Obamabacklash - and John McCain: Beauty Queen?
Washington DC: Apologies to those who think this blog is too tough on the Senator from Illinois - I do think he tends to get a rather adoring press. Perhaps he deserves it!
But perhaps not. Is there a risk that Mr Obama has flown a little close to the sun? strikes me as the potential beginning of an Obamabacklash amongst the educated classes who like the guy, but...
Regarding the Kennedy endorsement: surely Caroline was the big story here? She usually stays above the fray, backing only the eventual candidate, so her words carry some weight.
As for Ted: plenty of weight but a lot of it is - well - baggage. "Si se puede, porque El Ted lo dice" (Yes we can, because Ted says so), is an unlikely slogan, according to the witty and sceptical take of .
And on to this evening in Florida where, to please the Ron Paul millions (trillions?) and to show that this blog gives no special treatment to elderly war heroes, I would like to draw attention to the following advert.
Hello, I'm 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
My wife and myself, both curious about the candidancy of Ron Paul, were first a bit disappointed by the seemingly obscure question that he asked of McCain. Then the light suddenly dawned! McCain's confused response and the later reaction of the financial community, this then followed by Romney's turn to a critique of McCain's financial knowledge revealed that Ron Paul knew all along exactly what he was doing. We are now going to vote for him and only him.
Doesn’t this highlight the negatives as well as positives to the presidential electoral race. The longer it goes on, simple gaff’s can be exposed, especially when asked similar questions endlessly by different State debates. It also can be ridiculed, as in the advert, and the longer it goes on the more fuel for ridicule, ad nauseam.
So I’m not too convinced there is a backlash, probably just fatigue by the candidates and the voting public is more likely.
Still don’t understand why all this is not held on one day nationally, get it over and done with and then move on….save endless money too. Also how can one candidate who hasn’t performed well so far, Edwards, be seen to be out of the race, yet another who hasn’t even turned up so far, believe he can win, Gulliani! Strange system…
I did feel sorry for him after Ted Kennedy's endorsement. Nice little speech, but as you say - baggage.
That video won't load properly on my computer for some reason but based on the vote that's come in thus far in Florida, it seems like eons ago when all the pundits were writing John McCain's campaign off. He really is the comeback kid.
With regards to Ted Kennedy, presumably then he is to the Democratic Party what John Prescott is to the Labour Party: a beloved figure but perhaps not someone you base your vote on.
I dont understand why the media is giving Obama a free pass. May be they are worried it might cause a racial backlash. If race is really not a issue, Obama should be scrutinized in the same scale as other candidates.
Obama has no real experience, and he's very liberal. In fact, he's more liberal than most Americans.
He's more a motivational speaker or grassroots organizer than potential leader of the US.
When the media shakes itself free of its infatuation, perhaps Obama's record will get some attention. Until then, however, it's all about the "possibility" of a new romance.
I, for one, would like hear what exactly these changes will bring. Is it too much to expect our media to wonder the same thing?
A cunning question, yes, but also an ironic one coming from Dr Paul.
He, the gynecologist, who, when excoriating the FRB Chairman on 'moral hazard', demonstrated that his understanding of Economics and markets is akin to that of someone who, upon hearing 'butterfly' assumed that it referred to a 'flying cake of butter'.
The video clip is available on YouTube, too--together with the comments of those who pointed it out, and the vicious desperate attempt of Ron Paul supporters to explain the faux pas away.
For some reason, Ö÷²¥´óÐã has become especially fascinated with THIS American Presidential election campaign cycle in a way I've never seen it before. This one happens to be a little more interesting than some recent ones but many years ago, there were others far more interesting and contentious still. Nobody who ever saw the confrontation between the supporters of Nelson Rockerfeller and those who supported Barry Goldwater in the 1964 Republican convention will ever forget it nor the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago.
As a result, much of the world has also focused its attention and seems transfixed on every twist and turn day in and day out. How ironic that they watch as helpless onlookers unable to affect the outcome one way or the other but who the winner is may one day have a greater impact on their own lives than their own leaders will.
It's also interesting that those candidates who are likely the most popular overseas would probably pursue policies if they get the chance which will not be particularly favorable to those in foreign countries expecting some kind of radical change in America's relationship with the rest of the world. They may even find the new President will take actions which will make them angry and disappointed either because he or she is not very experienced or because they badly misjudged who these people actually are and what they really represent. OTOH, Americans generally know that no matter what they say in the campaign, they basically all are defenders of the status quo, their goals are all the same, merely their tactics for achieving them are different.
