Monday, January 03, 2005

John Fund (a cog of the vast, right-wing conspiracy) on Peter Fitzgerald

John Fund is a writer for the Wall Street Journal, and his take on Peter Fitzgerald is here. It's pretty good.

(The reference is to Hilary Clinton's -- as it turns out, accurate -- description of a vast, right-wing conspiracy out to get President Bill Clinton. Conspiracy isn't quite the word. More like 'corporate-funded network' since there isn't anything secret about it).

It's a good thing that Peter Fitzgerald didn't run again, because he could have beat Barack. Hate to say it, but it's true. (Unless the GOP was so alienated from Fitzgerald that they would have dumped him for Obama, but I don't really understand enough about the base Republican voter to predict that). I'm just saying Fitzgerald was very attractive to swing voters, and Barack's message wouldn't have resonated as well against Fitzgerald as it did against Alan Keyes. Man, I still can't believe that guy was the Republican nominee. Anyway, glad it all worked out!

1 comment:

Friend of FPL said...

I'll chime in: in the 'burbs and rural areas, the swing voters seem to LIKE Obama and Fitzgerald for the same reasons. Fitzgerald wins the ideological battle for these voters (as I know them).

I was delighted to watch Obama sworn in, but I still wish he'd had some opposition to flesh out his message. You had to pay VERY close attention to his campaign to know what he stands for. As far as the swing voters (that I know) are concerned, he'll need to re-introduce himself over and over again.