Blogs For Victory

No, I’m not kidding:

Clinton and her busload of traveling press moved from there to the popular local Mexican restaurant Lindo Michoacan, where a “roundtable” that was actually square passed a microphone around to tell her people’s concerns about the mortgage crisis and foreclosures. She took notes and munched on tortilla chips.

In broken English, one woman told Clinton how she wasn’t making money as a broker anymore.

“I have no income at all,” she said. “So how will I survive?”

Choking up with emotion, the woman said, “In my neighborhood, there are brand-new homes, but the value is nothing. I’m glad you are here so I can tell you, because you’re going to be the president, I know.”

A man shouted through an opening in the wall that his wife was illegal.

“No woman is illegal,” Clinton said, to cheers.

Pretty straightforward – if you’re a woman, then you’re not illegal…doesn’t matter if you just crossed the border yesterday, I guess. Unless, of course, Hillary was just trolling for votes – while Hillary is expressing doubts about caucuses, what I understand about the Democratic caucus out here in Nevada is that IDs won’t be checked…so, come one, come all…even if you’re illegal and especially if you’re a female illegal, ’cause Hillary has just given you a dispensation from the laws of the United States of America.

And some do wonder why I approach November with great serenity…

(As an aside – for the poor broker who can’t make money these days: cry me a river. Did you lower your brokerage fees when the price of homes in Las Vegas was skyrocketing? Bet you loved that time – well, now its a buyer’s market, and you’ll just have to tough it out. I’m taking it in the shorts on home equity, myself – but, on the flip side, it is helping first time home buyers who can finally afford a home now that the prices have come down to Earth.)

By pointing out the obvious:

Giuliani said it’s no feat to make changes for the sake of change.

“Change is either good or bad. So I think people have to focus a little bit more carefully on, what is it that we’re promising, and what are we trying to do. Now, if the change is in the direction of lower taxes, less spending, giving parents choice over education, energy independence, these are things that are going to make a brighter future and a better America. But just the word ‘change’ doesn’t connote good or bad. You’ve got to get one step beyond that and start looking at the changes,” he said.

When the Democrats say they want “change”, it is very much like the “new direction” they campaigned on in 2006 – sounds nice, but it doesn’t actually mean anything. For someone like Giuliani, the Democrats talking about “change” has to sound a bit ridiculous – none of the top three Democratic contenders has ever had to make a decision to change anything – Giuliani has, and knows its not a magic incantation which just makes everything all right.

Take, for instance, one of the major changes the Democrats all say they want – universal health care. Fine and dandy – lets have it; but lets also have the details. And lets not tax them too highly – certainly not as highly as they plan on taxing us. We’ll start small: Hillary, John, Barack – under your universal health care plan, if there are ten people who need a colonoscopy today, and only 5 colonscopies can be done today, who decides who goes first, and who has to wait for later? If they can’t answer a simple question like that – and they can’t – then all their talk of “change” is just so much poll-tested fluff designed to sucker the credulous (ie, liberals) into voting for them.

I still haven’t settled on a candiate for 2008 (though with the caucuses just 9 days away, crunch time is coming), but in Giuliani, Thompson, Romney, McCain and Huckabee, we have candidates who have far more experience in the practical difficulties of “change” than the three leading Democrats. In simple terms of knowledge and experience, the Republican field far outclasses the Democratic field – and I think that as November approaches, this will become decisive in voters’ minds.

The GOP candidates for president are about to participate in the FOX News debate in South Carolina… Remember, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards were too chicken to participate in a debate hosted by FOX.

In 2003, the Supreme Judicial Court imposed gay marriage in my state… and now our governor, Deval Patrick (Obama-lite to you), wants to impose allowing illegal immigrants to get the in-state tuition rates for state colleges and universities … without going through the legislature.

I honestly didn’t see this coming.

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for the White House Thursday in a timely slap at Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as well as his own vice presidential running mate.

Quoting a black American hero in endorsing the man who hopes to be the first black president, Kerry declared, “Martin Luther King Jr. said the time is always right to do what is right. And I’m here in South Carolina because this is the right time to share with you, to make sure that we know that I have the confidence … and that Barack Obama can be, will be and should be the next president of the United States.”

Kerry delivered his endorsement in South Carolina at a time, two weeks before that state’s primary, when Clinton is riding a wave of enthusiasm following her victory over Obama in the New Hampshire primary.

The obvious question to ask is “Why?” Why would Kerry endorse Obama over Hillary Clinton, whose husband helped him significantly in 2004; and John Edwards, who was his running mate in 2004.

