A Democrat presidential candidate is the front-runner for a year, and then becomes emotional in New Hampshire — with some press accounts reporting tears.
It happened in 1972 — and it ended Ed Muskie’s campaign.
But that was then, and this is now:
Terry McAuliffe, a longtime friend of the Clinton family and her campaign chair, was talking to reporters when the news [of Hillary Clinton’s victory in New Hampshire] flashed.
. . . .
Asked if he believed Clinton helped her cause by tearing up on Monday while meeting with undecided voters at a Portsmouth cafe, McAuliffe said: “Sure I do. People saw how passionate she is about the issues.”
Earlier this evening I asked: “Did Hillary cry her way to victory?”
What else erased Obama’s huge lead so quickly? You tell me.
UPDATE: When Maureen Dowd and I are saying the same thing, someone needs to be worried.
This time, he’s going as a photojournalist.
I wish him the best of luck. Along with Badgers Forward, Teflon Don’s blog was my favorite coming out of Iraq.
UPDATE: So. Did Hillary cry her way to victory?
UPDATE x2: More on this question here.
For those who believed Ron Paul condoned nutty conspiracy theories, anti-Semitism, and other forms of bigotry and craziness: vindication.
Sometime last night, this blog’s SiteMeter hit 5 million visits.
Thanks for reading.
Hot Air says several Big Media organizations are calling New Hampshire for McCain.
P.S. For what it’s worth, the commenters over there are trying to figure out how this can be with only 12% of precincts reporting at the time the post went up.
UPDATE: Regardless, it’s now clear.
UPDATE x2: I haven’t endorsed a candidate and don’t plan to. But McCain hereby gets my seal of disapproval. Please, America. Choose another Republican candidate. This guy has stabbed us in the back far too many times.
You can listen to yesterday’s arguments on lethal injection here. The transcript is here. (Transcript via Howard; audio via Howard as well.)
I listened to it all and then read Dahlia Lithwick’s piece — and if you can get past the editorializing (which she’s of course entitled to do) it’s a very, very good description of the argument. You get a good sense of what is going on in the blow-by-blow interaction between the justices and lawyers if you read her article carefully.
Bottom line: it’s crystal clear that Kentucky is going to win. Crystal clear. There’s really only one issue: what will be the scope of the opinion?
Justice Stevens wants it to be narrow, and propounds the key question: “Do you think the constitutionality of the three-drug protocol itself is at issue in this case or merely the question whether Kentucky has done an adequate job of using that protocol?” The lawyer responds only the latter. Justice Stevens remarks that “the record is very persuasive in your favor, I have to acknowledge” (he hates to acknowledge it, but he has to) but wants to leave open the possibility that the administration of the protocol in other places across the nation might be wanting.
Justice Scalia clearly wants to forestall more litigation: he wants the Court can declare the three-drug protocol constitutional without worrying about comparisons to a one-drug protocol — the protocol used to put animals to sleep. Justice Scalia is concerned about setting a standard that says one method is unconstitutional if there is another method that is less painful — because lawyers for death-row inmates can always claim there is another better and less painful protocol. He likes the argument of the government that says “so long as the only risk comes from negligent application of the protocol, no comparison is required” with other possibly less painful methods.
How sweeping will the decision be? Only time will tell.
But Kentucky will win. That’s a foregone conclusion.