Tuesday, January 8, 2008

New Hampshire Primary




This is a huge day today....the New Hamshire Primary. Hillary is quickly losing steam. She even cried yesterday when speaking to a group of voters, although, I actually didn't mind it, because it made her look more human and caring.
Obama is gaining a lot of momentum on the Democratic side. Latest CBS news poll has him up 35% to Clinton 28% (Edwards 19%). If Obama wins tonight, money is going to flood in to his campaign and then he will likely win South Carolina, and he'll be like an out of control train running downhill. People want to see "fresh and new" and are choosing that over "experience" (Hillary).
Edwards is a pretty guy, but I just don't trust him. First, he made his millions as a trial lawyer suing Ob/Gyns for malpractice in cases of cerebral palsy. His major contention in all of the 50+ cases were that if the obstetrician had performed a c-section, then the child would NOT have had cerebral palsy. This is complete bunk, and the scientific literature has unequivocally proven this. Cerebral palsy ensues much earlier than the time of delivery. Anyway, what he has irrevocably done is made malpractice rates for Ob/gyns astronomical, and he helped to contribute to the 30% c-section rate in all childbirths now, which is way too high (and costly). Oh, one more point about Edwards. Stephanopolous grilled him on Sunday morning after the debate because, as he stated Saturday night, he "promises" that there will be no lobbyists in the White House when he is president. George S. asked him then why are all of the major contributors to your campaign from lobbying organizations? (he then proceded to actually read him the actual list of names. It was a great moment. Here's the video: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4093850 go to about 1 min 28 secs to see that part). That guy is a slimeball.

Rebubs...the MAC is BACK! McCain has inexplicably risen from the dead and is gaining rapid momentum. He is leading the polls in NH, largely due to independent support. Romney is fighting for his life in 2nd place, and Rudy has been biding his time, hoping for big wins on Super Tuesday in the larger states, and not focusing as much on the early states such as Iowa and New Hampshire. It may prove to be a fatal strategy.

Finally, you may wonder why I have a picture of Bloomberg on this post. He is still lurking on the side. He has the money to jump in. He has done a wonderful job as mayor of New York. Will he enter the race? Remember, he is fiscally conservative and socially liberal...very moderate overall. Well, while I think it would be VERY exciting to have a viable independent candidate in the race, I don't think he jumps in if Obama and McCain are the two likely nominees from both sides. Why? Because, both Obama and McCain are already "centrist" type candidates. On the other hand, if it is Hillary and Huckabee, two candidates that are more extreme/polarizing, here comes Bloomberg (with Chuck Hagel as his running mate). We'll see. Good luck to all of the candidates today!




5 comments:

Meeta said...

Bloomberg apparently told Ryan Seacrest that he's definitely not running (see http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/nyregion/04nyc.html?_r=1&oref=slogin). Now if that's not truth, I don't know what is....

Will said...

Steve, great post...some comments:

I think Hillary is as centrist as Obama but maybe you're putting her in the 'polarizing' category. Perhaps it's becoming clear that we're not quite ready for a woman president. We want her to be less shrill, more human, whatever else, but my overall sense is that she's pretty dang good and that the picking at her comes from the collective subconscious bias vs. women in power. There, I said it.

Definitely Edwards is sleazy. He won't get the nomination but I really hope he stays off the ticket.

Bloomberg somehow doesn't give me the creeps of the super rich and Hagel on the ticket to help sell a billionaire NY Jew to the red states would be REALLY interesting ...there's no doubt a viable independent would make this whole thing a lot more exciting

kathleen said...

It is so refreshing to hear Will's take on the Dems' candidates and have been disappointed that, in the wake to the Obama wave and the media's questions about our readiness to elect a black man, neither the mainstream nor liberal news organizations have considered our collective reluctance to elect a woman, even if she is the best candidate. To be clear, I don't love Hillary because she is a woman but because she is the smartest, most qualified and thoughtful to run. But it's true, as a group, we're happy to stick with daddy who knows best.

As for Edwards, he is a total scumbag. I also think it is absurd for him to try to represent and align himself with "the people". I have intermittently tried to contact him about his lack of work ethic. I only heard his alliance with trial lawyers questioned by one NPR interview in October and he slithered out of answering.

My final rant: Obama is no JFK or MLK Jr. He is young and black and I think that's where the comparisons to these men end.

brens said...

Just to add to the debate... I agree completely with the sentiments regarding Edwards. I have been amazed that he consistently talks about 'reforming' the health care system while never being questioned about his livelihood: he made his millions manipulating the truth, taking advantage of the system for his gain alone, all while helping to drain the health care system. To me, it is the height of hypocrisy. Just look at who the trial lawyers are supporting and you'll see where Edwards' priorities are. Enough said. I can't see anyone in healthcare with half a brain who can stomach him for a second.

DMM said...

I have to take issue with your anger at Edwards. He made his living as a lawyer - all he did was represent his client to the best of his abilities. It was his JOB to convince a jury that certain doctors messed up. If you have an issue with the outcome of the cases, two pieces of advice: number one, complain about the jurors who were convinced by his legal argument and, oh yeah, the evidence presented at trial, instead of bitching about the person whose job it was to present the case. Number two, recognize that coverage of trials is far from complete, and you don't know the evidence presented. A good example is the infamous McDonalds coffee case, which everyone cites as a travesty to the justice system, yet every person I know who has actually read the court decision and looked at the actual evidence presented has totally changed their mind afterwards. Do you think he just went in there and said, "I think Dr. X screwed up this procedure - now give my client a million dollars"? No! He presented evidence, and it clearly won over a jury. Furthermore, most lawyers, even rich ones, don't have the luxury to choose only the cases they feel are morally perfect. Does it suck that sometimes good doctors get hit with lawsuits? Yeah. Do doctors mess up procedures? Yes, and they need to be held accountable for that, just like everyone else. And believe it or not, most lawyers actually believe that whole "everyone deserves his day in court" business! Like I said, if you have a problem with the outcome of the trials he was involved in, talk to the jurors.