McCain, Obama Win in New Hampshire; the rest of us lose

By Mark Grueter on Tue, Jan 8, 2008 1:47 pm

del.ico.us | digg it! | reddit!

print | email | 1 Comments

McCain in Manchester: Bomb Iran!

Celebrating early his imminent victory in New Hampshire, John McCain gave a speech on Monday to a raucous crowd outside City Hall in downtown Manchester. At times it looked like the diminutive McCain was about to be swallowed up by the mob of fans and media. After McCain finished his speech, his star struck supporters and a few random protesters began collapsing in on the candidate like a wave. Most people apparently just wanted to touch him. I can sort of understand the impulse to want to get close to a candidate in a frenzied atmosphere like that, but there’s something slave-like and pathetic about it all, as if the man at the center of attention were a God recently descended to earth.

When McCain’s campaign was virtually dead last summer, few cared to be near him. Now that he’s been resurrected by a media campaign/drive, we saw a huge bandwagon effect take place in New Hampshire. Most people simply like to be supporting whomever they think is going to win. So, many switched from Romney and especially Giuliani over to McCain. I hope it makes them feel better about themselves and their wretched lives.

The first thing I noticed at the City Hall event was a guy walking around holding up a large sign that read “Bomb Iran! Vote McCain.” I laughed, thinking it was a dark joke. But it turned out the exhortation was meant to be taken in earnest. When challenged, the McCain supporter’s justification for his violent proposition was that Iran was behind the attacks on 9-11: a view he didn’t even seem to realize contradicts the official version of those events.

All weekend we’ve been told about how well-informed New Hampshire voters are. Yet, not one of the big name reporters at the McCain event made mention of this ridiculous sign and its implications, though it was clearly visible to all. That’s because the media loves McCain to the point where they’re more than willing to overlook the fact that he’s a warmonger, who blithely encourages mass murder of civilians abroad, while receiving the support of people who reveal a dangerous ignorance of world affairs.

-----------------

As much as I’m glad to witness the demise of Hillary Clinton, the prospect of an Obama-led general election campaign should do little to cheer us up. Though not nearly as dull as Hillary on the stump, Obama never really says anything of substance. He promises to bring “change” the status quo by “reaching out” to Republicans – an idea that, for one thing, doesn’t make much sense, as John Edwards’ has pointed out. How can any principled liberal be impressed by such bland talk as wanting to end “bipartisan bickering”? Advocating “hope” and “unity” Obama has simply trotted out all meaningless cliches seen in previous election cycles. Obama is saying very little new or different than what John Kerry said and lost on in 2004.

The only remaining though admittedly far-fetched chance of stopping Obama now is if Hillary drops out of the race, which might allow the Tim Robbins and Ralph Nader-backed Edwards to effectively take Barack on by himself.