The Ashford Zone Blog

Like many, one of my chief problems with Hillary isn’t Hillary per se, but the whole idea of politics in this country being headed by only two families in the past 20 years.

Last night at Dartmouth, a student raised this issue with Bill Clinton:

Moments later, Clinton — his voice hoarse, sometimes cracking — took arguably the toughest question of the night, courtesy of a tall, blond 19-year old freshman wearing a bright red sweater. "My main concern is, if Hillary were elected, it would create a dynastification of American politics. Bush, Clinton, Bush. What do you think?" asked Sebastian Ramirez, standing less than a hundred feet from the former president.

Clinton responded, to rolling laughter across the room, "I’m not responsible for the 12 years that the American people gave to the Bushes."

That’s actually not a bad answer.  Why should it be held against Hillary if the country put the Bushes in office?

First the senile old man:

My response:

Millard Fillmore?  Polk?  Taft?  These are all silly names when you think about it.  The reason, Andy, you can’t fathom a "President Huckabee" or a "President Obama" is because of your failure of imagination.  I used to like your social commentary, but your ever-drying brain is just turning you into a sad pathetic curmugeon who can’t understand anything more contemporary than, say, the radio.  Time to retire. my friend.  Off to the porch, where you can yell at the neighbor’s kids to get off your lawn.

Honestly, this is ridiculous. 

After months and months of labelling Hillary Clinton has being too harsh and cold (or, as my mother would say, not very "womanly"), now they’re coming after Hillary from the other side.

You see, according to reports, tears welled up in Hillary’s eyes at a campain stop this morning.  Naturally, this begs the media to ask:

Can Clinton’s Emotions Get the Best of Her?

N.Y. Senator’s Recent Displays of Emotion Have Political Analysts Buzzing

So first she’s too macho; then she’s a bag of unstable emotions.

You know, maybe America isn’t ready for a woman president.  Or, at least, the media isn’t.  They simply can’t get past the fact that she’s a woman — as if that makes any difference?

Listen, could someone in the media write a piece about exactly how a female candidate may show emotion, when and where?

UPDATE:  Video of Hillary tearing up is here.  Despite what is being written, I actually think it helps her. 

First of all, she’s emotional, but she’s composed.  She continues to talk.  And there’s no doubt she’s sincere in what she’s saying.

All in all, the video places Clinton in a good light.  Not a negative one.

UPDATE  Ezra Klein found Hillary’s emotions justifiable and adds:

Which makes this statement by John Edwards particularly classless:

"I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business," Edwards told reporters Laconia, New Hampshire.

Assuming the quote and context is correct, I think it’s appalling that Edwards attempted to equate a momentary display of emotion with an absence of strength and resolve. Obama, by contrast, struck the right note:

"I didn’t see what happened," he said, but added, "I know this process is a grind. So that’s not something I care to comment on."

Carpetbagger, after noting how often House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) openly weeps, weighs in too:

On a related note, I was disappointed by Edwards’ reaction.

John Edwards was asked in Lakeport about reports that Hillary had teared up.

“I really don’t have anything to say about that,” he said. “I think what we need in a commander in chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are a tough business, but being president of the United States is also a very tough business. And the president of the United States is faced with very very difficult challenges every single day, difficult judgments every single day. What I know is that I’m prepared for that, and I’m in this fight for the middle class, for the future of this country, for the long haul.”

If this is an accurate quote, it’s a surprisingly cheap shot. Clinton wept, so she lacks “strength”? She teared up, so she’s unprepared for “tough business”? He’s more “prepared” because he didn’t cry?

If this really was Edwards’ response, I have to admit, I’ve lost some respect for him.

I have to agree.  Not cool John.  Not cool.

NPR:

When Barack Obama took the stage in DeMoines to deliver his impassioned Iowa caucus victory speech, U2’s song "City of Blinding Lights" preceded him. On the same night, John Edwards’ address to his supporters was also paired with a U2 song, "In The Name of Love?" Since when has U2 become the band to sum up American sentiment? Or is it just that they are one of the biggest band in the world and summing up the zeitgeist is part of their job?

I don’t know, but at least it’s not "Don’t Stop" or "Born In The USA".

