In the spin room
The entire debate in Cleveland was a test of whether Obama can be attacked with profit. The answer: No.
Take as an example the spat over Louis Farrakhan (the founder of the Nation of Islam) who has endorsed Obama - an endorsement that is less than welcome, coming as it does from a man who has also attacked Jewish people in a manner that leaves little doubt about his organisation's anti-semitism.
So does Barack Obama reject that endorsement? Well he failed to get to that word - I felt he was oddly weak in his initial response. But pressed by her, he got there magisterially: Denounce and reject, he said, if that's what Mrs Clinton wants. It left her looking a little foolish.
The truth was that he had made an initial stab at an answer that was rather unsatisfactory; but he spun it around and ended up looking funny, cool and victorious. As usual. The New York Times puts it like this: "At a point when Mrs Clinton apparently saw an opportunity - when she said it was not enough for Mr Obama to simply denounce Mr Farrakhan; he needed to reject his support - Mr Obama did not take the bait. he said.
Enough debates now. I wonder if, for most Democrats, this is the over-riding impression left after Cleveland. It has been fun. It has been invigorating. But now it could get boring. And damaging. And sickening. At the end of the spin-room time, as everyone was going, I asked Mark Penn (Hillary's chief strategist) whether the game was up if they lost Ohio and Texas. Not a bit of it: they would fight on, he said.
If they lose both, I think they can't, frankly, but what if they win one? It is not looking good.
Hello, I'm 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
It is becoming the never ending story...!!
However, Obama does parry well.
Hillary's tactic's does seem to give weight to her being polorising, but as shown today, it didn't quite work!
It's funny that people critisis Obama for his empty rhetoric. this is why:
- Real politics is not about what you want to say but about what people want to hear you say (or in other cases not saying wat people dont want to hear)
So dont blame Obama, blame the people of the USA.
It is becoming the never ending story...!!
However, Obama does parry well.
Hillary's tactic's does seem to give weight to her being polorising, but as shown today, it didn't quite work!
Very informative blog.. I've been watching this unfold in NZ and its started to get boring. However I think Obama's ability to maintain composure is a strong asset for him. Hilary is putting up quite a fight but that could damage the democratic party (and the process?) A lot of Americans based here in NZ have told me if it was a Hilary vs McCain, that they would vote McCain purely on the basis that they don't want a dynastic dysfunctional democracy (e.g. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton etc..)
Like all politicians since anytime, anywhere, Clinton clearly cannot accept the possibility of defeat. She imagines that she can continue to scheme, scratch and claw her way back to the front of the race. Unfortunately for her, Obama turns out to be the new "Teflon Man". Hence she feels she has no option but to continue scratching away hoping to get through the surface veneer to something more vulnerable. Her problems are: firstly is there something worth digging for, and secondly, the damage to herself during the excavation process. Interesting time ahead.
Is history, in a way, repeating itself? This from the Dallas Morning News:
"The fact that most women voting Democrat in Texas can't find much wrong with either candidate only complicates their decision.
Those angling for Mr. Obama like his novelty, like the message his election would send the world. Those leaning toward Mrs. Clinton cite her experience 鈥 but also a heartfelt sense that it's "her turn."
This "who comes first" debate harks back to Reconstruction and the early 19th century, social scientists say, when long-allied abolitionists and suffragists split over who should get the vote first: black men or white women.
In the end, black men got the chance first, said Rebecca Deen, an expert of women in politics at the University of Texas at Arlington. But it took another 50 years to get around to women."
On Hillary's options - they are clearly very limited. In my humble opinion, the only chance she still has - and it seems slim - is to forget Obama and portray herself as a passionate scrapper fighting for every vote because she is so passionate about her political mission.
I think specifically of John Major and his soapbox in 1992.
The one thing Hillary still has is that she's Hillary (not Clinton or Rodham-Clinton) and he's Obama (not Barack). The one thing people are not is Hillary-neutral.
Get personal - talk about herself and her journey. I've been on Wikipedia - she has a story to tell - raised a republican, campaigned for Goldwater, met MLK, opposed Vietnam, became a democrat... but do it on Main Street in real America not on these big stages and gamble that the TV cameras will love the novelty of it and that she'll win the airtime. That's all I can think of.
