Priority # 1 This Election: Make the Clintons just go away. (UPDATED with Disagreement from Patterico)
[posted by Justin Levine]
Fred Barnes manages to sum up my own feelings pretty well. Having a Republican in the White House isn’t nearly as important to me as keeping the Clintons out.
Fred observes –
[T]here’s a growing consensus among both Republican and Democratic strategists that Obama would be the stronger general election candidate. He may be more liberal than Clinton, but by almost every other yardstick he’s a more appealing candidate.
Nevertheless, many Republicans are rooting for him to knock off Clinton. If that makes it more difficult to keep the White House, so be it. Being spared another President Clinton is reward enough. For now.
Indeed.
UPDATE BY PATTERICO: I wholly disagree, and urge my readers in the remaining primary states to cross over and vote for Hillary. It’s our only hope.
Well, as far as keeping the lying, grasping, scandal ridden sociopath co-president team out of the WH? Yes. But keeping the far left near-Marxist, proabortion, nannystate liberal stances away from the office of Leader of the Free World? We won’t miss a tidbit of that under Obama. He’ll just make it go down easier–for some people anyway, not for me.
Obama is just as dangerously liberal as the Clintons, and in some cases more so, because his appealing nature and lack of a scandal ridden past make him harder to oppose. Don’t want any of the three of them in the WH. Nuh uh.
no one you know (1f5ddb) — 2/13/2008 @ 6:28 amagreed, the clintons had their run, its over now so why cant they just go away? i think obama would be the stronger candidate as well and as far as his being a liberal is concerned, remember when candidate Bush was going to be the domestic policy president back in 2000? history has a way of intruding on ones plans.
james conrad (7cd809) — 2/13/2008 @ 7:55 amI’m planning to do just that.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/13/2008 @ 9:08 amI’m not so sure. I think Hillary, of course, has a history redolent with opportunity for attack. However, Obama’s policies are so half-baked and leftist that McCain could very easily picture him as a naive, hippy intellectual–quite a danger as a president. (He is, isn’t he?)
Patricia (f56a97) — 2/13/2008 @ 9:26 amIn the general election, Obama will have to flesh out the dreams with substance. If McCain tries to liberalize him, I’m afraid the voting base will find that aspect attractive. So far, it’s worked. Especially in fund-raising efforts.
Vermont Neighbor (c6313b) — 2/13/2008 @ 9:52 amDon’t bet that Obama has to flesh anything out. This isn’t conventional wisdom time. Everyone said that the Dems couldn’t take back Congress in 06 running on hate. They did.
NeoconNews.com (2a37f8) — 2/13/2008 @ 9:55 amAs a hardline GOP conservative, I plan on crossing over and voting for Hillary!! in Ohio on March 4. Obama would run a far more effective campaign against McCain than she would.
John Cunningham (5dc271) — 2/13/2008 @ 10:14 amI already did my part, as I have posted before, and truly for the reasons I gave.
And I would truly prefer Hillary as the nominee over Obama, because I would be more comfortable with her as President were McCain to blow it. It has nothing to do with a reading on the light meter. It has to do with a confidence that our President is an American, dedicated to America, despite her Stalinist views.
nk (616f8b) — 2/13/2008 @ 10:59 amI’ll be following Patterico’s advice in RI next month.
rhodeymark (e86321) — 2/13/2008 @ 11:00 am“I wholly disagree, and urge my readers in the remaining primary states to cross over and vote for Hillary. It’s our only hope.”
I think crossing over (crossovering?) is entirely unethical. It is up to Dems to pick the candidate they want to put forward.
JohnW (36124f) — 2/13/2008 @ 1:45 pmIt appears Fred Barnes missed the last seven years of crazy hate against Bush; he has no clue as to who and what is driving that insane bus.
There is no way McCain will be able to deal with the Left’s attack against him should their Messiah candidate lose to their constant nemesis the ‘evil white guy who oppresses black people and puts guys into gulags.”
If Democrats dislike Hillary so much would it not benefit McCain that she win the primaries?
syn (eb1ff1) — 2/13/2008 @ 2:40 pmWell, I’m undeclared and always have been. there’s nothing in it for me to vote on the R ballot, so I’ll vote quite comfortably on the D ballot.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/13/2008 @ 8:49 pmHillary is Corrupt but despite grandstanding she is pragmatic on many issues.
Obama is a Believer.
For example, I’d expect Obama to pull all troops out of Iraq ASAP. I’d expect Hillary to follow a withdrawal pace that Bush has discussed, maybe taking a year or more, but talk it up like she was getting the troops home. Heck, I think she might even support a continued presence.
jpm100 (b48b29) — 2/14/2008 @ 3:05 amWhat’s wrong with a liberal president?
Amsterdam (d2c8a3) — 2/14/2008 @ 5:12 amMaybe that’s just what America and the world needs.
A new generation is finally understanding and standing UP!
Choose Hillary or any Republican candidate and nothing will change.
So wake UP, and Choose for change and a better world for everyone.
Vote for Barack Obama.
Amsterdam –
Inspiring-sounding words, talking about “change”, content-free post…
Are you one of Obama’s speechwriters, by any chance?
Robin Munn (cc08f2) — 2/14/2008 @ 6:01 am“It’s our only hope.”
Not to quibble, but could you please find a way to say this without using the word “hope”? Ron P’s running on “Hope for America”, Obama speak about hope in every other sentence of every speech, Huckabee comes from Hope, for gawd’s saks, Ted K makes points about “the audacity of hope”, The Man From Hope keeps dropping in to remind to vote for the Wife of The Man From Hope . . . .
I’m just Hoped out, I think.
bobby b (361921) — 2/14/2008 @ 3:26 pmThe things to worry about Hillary are the things few people worry about: the dynasty and their tendency to sic public agencies on their enemies. Other than that, she’d be easier to strike deals with than Obama or McCain, and, as little as she’s qualified, she’s more qualified than them.
With McCain as president, the immigration situation would be similar to what it is under Bush, with McCain continually working with Teddy Kennedy and many in the GOP to push for amnesty.
A Dem would meet with more resistance, but Obama would be more willing to push for amnesty.
Obama winning would also give a win to various people who I don’t want to see celebrating, such as Teddy Kennedy, the nutroots, and many others.
And, the GOP nominee doesn’t have to be McCain. Levine’s boss certainly has the wherewithal to send people to McCain’s appearances and press him on these questions.
TLB (4e2083) — 2/15/2008 @ 12:21 pm