by Monique Garcia
MUSCATINE, Iowa— Around March of each year, Hillary Clinton usually gives up on her New Year’s resolutions, she told a crowd here today, resigning to “try again next year.”
Luckily for Clinton, Iowa voters looking for change only have to make it to Thursday when they have the unique position to propel presidential contenders through the general election during the first-in-the-nation caucuses.
But getting a strong turn-out isn’t a guarantee. Today. Clinton appealed to a crowd donning party hats that waited for more than an hour for her bus to make its way through the snow to grant their support for just one day.
In doing so, she promised she could do what has eluded Democrats in the last two elections – clench the office.
“I will stand up and wage a winning campaign and I will be able to withstand whatever the other side has to throw at us,” Clinton said. “You know they’ve been after me for 16 years and much to their dismay I am still here and I’m not going anywhere.”
Clinton stayed away from direct attacks against her Democratic rivals, instead focusing on the growing dissatisfaction over President George Bush, even taking a swipe at Vice President Dick Cheney over his aim with a rifle. She referred to Bush and Cheney as “the two oil men,” and vowed to reduce the nation’s reliance on foreign energy.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
When Karl Rove makes his New Year’s resolution, I’m betting it has something to do with helping Hillary Clinton win the Democratic nomination. Rove’s suggestion of her inevitability has been picked up like a mantra by the GOP, Rove’s surrogates and even many in the media. Rove knows there is only one way for the Republicans to win the Whitehouse in 2008 and that is to divide the country.
Let’s face it. This country is roughly 1/3 conservative, 1/3 liberal and 1/3 moderate. It’s the middle 1/3 who choose a president. A Clinton nomination would be so polarizing; there is no way that the moderate middle will cross over to vote for her. Of course, the Republicans could also nominate a polarizing person, increasing the likelihood of a third-way political party led by Bloomberg and company.
As an independent voter in Iowa I’ve got a ringside seat to the fight for the presidency and I have to tell you it’s pretty ugly. I have supported Republican candidates in the past – before they decided that torture is a moral right; habeas corpus is an inconvenient legal technicality; and that they have the right to declare anyone they choose to be an enemy combatant. At the same time, as a moderate voter, I can’t see myself supporting Hillary Clinton for president.
So, now the choice for the Democratic Party is clear:
* There’s a divisive Hillary Clinton nomination.
* There is battlin’ John Edwards. I think he’s an amazingly good man. I supported him early on, but he’s run a take-no-prisoners campaign, and that’s not what it takes to unite the country. Sorry, John.
* And there’s the one candidate who stands for uniting red states and blue states – Barack Obama. Obama is the middle way. He is the one who can win my vote.
Posted by: Tony Loyd | January 1, 2008 12:36 AM
The problem with voting for you, Ms. Clinton,is the perpetuation of the old Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton dynasty. You are the ultimate corporate candidate. Most people have trouble believing anything you say and your quest for control is a tad transparent. You lack integrity.
Posted by: Margaret | January 1, 2008 1:02 AM
"...withstand whatever the other side has to throw at us...?" Huh? That's precisely what America does not want, especially since the other side has more to throw at her than anybody else. After all it was her husband's administration which helped set up Al Gore and the Democrats for a loss to GW Bush in 2000. Just how long can Hillary/Bill get away with convincing voters that they need to be back in the White House so Republicans can find more feces to throw at them. C'mon, be real. "...they've been going after me for 16 years..." and, by logical extension, they'll go after her for 4 more. In the meanwhile the American people are supposed to be pleased with that prospect?
Posted by: GW | January 1, 2008 8:49 AM