Like the pros, I'd loved a contested convention - what fun and games. C'mon Hillary make a contest of it.
Louis Farrakhan wasn't the founding member of the Nation of Islam was he?
Either way - his views and policies are markedly different, and seem designed either to de-rail a moderate and popular black politician, or to gain publicity for a group who would otherwise garner little attention.
You get the unwavering sense that if it were not for Hilary clawing at the straws of her faltering campaign, we wouldn't even be discussing negatives. Obama is JFK, Martin Luther King and a rock star all in one, and the future of politics. If Hilary was genuinely interested in the future of the country and not herself, she would be able to see, as we all do, how her individual merits, though considerable, pale in comparison to the man next to her on the debating table, and would step aside.
All this negative campaigning and nit-picking by Hilary is starting to look very tired.
I was disappointed that both candidates seem unable to show anything less than unqualified, unquestioning support for Israel.
How does Obama hope to heal the world while remaining blindfolded?
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed
I missed this debate because NBC Europe decided to show poker competitions instead. I don't know whether they are underrating the political intelligence of Europeans or feel that there is little difference between the two types of contest.
One poker player advised: before entering a competition, make sure that your finances are in order. Otherwise you play under stress and won't perform at your best level. Could that apply to Hillary Clinton?
But I did see Bill Richardson on CNN. It was good to have him back, with his calm sanity, and related to that, a good sense of humour. Qualities that give leaders a sense of perspective, and a capacity to admit mistakes and correct them. Important, since anyone can make the wrong decision.
Bill Richardson seems to be willing to be a candidate for Vice President. He would probably offer more to Barack Obama than to Hillary Clinton. He could build bridges to the Clintonites and would attract Latino support. But could a ticket with two ethnic minority candidates gain general acceptance?
Spin is a sickening trait in our electioneering all right, but I can't help observing a peculiar lack of traction for it this time around. No one I know, no one I meet, is buying it.
The consensus in my small corner of the nation is that no one has dissuaded folks from a Clinton vote more than Hillary herself. Her every statement and response is transparently a product of scripting, or "spin." That identifies her to all as one more of the same in a long line of corporate representation at the expense and betrayal of all Americans.
All the republicans I know are voting Obama.
It's not close. Everyone knows it.
Everyone.
The spin goes on, and so too the media's Pavlovian enslavement to it.
The only question I have is whether there will actually be an election in November. No one I know really wonders how a real election will go. It's more than obvious.
Mr. Webb is doing a good job weighing it out. Thank you.
"What if they win one?"
A good point. Still, I think that if Obama wins Texas (and Vermont) but loses Ohio (and perhaps Rhode Island) the pressure will mount on Clinton to bow out. Having said that, "winning" in Texas might not be a clear-cut thing, what with that state's curious hybrid primary/caucus system. I could be wrong, but isn't it possible that the winner in Texas is not known for quite some time after March 4th? Super Tuesday Part II might prove just as indecisive as Part I.
And why can't Obama be attacked "with profit," as you say? Why is this so-called "empty rhetoric" selling?
Archangels Gideon et al provide a flawed analogy. Clarence Darrow was Demosthenes, or John Edwards. Trial lawyers.
Obama ... echoes Pericles, as did Jefferson, Mill, Lincoln, FDR and JFK. Despite war -- within or without, hot or cold -- the call is to democracy, to the greatness of "Athens." Athens, not Jerusalem.
"If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences ... The freedom we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life. There, far from exercising a jealous surveillance over each other, we do not feel called upon to be angry with our neighbor for doing what he likes ... We throw open our city to the world, and never by Alien Acts exclude foreigners from any opportunity of learning or observing, although the eyes of an enemy may occasionally profit by our liberality ... advancement in public life falls to reputations for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit ... our ordinary citizens, though occupied with the pursuits of industry, are still fair judges of public matters ... at Athens we live exactly as we please, and yet are just as ready to encounter every legitimate danger."
Fortunately, Pericles' oration was reported by Thucydides, and not the Financial Times.
