At any rate, I know this is going to ruffle a lot of feathers, but I think the real reason Clinton won was that she was offering something of substance. Obama is offering lofty rhetoric and “hope.” Clinton has plans. While Clinton’s speeches may not make people swoon and make Kennedy comparisons like Obama, but at some point, this will get old. I don’t know about the rest of you, but when I am hungry, I like the steak and potatoes on the plate in front of me rather than the promise of a multiple course meal named “change.”I have been saying all along that I thought Obama was an empty suit. Lots of talk about change without telling us what that change is.
I still, at this point, do not know what Obama stands for other than “change” or something “new.” I honestly can not believe he has been able to get away with it this long, and I assure you, he will not in a general election. So that is why, in my opinion, Hillary won. She stands for something- something people can understand and grapple with. Not some lofty rhetoric about change that moistens loins at the American Prospect, but actual policy positions.
I temporarily reopened Middle Earth Journal when Newshoggers shut it's doors but I was invited to Participate at The Moderate Voice so Middle Earth Journal is once again in hiatus.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Why Clinton Won
There are all kinds of theories as to why Hillary won in New Hampshire - women, election fraud and so on. I hope that John Cole got it right: