The New York Times joins schmoo in supporting Hilary Clinton: "As Democrats look ahead to the primaries in the biggest states on Feb. 5, The Times’s editorial board strongly recommends that they select Hillary Clinton as their nominee for the 2008 presidential election.... She is the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House."• They also said she should chill out on attacking Obama (or he might start crying too).
• Program Your Own Mind commented here a few days ago that "On every poll Obama AND Edwards outstrip Clinton in terms of ability to beat the republican candidates, with McCain being the only Republican that has a hope of winning the Whitehouse".
This may be true at the moment, and here at the schmoo 'safehouse' Obama seems in many ways the more likeable candidate, but things could be very different if he actually wins the nomination and the big right wing media guns turn on him. They will use paid assassins, cruise missiles, poison gas, and even go nuclear. At the moment Fox, CNN etc are supporting him against Clinton.
That's why the more 'experienced' Clinton is the best hope against the Republicans - they have been trying to destroy her for years and they have failed.
1 comment:
Hey again ;)
I'm not going to disagree, I've not been in the game long enough to be able to use more than current public perception and I know Clinton is a big gun in all of this. However, and I unfortunately can't find the links, there are plenty who worry about Clinton getting the nomination based on experience, because ultimately that is where McCain trumps her.
This is possibly why Obama is doing better now because at the moment visionary trumps experience (in terms of public perception), but how long that would last...your guess is as good as mine :)
Post a Comment