Well, contrary to my predictions (I’m wrong a lot folks), Obama’s Iowa win did lead to an Obama surge in New Hampshire.  He’s now 10-13 points above Hillary, according to some of the most recent polls:

USA Today/Gallup: Obama 41%, Clinton 28%, Edwards 19%

Zogby: Obama 39%, Clinton 29%, Edwards 19%

ARG: Obama 39%, Clinton 28%, Edwards 22%

CNN/WMUR/UNH: Obama 39%, Clinton 29%, Edwards 16%

Marist: Obama 36%, Clinton 28%, Edwards 22%

Rasmussen: Obama 39%, Clinton 27%, Edwards 18%

Suffolk University: Clinton 35%, Obama 33%, Edwards 14%

I still don’t know.  I actually caught much of the Democratic debate on Saturday, and I have to say, if undecideds were looking for a reason to back Obama, they didn’t have much to find.  He looked, in a word, tired.  Edwards, on the other hand, was dynamic and energetic, and did most of the heavy lefting against Hillary.  Obama was relegated to the "me, too — what John said, I agree" role.  No major flaws on Obama’s part, but if I had to choose a candidate solely on the basis of that debate, I would go with Edwards.

Of course, that was just one debate, and by all accounts, Obama’s energy and charisma is everywhere in New Hampshire.  He’s got people energized.  It would be a monstorous thing for him to pull off two wins.  Race clearly isn’t a factor in this campaign (there are only three black people in Iowa and New Hampshire combined)*.  Obama has always had South Carolina in the bag; if he wins new Hampshire, as expected (now), and South Carolina, as expected (always), this tight Democratic field turns into an Obama cakewalk.

However, the point I want to make is that there is simply no guarantee that Obama will cruise to the nomination by winning New Hampshire. Further, from now through Super Tuesday, there are some states, such as Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, New York and New Jersey, where Clinton is ahead by more than 19%. Collectively, these states mean that Clinton will only need to win California to maintain a national delegate lead. And yes, while Michigan, Florida and the super delegates are expected to simply throw their delegates to the national leader, what if, because of her advantage in the other states I just listed, super delegates, Michigan and Florida are the only things separating Clinton from a national delegate lead? Then, we have entered a true nightmare scenario, where internal party procedure could determine the nomination, rather than the Democratic electorate. Also, does anyone really think that Clinton wouldn’t have a big edge during an insider fight over internal party procedure?

Hmmmm….]

I will say one thing — if I hear the word "change" again, I just might strangle someone — a random person — out of sheer frustration.  It’s true — this election really is about change; I just get tired of hearing that word.  I’m struck by the fact that Hillary Clinton — a woman — has come to represent the anti-thesis of change.  She’s not doing a very good job of making the case that she represents something new in Washington.

Sadly, I don’t think Edwards is going to last much longer.  His showing in New Hampshire portends to be comparatively abyssmal.  Too bad, I would like him to stick around longer.  What happens when he drops out?  Well, it seems obvious to me — his supporters swing to Obama who is, well, not Hillary.  And that puts Obama in the catbird seat.

On the Republican side?  I think New Hampshire is going to mark the beginning of the end for Huckabee.  Although he might linger for a few more primaries, it will become, after New Hampshire, essentially a two-man race: McCain and Romney (the latter of whom apparently blew away his competitors in last night’s debate).  Giuliani, too, will hang on — at least until Florida, but will be out after he comes in second (or worse) there.

I can say quite confidently that the Republican candidate most Democrats would NOT like to see is John McCain.  There’s a culty aura around him.  I don’t fear him that much.  Remember, the by-word of this election — even among the GOP — is "change", and McCain doesn’t have a nice fit with that word.  He supports many of the Bush policies that independents have long rejected (i.e., the Iraq War).  He’s pro-amnesty for illegal aliens, which doesn’t endear him to the neo-cons.  And he’s as old as the hills, and prone to make mistakes.

Romney, I believe, would be a more formidable opponent for Democrats, although he’s not without his own problems.  He’s a MAJOR flip-flopper, having once been pro-choice and pro-gay marriage.  Those positions changed once he entered the race.  The social conservative set simply can’t trust him, and are likely to stay home.

All in all, it looks good for the Democratic nominee, whoever that is.  But one thing is for sure, in 48 hours, the game is going to change pretty dramatically.

* Not a true fact.