"Jealous surveillance" is the death of "liberality." and the "Strange Death of Liberal England" is complete with casual bugging of MPs and constituents, lawyers and clients ... Americans have absolutely no idea how utterly dead privacy is in England, nor how extensively docile, over-medicated and under-educated Britons can be (excluding pub quizzers, of course). I am a shameless Anglophile, really I am ... I simply despair. As Robert Graves lamented, "Goodbye To All That." Goodbye John Stuart Mill, goodbye Edmund Burke ... Hello Robespierre ... Hello Napoleon.
Seriously, fellow Americans ... our comrades in arms across the big blue now allow their IRS (Inland Revenue) to bug ANYONE, anywhere, anytime ... home, car, office, pub ... WITHOUT A WARRANT, without review.
America's still got a Constitution -- just barely -- and we are pinning our hopes on a constitutional scholar, not a Crusader. It may seem corny to Brits, or naive ... but the Constitution is ... everything, absolutely everything. The only tie that binds, a transparent social contract. Nothing works without civil guarantees. Nothing works without ... manners. A way of being. Authenticity, if you will. Internal codes underlying social and legal codes.
Consider this: Based solely on character, personal nature, who would Thomas Carlyle have endorsed? Or Edmund Burke, who correctly observed that these "Manners are of more importance than laws. .. Manners are what vex or soothe, corrupt or purify, exalt or debase, barbarize or refine us, by a constant, steady, uniform, insensible operation like that of the air we breathe in."
Empty rhetoric as well?
Go Obama !!!
If the public is going to make their choices based on "monosyllables" extracted from debate then we are in for a tough time in this country.
... "she said, he said" reveals nothing of the Presidential material we are expected to select.
Both candidates are appropriately credentialed: one has wisdom, experience and a long track record. Obama is not ready yet for the challenge.
Yes "So dont blame Obama, blame the people of the USA."
If see a movie about a well spoken bodyguard not only muscle but also brains, would i ask that actor to be my guardian? Of course not, the movie is all about appearance about show.
So as a Dutchman i have no clue at all how you can give away the very heavy job to be PRESIDENT OF THE USA to a person who proves to be a good entertainer??
Mr. Webb -- postcard from Washington -- Republicans themselves (despite protests to the contrary) are -- you're sitting down, right? -- rethinking Iraq. Senate hearings ... more fun than campaigns, trust me on this ... will fill the gap between now and June.
This long overdue, of course, is unrecognizable to the 主播大秀 as actual ... news. All the same, raise a glass to the end of the "offensive" Iraq war! Sigh. Brilliant move on the part of (more than a few) intelligent (not to mention moderate) Senate Republicans. Well done. An honorable out, in keeping with constitutional dignity. It is, Gentlemen, how one ends the thing ... not how one began. Again, well done.
It's happened ... Obama's across-the-aisle style combined with an animated electorate ... have pressured Republicans into a discussion they might have had before the war. And despite the inevitable, tediously identical mea culpas to be endured, echoing Hillary's vacuous couldashouldawoulda, we're going to get out of this damned thing, sooner rather than later.
Poor McCain. Oh well. Who will it be next time? We'll have a better idea ... after these Senate hearings ... which will, of course, be televized. Fair enough ... nobody's going to be watching the Republican Convention. No one cares who's going to nominate John McCain to lose the 2008 election ... but they will care about the stars of the Senate hearings. Anita Hill didn't hurt Al Gore one bit. How many careers did Nixon make?
A Republican star is about to be born.
And -- omigod -- what about the President of the Senate himself? What's his name, that guy in the bunker, you know ...
This is REALLY gonna be fun.
I am a Florida democrat and I still want Hillary. We need her substance, not his style. And I don't think Obama is attractive. The U.S. media is baby-ing him. He needs much more vetting. Farrakhan supports him? Well, what does that say..
On the plane back to England last night, two thoughts occurred to me. First Obama has, by his calm and slightly self-deprecating wit, made Clinton look volatile and fake as she tries to attack him. Second, throughout this campaign, Clinton has never anchored her speeches and debates on 'It takes a village', with its emphasis on social responsibility, which was her core statement of belief back in the 90s. If she had, she would have had a counterpoint to 'the audacity of hope', rather than just looking like someone who thought she ought to have the nomination by right.
I've just checked my figures and comments that Clinton needs to win by 25% in Ohio and Texas to get back in this race are wrong.
