal fascism is on all our necks.
Good point. Any win of Hillary over Obama will be seen in a bad light by those recently energized new voters.
Really ? And how so ? By (almost) shutting down Gitmo, banning "torture", probably banning "illegal wiretapping" as well, giving legal rights to Al Qaeda thugs, offering citizenship to every border hopper.... ? Yeah, I am already feeling safe under a McCain presidency.
How will they explain giving the nomination to Hillary when BHO has more delegates?
I think it’s clear from the context that I was comparing McCains stance on foreign policy with Hillary or Obama.
All your points are very important, but unlike Hillary or especially Obama, McCain would not leave Iraq and the whole region or present them on a silver plate to Iran.
Are Obama or Hillary any less open-border?
With the Dems we have open borders, amnesty, surrender in the War on terror and pouring billions into useless etatist and globalist causes.
With McCain we have open borders, amnesty, but no surrender in the War on terror and puttig money into an important cause.
Both choices are incredibly bad, so don’t read this as an enthusiastic support for McCain, but he would do at least ONE thing better than the Dems.
Hillary is less open-border, Obama is more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.