After Al Gore’s embarrassing pre-implosion endorsement of Howard Dean, it’s obvious that politicians now are going to look before they leap when it comes to making an endorsement. So, one has to ask why Kerry endorsed Obama now, instead of after Iowa. Endorsing Obama immediately following Iowa could have helped him secure victory in New Hampshire — a state Kerry won in 2004. But he didn’t.

Here’s how I see it. Barack Obama, despite the enthusiasm for his campaign, is unelectable in the general election. John Kerry, who didn’t seek the presidency this time despite wanting to, is sure to want one more go at it. Endorsing Barack Obama helps him on a couple fronts… First, he can conceivably give Obama enough of a boost in the primaries to help him win and secure the nomination, and second, he gets to align himself with Obama’s anti-Iraq war position, which he might see as vital for a potential run in 2012. Would Kerry have endorsed Obama if he won New Hampshire? Probably not, it wouldn’t have been necessary. Had Obama won New Hampshire, he’d most certainly have been a shoo-in for the nomination. But now, Kerry sees he needs to do what he can to ensure Obama gets the nomination … if deep in his heart, he really wants to run for president again in 2012.

And Andrew Sullivan reader had this to say about the New Hampshire results:

Watched the NH returns with some friends last night, and something quite unexpected happened when the AP called it for Clinton — inexplicable ANGER. I was surrounded by people in their early 30’s, registered Democrats, receptive to the Clintons in the 90’s, and I swear I thought someone was going to throw their wine glass at the tube during her ‘victory’ speech.

Just an oddity, or an indicator of just how little the left will like it if Hillary is the nominee? Could be a very interesting couple months coming up…

HAT TIP: Instapundit via NRO’s The Corner

Polls pretty much predicted the results of last nights GOP primary, but polls were showing another blowout victory for Obama. So, what happened?

A local radio host predicted after Iowa that Obama wouldn’t do as well in New Hampshire. Why? Because New Hampshire had a primary, not a caucus… and in a caucus, the selection process is not secret ballot… Democrats, ever so mindful of race, really, really want to support a black candidate — even though their view of our country tells them that Obama can’t possibly be elected — still, it makes them feel good about themselves to say they are backing the minority candidate, be it during a caucus, or while being polled on the phone… But when push comes to shove, or when it comes to pulling that lever in the privacy of their own voting booth, they are more inclined to vote for the candidate that they think really has a chance to win.

Was that a factor? Or was Hillary’s teary-eyed display actually helpful to getting women to push her back on top?

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Richardson is out

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Kossacks think that Diebold stole the election for Hillary.

When a liberal group is forced to concede that a Democrat is corrupt, then that Democrat is undeniably up the creek…

In all the hullabaloo over the primaries, this story might have got missed by some:

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) – The U.S. military has video and audio recordings of Iranian boats that threatened to blow up U.S. Navy vessels in the Strait of Hormuz and plans to release them, the top Navy commander in the Mideast said Tuesday. President Bush described the confrontation as a “provocative act.”

Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff disputed Iranian claims that the incident early Sunday was a routine encounter, saying Iran’s “provocative” actions were “deadly serious” to the U.S. military.

“It was a dangerous situation,” Bush told reporters at the White House. “They should not have done it, pure and simple. I don’t know what their thinking was, but I’m telling you what my thinking was. I think it was a provocative act.”

The confrontation was an unusual flare-up of U.S.-Iranian tensions in the Persian Gulf as Bush begins his first visit to the Mideast. In the tour, Bush is to visit Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arab allies, in part to coordinate in confronting Iran.

Many Arab countries fear the Iranian-American rivalry could erupt into a military confrontation that would put them in the crossfire and hurt vital Gulf oil traffic.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said that its high-speed boats never threatened the U.S. vessels during the encounter, insisting it only asked them to identify themselves, then let them continue into the Gulf. A Guards commander defended his force’s right to identify ships in the sensitive waterway.

Cosgriff, the commander of U.S. 5th Fleet, which patrols the Gulf and is based in nearby Bahrain, said the American vessels had already been identified by Iranian authorities earlier in the day before the confrontation occurred.

With the Cole incident at the back of all naval minds, such an event is highly disturbing. What seems like a mere harassing exercise could swiftly lead to one or more of these motorboats making a suicide run towards a US ship. One thing to keep in mind – US naval warships are designed to fight other naval warships, not motorboats. Our ships have limited capability of thwarting a close-in attack from a small, fast moving target. Some people have expressed dismay over the lack of violent reaction on the part of the Navy during the incident, but my bet is that our ships are ready for a missile attack, an aerial attack, a submarine attack…for all manner of attack, but for some reason no one has considered what to do when a motor boat comes at you in open, though restricted (the Straight is narrow, and has a lot of navigation hazards), waters.