10% wins by Clinton in Texas and Ohio and a solid win in Rhode Island (she will lose Vermont) could see Obama's lead cut by around 50-60 delegates. That would leave everything to fight for in Mississippi and Pennsylvania.
An endorsement for either candidate by Bill Richardson could be crucial in determining this election. Obviously if he backs Obama the game is up for Hillary. But if he backs Hillary then it could be a whole new ball game.
PS Obama can be attacked but I believ that he is being attcked on the wrong issues. It is his policy that is his biggest weakness. Hillary should leave the attacks on Obama's character to others.
Eh?
Anyway, yes --enough debates. After Tuesday, it's a caucus in Wyoming (last among the 50 states in population, party delegates and alphabetical order) on the Saturday and then Mississippi on the Tuesday --and then nothing until Pennsylvania on 22nd April. Let's hope that the voters deliver the knockout blow next Tuesday, for the sake of the Clintons' bank account if nothing else.
Thought Hillary misfired in whining about being the first one to be asked questions --as though she's not in love with the sound of her own voice and would prefer to throw an elbow in order to get the stage to herself. Also, her reference to the "Saturday Night Live" skit was revealing.
Most of the media over here have missed what I believed to be the subtle point of that skit --not so much that the media are in love with Obama, but that Hillary and her camp are utterly paranoid; the skit might have been subtitled "How the campaign looks and sounds to the eyes and ears inside Team Hillary."
I thought the debates last night were some of their better ones I have watched. The media folks finally got it right and kept the candidates on course and on focus. They asked hard questions and kept at it until the candidates could no longer skirt the issue. Both Clinton and Obama share similar views on many points. On the whole, Obama is a better communicator and is able to rise above petty politics. I prefer to listen to him even though I may not agree with his plan of action. I truly hope the media is as tenacious as Williams & Russert were last night. Politicians must have their feet put to the fire so the American people have a clear view of whom they will support in November and it is only the media who can do this. Politicians have honed the art of presenting their best side for ages. However, in a world as complex as ours has become, we need the best person for the job. How we make good choices is to observe the mettle of a person when their worst side is exposed.
If it comes to it, how would superdelegates vote at the Convention? Would they vote in secret, allowing them to support one candidate in public and vote for the other in private?
If I may I would like to say that wittingly or not most media (and I include the 主播大秀 who is following Obama's team and not the other sides as much)are supporting Obama. I do not vote so this is the opinion of one who has none. Guess what? I still think Sen Clinton will make it. Just wait and see.
Every day now, Justin鈥檚 blog seems divided between his increasingly obvious desire to break into song with yet another reprise of 鈥淐an鈥檛 Help Lovin鈥 That Man鈥 AND a nagging recollection of some residual responsibility to his audience and employer (the British licence fee payer) to re-engage his critical faculties beyond merely offering the determined scroller a lukewarm reference to more thorough analyses by others: for eg., the Gideon Rachman piece in the FT which Justin mildly floated as 鈥渋nteresting鈥 before quickly dissenting from it before anyone got the wrong idea and thought the initials of his station鈥檚 logo stood for something other than Barack Boosters Clique.
I thought the debate was lack luster. The points discussed are all items Senators can effect from the Senate. Neither of them wrote nor presented bills pertaining to the issue they are now so 'Involved' with as to 'help' the poor(?) American people.
Want healthcare here? Quit smoking and drinking liquor, the savings there would buy a decent policy.
Housing and jobs lost by NAFTA,..don't get it. Texans will tell ya, Migrate-Mutate-Adapt or Die, the choice is yours and how bad you want it.
The real question is did Hillary have a facelift? Who applied Obamas makeup? Who cares?
I am a Florida Democrat who does not like Obama. We need the substance of Clinton, not the words of Obama. I do not find him attractive either. He looked down-right dopey in his father's country's garbs.
Bending his neck in a submissive pose. He needs much more vetting. His wife is not patriotic. What is going on here? Hillary, hang in there. We need you.
If Hillary Clinton loses Ohio and Texas. Or just one of them by a large sum. Expect for huge endorsements for Senator Obama less than a week after March 4th. People like John Edwards and other big party names. I think for the most part the leadership in the DNC want to wrap this thing up as early as possible. And they'll be on Senator Clinton's back like a Monkey from the moon until she leaves the race.