John Kecsmar #2
The gaffs they make in debates tells us a lot about the candidates' knowledge and his ability to think clearly in stressful situations. This is a true test of what he will face if he wins. Gerald Ford's chances of beating Carter were diminished by the gaff he made in a debate where he said Poland was a free country. It's clear he didn't have a clue about the situation in Eastern Europe or the life and death confrontation the US was in with the USSR.
Once the new President is elected and takes office, there will be a brief honeymoon period and when it ends, it will be back to business as usual. Americans are never happy with their government...at least not while they are still in power.
I agree that Ted Kennedy won't exert a lot of influence over most of the Democratic primary voters. But, Caroline, Ted and Patrick Kennedy's endorsements, together, may add a few of those voters that Obama hasn't yet been able to reach successfully--older traditional Democrats. Obama has the youth vote, for the most part, the black vote, the young intellectual vote, the new voters' vote, much of the independent vote... but the older traditional Democrats have been ellusive thus far. And Clinton has pulled out close wins and close losses (save South Carolina) appealing to those voters. Kennedy still may carry some weight, if only because by making comparisons between Obama and JFK, he reminds these core Democrats of good days past, when they were young and idealistic.
While I agree that our media has been far too soft on, and kind to Obama, and while I agree largely with the same case made by the London Times ardicle, I can't help but feel that the London Times one in particular was a little judgementle and perhaps a bit mean. I think the author could've made their point, said their belief, without using so many words. They were so verbose in fact that it got to a point in my opinion that they seemed to sort of suggest, or as if to be attempting to rub the press's noses in a mistake that they had made, as if they had deliberately given him a free ride for all the world to see. And I know your not convinced He'll (Obama) win. No one should be anyway. And just personally speacking, I think any one who honestly does or chooses to support him simply because of Kenidy's endorsement is in my opinion incredibly easily perswadeable and has no concious of their own, and that, I think is an extremely lethal concocktion to have when voting. Although I don't think any foreigners need worry, most people vote on what they, not Kenidy or anyone else thinks.
I reiderate again-the press shouldn't have, in particular, nearly fainted at Kenidy's endorsement!! But at the same time I don't think its unreasonable to be a little excited about it. Although, of course, people most certainly should not flock to Obama just because "Kenidy says so", still I don't think that that is why so many do, and though Kenidy's endorsement may be "bagage", nevertheless he is a much respected politition in this country, from a long line of well-known polititions in a very well respected family al around the world. So it is only to be at least somewhat expected that someone of that stature endorsing (any) presidencial candidate is bound to get some domestic (if not I'm willing to bet foreign) media attention, although yes the overall theam of the article was correct-yes there has been way too much druling over the hole affair. There are bigger things to worry about and it is, in my opinion, far past high time that Obama start having to answer some the tough questions that the others ave had/will have to endure in order to prove his capability in this job.
Mr Webb - you should mention that the article you linked to on the Washington Monthly was written by a Clinton supporter and former speechwriter of the 41st President.
There is no "Obamabacklash" and if there was, it wouldn't be because Ted Kennedy endorsed him.
I think the Ted Kennedy endorsement is more of a hit against Clinton than it is a boost for Obama. Either way though i don't think it hurts Obama. People talk about baggage but Kennedy is a democrat who will eventually endorse the democratic candidate whoever that may be and this may also break the ice for further endorsements. Funny thing about Ron Paul, if i thought he had a chance to win id vote for him , seems like he would be the intelligent and respectable president that we need at a time like this. Since he unfortunately stands no chance, my vote is going to Obama who i hope wins over Clinton in the primary.
The Kennedy family, like America, is split on two great candidates. Bobby kennedy's son is endorsing Sen. Clinton.
Kennedy has been recruited to help with Latino voters, especially in the Mountain, Western, and Pacific states.
Yet, as the Florida vote underscored today - Latinos still favor Clinton over Obama 3-to-1.
But Kennedy's endorsement wont help much.
Obama has never resonated well with the Latino community. Even senior Latino leaders who have endorsed Obama have been extremely frustrated at Obamas effort to reach out to the powerful Latino Demographic.
I lived long enough to expect the two least appealing candidates to emerge and provide nauseated voters no choice yet again. I expected it to be Hillary and Rudi, but McCain and Clinton will fit the bill just as well and, make me wish I still had a bumper sticker that said, "The Duke Makes Me Puke."
It's not that it even seems remotely possible this time, though it never does, but every president is always worse than the previous president.
If you're looking for an investment tip, it has to be to buy stock in any company that makes vomit bags.
Don Robertson, The American Philosopher
Barack has a dream for America,
Clinton is looking to be president as of a right, it is her turn, nothing to do with America. My opinion is that Obama is better qualified than Clinton despite the so called "inexperience'.
Its a bit sad that you don't seem to see through Hilary Clinton's re-election bid...oops! Take time and hear what Obama has to say. You can be more than just a blog comment which I would normally skip. Love or Hate him, Obama is the first real hope for a United World and Senetor Kennedy thinks so too. Call that BAGGAGE?
Khonda
Mr. Webb,
You surely deserve any 'backlash' that you ever get for being evidently opposed to the candidature of Mr. Obama. As you've noticed, there is enormous good-will out there for the MAN.
You must get that straight and sit up. You Clinton supporters will most definitely end up with a bad bad heartbreak. OBAMA ALL THE WAY!!!!!!
Justin
I have to agree with Steve on this in that perhaps yo should have included a small reference to the fact that at the bottom of the article relating to an 'Obamabacklash' you can see that the author was a speechwriter for President Clinton ;
"Ted Widmer, Director of the John Carter Brown Library at Brown University, is a Senior Research Fellow at the New America America Foundation, and was a foreign policy speechwriter for President Clinton (1997-2000)"
Is this another example of sloppy journalism on your behalf? In the intro to your piece you say that some people think you are being too harsh on Obama - you have proved them right with this reference I'm afraid - poor journalism or just poor judgement on your behalf? As for 'adoring press' it seems to me that you form a strong part of the adoring press for Hillary!
It's a shame that the Democrats, once again, are a bit lost and pretty much fighting against each other like a pack of wild dogs.
My feeling is because of all this Obama vs. Clinton debate, the Republicans will win again with a moderate McCain.
If Clinton wins the primary, all those that supported Obama and can't stand Clinton will vote for McCain (that includes me).
i think anyone who speaks on behalf of hillary clinton through attacks on obama always has a hidden agenda like hilliary clinton...wow now we know why people who support clinton like her...they are exactly like her.....i like obama.....i like some of hillary's ideas...i am republican.....i support mccain....i will vote for huckabee....what a country huh?
It is such as per the comment above that will prevent the right person from receiving the office of president. If you believe that Ron Paul is a superior candidate, than why wouldn't you, out of sheer moral capacity, vote for him? America needs to realize that there are more supporters of Ron Paul than they realize; yes he is a dark horse for the republican candidate. However, why is this a bad thing? he stands as the only republican in favor of withdrawing from Iraq, restructuring our financial system, returning to us the liberties that we oh so willingly relinquished to bush. think about it.
Irony of this media propaganda (CNN, FOX, AP, ABC, etc)!!!
When the rules were same for both the candidates "Hillary" and "Obama"... why does it (Florida) not count? I don't care about delegates (which I understand, technically matters)... More than a million Democrats voted and Hillary got more than 800K votes out of them in Florida!!! So why is media downplaying the voice of those about million people who voted for Hillary!!! I mean I understand you guys are biased against Hillary, but it's just to the extreme end of critic-spectrum!!! It does not show professionalism on part of journalists! Please be open and accept the verdict of people.. Please do not try to sway them for your own bias. I don't mind Obama's victory in the end, but please be fair in NOT influencing the people by your bias ill-intentional, failed , so called "political analysis"!!!
Steve -- You hit it right on. Senator Kennedy's endorsement may not change minds, but it certainly won't hurt Obama.
That article is merely one of many with differing viewpoints.
Justin, I think before you offer up any op-ed piece attempting to cleverly dissect the election, you should note the writer's biases.
"Between 1997 and 2001 [Ted Widmer] was a foreign policy speechwriter and senior adviser to President Clinton."
Hardly someone one would expect to give Obama a fair shake!
Alternate headline: "Ö÷²¥´óÐã, American Media Disagree on Issue of Ron Paul's Continued Existence"