Prudence would seem to dictate that we adopt a policy of firing on any identified Iranian surface craft which approaches within a set distance of a US ship – in other words, we figure out how far out we need a small, fast target to be in order to ensure its destruction, and then don’t let any such craft to come closer than that. On the other hand, the Iranian government might not be unified in its determination to challenge the United States – could be that part of the Iranian leadership realises that full scale war with the US is national suicide, and so they work to keep the aggressive elements of the Iranian government in check…but a shooting incident which the hard-core anti-Americans could exploit? That might tip the balance and convince even semi-moderate Iranians that they must fight. So, we have to tread with care here – and I’m glad that this is precisely what President Bush is doing. War there might be with Iran, but it should only start at a time and place of our choosing.

The larger picture must be kept in mind – and central to that larger picture is the huge strides of success being made in Iraq at the moment. Iraq is the central front in the War on Terrorism, and we must allow nothing to divert us from completing that mission – any threat to that mission must be dealt with severely, but before we go tangling with the Iranians, lets be sure we have all our forces ready for all contingencies. Don’t let the Iranians provoke us into a hasty strike.

It’s on. Predictions… thoughts… reports?

UPDATE:
Mitt Romney, John McCain Both Predicting Wins in Granite State
Obama, McCain Lead in Early (Negligible) NH Voting
GOP’s Thompson in SC instead of NH
NH primary could make, break candidacies
Analysis: NH win could launch McCain

Early returns (7% reporting) shown on Fox show Hillary and Obama neck-and-neck (37 and 36% respectively), and McCain with a good edge over Romney (38 to 28%).

Some early thoughts: If Huckabee comes in a distant third, he loses any momentum he gained in Iowa. If Romney comes in second, especially a close second, he’s still in the race. If McCain holds his early lead and wins by 10 points or so, it could be a two man race between him and Romney again. Ron Paul could defeat Huckabee.

UPDATE: Exit polls via Fox:

McCain: 35%
Romney: 30%
Huckabee: 13%

Obama: 39%
Clinton: 34%
Edwards: 18%

Here are my thoughts if these figures hold out… Hillary is still in the race, and could easily bounce back. Obama may be in a good position with two victories, but I’d have thought his bounce from Iowa would have been bigger.

For Huckabee to go from 1st place in Iowa to 3rd place is not good. He may have jumped in the polls from Iowa, but his inability to at least come in a close second only highlights the fact that his victory in Iowa came courtesy of the Evangelical vote. If Huckabee can only win a primary when there’s a high population of evangelical Christians, than it’s going to be a long primary season and a potential brokered convention.

UPDATE, 8:11 PM ET: Fox projects McCain winner in GOP primary…

UPDATE: Clinton still edging out Obama 40-35% with 13% reporting… Can Hillary win tonight

UPDATE, 8:53 PM ET: Clinton: 40% Obama 34% (23% reporting)

What if Obama loses?

Michael Barone says Hillary could take New Hampshire…

UPDATE, 9:33 PM ET: Revised/updated exit poll:
Clinton: 39%
Obama: 37%
Edwards: 16%

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Here’s my insightful commentary – wow!

This is just amazing – and while the talking heads are saying that Edwards is out, I think there is no reason for anyone, on either side, to back out. I’m settling in for a long primary fight.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Fox News is reporting that the Culinary Union out here in Nevada, which was set to endorse Obama, is now holding off. Hillary and Obama are both locked in a tight fight here in Nevada – the Culinary is a massively important union in Nevada. For Democrats, its the brass ring…and if this report is correct, then it would be an indicator that the Democratic power structure has decided that Obama must be stopped. Keep in mind – next up is us in Nevada; our caucuses are on January 19th.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Edwards isn’t backing out…actually says he’s in the race to the convention!

UPDATE, by Matt Margolis: MSNBC projects Hillary win…

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Obama puts down the marker – he’s going to end the war in Iraq; he’s letting the left know that he’s their man. This is where the battle lines will be drawn: the left for Obama, the old-line Democratic establishment for Hillary. Who will win? As an aside, Obama says he’s in this to let the people take back their nation – top donors to Obama? People who work in insurance and lobbyists…there’s a big bunch ‘o change, huh?