It's ridiculous the amount of obamadoration(i copyright this word)that comes from this column, Justin Webb. What happened to the Press being impartial?
This blog is misleading. Hillary schooled Obama in the debate. She offered concise answers while obama piggeyed back on all of them in his similar empty style. He's "magisterially" in the same way George Bush is, and that is ignorant.
America shouldn't treat this election like american idol, too much is at stake for the democrats to nominate a obama as the next manchurian candidate.
Hillary is the only candidate who has the class, intelligence, and experience to lead the free world.
Mr. Webb, Mr. Farrakhan is not the founder of the Nation of Islam - though he is its current head and has been since the 70s I think. It was founded by a man called Wallace Fard Muhammad.
The more strident Clinton sounds, the better Obama's reasoned responses play out. His comments about not whining about negative campaigning as the competition heats up, and not confusing experience with longevity in Washington were excellent points.
In my view, there's a difference in a debate between providing a good answer and simply demonstrating debating skill. Touche Senator Obama but... dodging around like that and then finishing up in such a smug way, seems rather evasive in my book and I take away points for that. He's demonstrated this "skill" before but what value it has in the job of President is questionable. It taints him, but unfortunately his supporters simply cheer him on.
Enjoy the blog. One small detail -Louis Farrakhan didn't found the NoI, Elijah Muhammed did.
The more strident Clinton sounds, the better Obama's reasoned responses play out. His comments about not whining about negative campaigning as the competition heats up, and not confusing experience with longevity in Washington were excellent points.
I've heard many people say that Obama has great ideas but is only good at giving speeches and, hence, he is a worse candidate than Hillary. The fault in the naysayers' logic lies in that they don't think that being a speaker who motivates and brings people, republicans or democrats, is a great quality for a president. In order to do great things, you need to have a great ideas, which people 'accuse' Obama of having. How is one supposed to implement a good plan if the plan isn't good? You need a good foundation which Obama has as a community leader for years and as the first black person to be the leader of the Harvard law revue. And in order to get things done, you need to have the cooperation of the people, which Obama has been able to do, not ony because he is a great motivational and inspiring speaker, but also because he does not play dirty politics like some of his opponents do. I've heard people say, "Oh...he's only acting like a gentleman because he is ahead in the game." However, Obama was behind once. He was the underdog once and when he was, did Obama's people ever leak out photos to the media? Did Obama's people compare Clinton to a hated leader (Clinton compared Obama to Bush last week)? Did Obama's people accuse Clinton of plagarizing a speech from someone who is her national co-chair? That's right, Obama's co-chair himself gave the speech to him. I didn't hear Hillary crediting Bill when she took lines from his book.
The reason why Obama is ahead is because he truly is a gentleman and he can empathize with people. Giving great speeches isn't easy if you can't empathize. His gentleman-ness is going to unite USA and help bring economic and societal change to America.
Shuaib.
ps: there is proof that Hillary is divisive. Polls show Obama beating McCain easily but McCain beating Hillary by a slight margin. Is this because of her dirty politics? You tell me.......
Justin, simply to say how much i have been enjoying and benefiting from your blog pieces and broadcast items throughout the campaign. It is shaping up to be a fascinating presidential race. Keep up the good work!
This race isn't going to go beyond March 4th, a large number of prominent Democrats have already stated that without humongous margins of victory in TX and OH there will be a concentrated effort to put a stop to senator Clinton's idiocy. It's ridiculous that it's gone on this far, if she knew what was good for both our country and the Democratic party she would have quit by now.
Mark Penn can tell you they're going all the way to the DNC all he wants, it does not make it true. Senator Obama is about to edge her out in pledged Superdelegates, and at this point it's going to take his death or the biggest media gaffe in history for him to lose the delegates lead. It's more than likely impossible for senator Clinton to rebound at this point.
