You Heard It Here First

Am ruminating the archives and noting that on June 5, 2008, this blogger wrote the following:

Mark it in a calendar: Barack Obama is going to kick John McCain’s ass in November.

Heh heh heh heh.

Another archive to giggle about…On February 2, 2008, this blogger wrote the following:

Our final and main endorsement: Barack Obama for President.

Mr. Obama is the best candidate still standing, primarily because he did not vote for the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. It is true that Mr. Obama was not a Senator in 2002 and therefore could not have voted for it. It is also irrelevant. Having voted for the Joint Resolution is an incredible political liability. It tripped up John Kerry chronically in 2004, and it similarly haunts Mrs. Clinton now. When grilled on it in last week’s Hollywood “debate,” she was forced into nuancing reminiscent of Kerry’s. If voters did not warm to “I voted for it before I voted against it” by November 2004, there is little chance of it growing on them by this fall. Whether Obama’s clean record on that vote is by conscience or by luck, it is. In the current political climate, the Democrats should run a candidate who does not bear that particular, and largely underestimated, political liability.

What say you, authors Dan Balz and Haynes Johnson on tonight’s episode of Hardballs?

Chris Matthews: Hillary Clinton backed the Iraq War. That croaked her, among caucus attenders; the people with college degrees, the kinds of people that sort of evoke the sixties, still; the kind of people that make the Democratic Party work. Haynes?

Haynes Johnson: She never got out of it. She was trapped by that and caught in it and couldn’t work her way out. And they wanted her to be strong, the Commader-in-Chief, as a male like and so forth, but she was just trapped in this miasma.

Matthews: Why didn’t she buckle and say, cut your losses, this party’s never going to nominate a hawk in 2008—saw it coming and changed?

Johnson: Well you know, she kept moving and moving and moving, but everything was against her. All the climate was against her all the pah…and then there was Obama with this enormous enthusiasm, speaking to it. And she just never came out of it.

Dan Balz: And there is another reason that she didn’t because one question that she had facing her was, what does she really believe in? And the longer she had stuck with her position on the war, no timetables, she didn’t want that, they—

Matthews: (pissing himself) …and permanent bases…

Balz: Right. They reached a point where they believed that it would cost her more if she took back that vote than to stick with it.

Matthews: Well, in the end, do you believe it was decisive? That war issue? That Barack was against the war from the beginning and she was for it?

Balz: I believe it was hugely significant because it created an opening for Obama that nobody else could claim early in the race, and it gave him a tremendous amount of push among the activists, as you said, the people who play a real role in caucuses and even in a lot of the primaries.

Unfortunately, these aren’t the exact same arguments. I argued that Clinton’s supportive vote on the Resolution would hurt her against the Republigoat candidate in the general election. These gentlemen only detailed how it hurt her in the primary. Still.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

One thought on “You Heard It Here First”

  1. I beat you on the endorsement. 🙂

    On February 2, same day you made your endorsement, I made mine again.

    Had Hillary Clinton managed somehow to win the primary, she would have lost the general election, for the reason you stated. Republicans love making Democrats out to be untrustworthy hypocrites, and it helps to have a candidate who is trustworthy and straightforward.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Anti-Spam Quiz: