So Hillary Clinton, the vampire candidate, managed to cry and cajole her way to victory in New Hampshire yesterday, briefly tarnishing the media halo around Barack Obama and rendering John Edwards even more frivolously irrelevant and unnecessary than he was before the vote, if that's even possible. Her victory in New Hampshire is less impressive when you consider that she retained a lead of only a few points over Obama, and that after a campaign there that really did pull out all of the stops.
Take, for instance, the Hillary mailer that insisted that Hillary is the real candidate of abortion on demand, while Obama's a lily-livered pretender who might be weak enough on occasion to let some infant or other, somewhere, slip through a pro-life crack. (This crowd's version of "No Child Left Behind" is grim and ugly, isn't it?) Obama, of course, shot back, waving his Planned Parenthood endorsement flag and insisting that when it comes to abortion, he's every bit as heartless and bloodthirsty as the feticidal former First Lady.
Judging from the fact that the female Democrats of New Hampshire turned out to vote in droves for Ms. Clinton, I'm guessing that they decided they'd rather entrust their 'precious constitutional right' to rip their unborn offspring to shreds anytime they feel like it to Lady Macbeth, instead of leaving things up to the Illinois Senator who may have a 100% pro-abortion voting record (according to NARAL) but who, when all is said and done, is still male, and therefore unable to be the B****y Feminist in Chief that these women have been hoping and praying to elect to the Oval Office ever since those heady days, redolent with patchouli and the scent of burning bras, of Woodstock.
But as Bill tries to cast Hillary in the role of Karate--er, Comeback--Kid, part II, the two of them are forgetting a thing or three.
Aging New England hippie feminists may have thrown the (not inconsiderable) full weight of their support behind Hillary; they may have decided that she was more pro-abortion, more anti-male, more reassuringly illogical, more whimsically emotional, more (with apologies to Cicero) like themselves than Barack Obama, who has managed to keep his strident far-left liberalism rather quiet, no doubt due in part to the fact that the mainstream media sees in him their own reflection, and therefore defines him as a centrist, a middle-of-the roader, a quite reasonable guy whose vile and blood-drenched abortion positions and votes are, after all, exactly like theirs. But the nation isn't made up of aging New England hippie feminists (chanceries across America notwithstanding) and there are a lot of primaries between now and Super Tuesday where the Woodstock Voter will go head-to-head with the Oprah Voter to determine which of these two candidates better represents the constituency that views abortion as the be-all and end-all of American liberty, and whether the Democrats in America would rather choose as their standard-bearer a man with little experience but plenty of talk, or a woman whose experience is mostly vicarious and whose talk is dull as ditchwater, strident as fingernails on a chalkboard, and delivered in a flat accent and tone that won't exactly shatter glass, but may make the glass think longingly of fragmentation.
What they've done in New Hampshire, though, is remind the voters of America that either one of them would be eminently suitable as the candidate who likes the killing of the unborn, who enthusiastically supports the death of Americans before they've emerged from the birth canal, and who identifies him or herself with the slaughter of more than forty million unborn children in this country since 1972. They're both worthy standard-bearers for the Party of Death, since they approve of killing the unborn with no restrictions, no limits, no end in sight. They think abortion should be celebrated, encouraged--and paid for with federal tax dollars, both here and overseas.
So while Hillary may have pulled ahead of Obama in New Hampshire, she did so by reminding her New Hampshire Democrat constituents that she's even more qualified to be the Candidate of Baby Killing than Obama is. That may have played in the relatively liberal Granite State; it's less likely to be compelling to voters elsewhere, especially among those Democrats who are not all that in favor of abortion, but who overlook it and vote for Democrats for reasons of economics or public policies.
It would be pretty ironic if Hillary's lifelong alliance with the abortion-on-demand movement, and her unwavering support of the "right" of women to "choose"--to kill their inconvenient unborn children (that sentence never gets finished properly, does it?) ended up being the stake through her heart or the last nail in her coffin. Ironic, but poetically just.