Speaking of "spun it around", since when were these mock 'debates' ever "invigorating", let alone "magisterial". Journalism in America knows no excess and some foreign sources that should know better get caught up in the hype as well. Not exactly "enough debates" but enough of mock 'debates' like this that revolve mainly around who can best please influential, cash-rich contributors like AIPAC and the many other corporate lobbies that the Duopoly Party candidates must slavishly appease. It may be a little "funny" but it's not too "cool" to ask why these Xerox candidates don't "reject and denounce" suppoert from these pernicious lobbies. It's these lobbies that always emerge "victorious" in these sordid affairs and they again have two willing servants in Obama Copacabana and Billary. Just take a look at their corporate contributor lists sometime which never comes up in these sham debates or the breathless press reports on them. Take for instance, George Soros's comments in the NY Review of Books last April in which he which he observed, "While other problem areas of the Middle East are freely discussed, criticism of our policies toward Israel is very muted indeed...One explanation is to be found in the pervasive influence of AIPAC which strongly affects both the Democratic and the Republican parties...Politicians challenge it at their peril because of the lobby's ability to influence political contributions." In response, the Obama campaign immediately issued a response, stating, "Mr. Soros is entitled to his opinions. But on this issue, he and Sen. Obama disagree. The U.S. and its allies are right to insist that Hamas - a terrorist organization dedicated to Israel's destruction [sic] - meet very basic conditions before being treated as a legitimate actor. AIPAC is one of many voices that share this view." And certainly not one of the least important either, they might have added. And no one knows that better than the junior Senator from New York. It's easy enough to beat up on the hapless Farrakhan but just try and pick on somebody important in America sometime and see where that gets you!
Hello Justin,
Could you please give us your take about the people opinion on the ground OH and TX?.
By the way, if you look to the coverage of the 主播大秀 on super tuesday, you would think that Hilary has had it secured. Why do you think that has happened? Was it the New Hamshire overlearned lesson?
There was a nice spin on all this on The Daily Show recently. (We get it here in the UK, you know.)
The show's spoof 'black correspondent' was asked by John Stewart whether he thought it was amazing that so many people were supporting a black guy.
He replied 'Ah, but at this point they are only voting for their right to vote for a black guy. When it comes to the actual election they'll decide that a 71 year old white guy is about as much change as they really want'.
Many a true word, etc., and I fear that he's right.
I'm sorry but I think you're wrong. There is a difference between making an endorsement and commenting positively about a person.
Farrakhan could have easily spoken well about Clinton. Would that tantamount to an endorsement?
There wasn't anything there about endorsements that Farrakhan said.
Although a British ex-pat, I do have a vote and used it in the NJ primary to vote for Hillary Clinton.
The media here is ridiculously biased in favour of Obama and the blogs are full of disparaging comments aimed at ms Clinton that are having the effect of driving a wedge down the middle of the Democrats. Many Hillary supporters have responded by saying they would vote for McCain before they vote for Obama. Although I would personally love to see Hillary win the nomination and go on to win the presidency my optimisim is not high.
Regardless of who ultimatley wins the Democratic nomination, the party will have to do a lot of healing if they are to have any chance in the fall.
I didn鈥檛 find Mrs Clinton looking foolish, she had brilliantly articulated her position, and unlike her, Mr Obama was obliged to change his. As, in Justin鈥檚 estimation, one of Britain鈥檚 鈥済reat papers鈥 said of him
鈥渉e also came in for tough questions about support from Louis Farrakhan, of the Nation of Islam. Obama rejected Farrakhan's anti-semitic comments, but hesitated to reject Farrakhan's support - until goaded.鈥
See:
Nevertheless, it was unclear if he actually rejected Farrakhan's support or merely rejected his odious opinions. I thought Mrs Clinton did exceptionally well and was better prepared than Mr Obama; a pity though that she couldn鈥檛 pronounce the name Dmitri Medvedev and neither did Mr Obama interject it; for either that really would have been a clincher!
Just to defend Justin a bit - The media has a job to be impartial, but also stories need to sell. For stories to sell they must be hot - attention magnets. All you commenters wouldnt be on this blog were it not for Justin picking the hot tidbits.
Unfortunately for Hillary, Obama is hot and new - be it for the people who get him or the people who absolutely hate his guts (the two groups combined makes for a big readership). Either way the media wins - Obama trumps Clinton (bi media circus);Obama trips up badly (big media circus)
Bottom line, its the nature of Justin's profession.
Nick Payne, Post 5:
What you're referring to is the "Negroes' Hour." This 19th C debate concluded universal male suffrage (including blacks) was possible, while full universal suffrage -- including women -- was not.
The contest between Obama and Clinton can't be cast in the same terms ... this isn't about race or gender, although it is, surprisingly, about new voters.
