Can’t seem to get off the theme of my Sunday column. The WashPost has a story today leading with the very same dichotomy between the two Democratic presidential candidates:
Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama offered himself as "something new" at a pair of spirited, arena-size rallies in Maryland yesterday, while his primary rival, Hillary Clinton, portrayed herself as a "battle-scarred" fighter for the middle class at more intimate events held across the region on the eve of today’s primaries.
Maybe it’s new to the folks in the "Potomac Primary" region. It certainly sums them up — the scarred fighter of the bitter partisan wars vs. someone who would lead us beyond all that. As the WashPost notes in another story today, this is indeed an opportunity for voters to "influence one of the closest presidential nominating fights in memory."
And yet, while the contest may be close, the candidates couldn’t be farther apart on this central difference between them — a new beginning on one hand, more of the same on the other.
My major problem with Sen. is Clinton is not her ideas so much as the anger other people have for her. I just don’t see how you can get that much done in politics, if you have that many people openly angry at the sound of your name. I’m beginning to wonder if Sen. McCain doesn’t have the same problem.
Nothing to worry about Karen this Obama’s election to be stolen. If your party’s brass doesn’t steal the election from Obama via Mich., Fla. or ” super delegates” so much for democracy with the democrats, then he will beat McCain.
The republican party bosses are just as bad trying to stop Huckabee from finishing the race. Why should Huckabee keep running when he is mathmatically eliminated? Well, I’m going to bring up a reason no one has mentioned. What if ( God forbid ) something were to happen to McCain? There are no vice presidential stand ins in primaries. Who would be leading the pack at a brokered convention? Who would have the momenteum?