The Negroes' Hour would be better compared to the Great Reform Bill of 1832 and full female suffrage, 1928.
To Linda Sartori post 17 & 26
In post 17 you state your support for Hillary then go on to attack Obama especially over Farrakhan. Every American including Farrakhan has a legitimate right to support any politician of their choice, this does not imply the politician endorses what that American may represent.
In post 26 you continue with the negative tropes dished out by the Clinton campaign, the very thing most Americans are protesting against by voting Obama over Clinton. Is it too difficult to understand that people want positive politics and Obama has responded to this demand.
The fact that Obama is younger than Clinton does not negate his ability to govern effectively. It takes great leadership ability to marshall a campaign team that is trouncing the Clinton juggernaut. Wisdom is not always a function of age and longetivity, many young persons have excelled in leadership.
On experience, one could also use it to argue that McCain should be President as he is the most experienced candidate. Linda, note that many other latino voters are gradually appreciating what Obama has to offer - please look again and beyond Obama's style you will see his unique appealing substance.
Justin, you still haven't told us the flavor of the Kool Aid you're drinking that you have been served by Barack's servants. Please tell.
America has been unfortunate, careless and should I say confused in its choice of leaders in recent times. From the pipe-smoking Monica man to the Texan ignoramus.
I am really worried that we can produce a presidential candidate better than a desperate power-drunk lady who took her husband's philandering in the chin just because of her political ambition. By the way, I won't bait an eye lid if we witnessed another "Segolene Royale" saga where Bill and Hilary will go their separate ways if she didn't make the presidency. Their marriage is Machivelian par excellence!
For Obama, what can I say than he's a smooth talker like any other politican. You wait till he becomes the President. He'll always be an American.
As for John McCain, it will be worse than that petrol-drunk Goergie. He'll attack Iran and we'll soon get bombed in London.
Who should we look for? Where is John Edwards?
Obama is a real unknown to all these people backing him to change Washington.
I remember Mr and Mrs Clinton thought that they had a mandate to change Washington and took a lot of their inexperienced advisors with them from Arkansas and pretty soon realised they couldnt change much fast even with a democratic house and senate supporting them.
I remember George W Bush running for pres saying he would get the dems and reps working together like he did in good old texas,,,,right!!
Within a few weeks of him landing in Washington the Cheney/Bush team had the dems even more stirred up than Reagan.
Maybe we need a politician like Hillary ,who could get things done in Washington like her hubby did?
I remember that Bill always managed to make Newt Gringrich bad even though Bill was up to his cajones in alligators with the Monkika file.
As someone said, those that don't learn from history are destined to repeat it..........
Yea, Obama is going to change Washington! Maybe bend it a little ? those career politicians and special interest groups and the army of civil servants don't change much from tear to year.Fours years is not long to meet all the promises that Obama or Hillary are currently espousing.
Politicans are like lawyers, if you are suing someone you need an experienced lawyer with a bad , sneaky streak who tough and stubborn at the right time, not a rookie just out of law school.
Just one more reason to vote Clinton! Obama has little substance in his speeches and from his background really. He's helped with his charm and a motivation speaker type of style. But more intelligent people would know what he can do or cannot do in reality. He said that he's a better candidate, but he's not.
There's so much media biases and some spineless Demo politicians have switched from supporting Clinton to supporting Obama, just because others are doing so or for some 'noble' causes or excuses. So spineless, no principle and opportunism those politicians, whom I despise.
I don't always agree with everything Clinton said, but between she and Obama, I choose Clinton, because she is the best candidate, the most qualified, and most consistent among all others.
I agree with Brett wholeheartedly.
And then what about the healthcare industry contributions to both of the dem candidates (Hillary at least $2.7 mil and Obama $2.2 mil)? How will they ever effectively change the U.S. healthcare system if they are holding hands with the healthcare lobbyists?
Hello Jestin The bell is ringing for a change in American politics.I think it,s Obama,s time.
To all those who have been claiming that Ms Clinton has a long track record: from what I can tell Mr Obama has more experience. She has only 7 years under the belt as a legislator, compared to 11 years for him - counting his Illinois senate years. I don't understand how the First Lady years count - I wonder what employer would hire my wife for a job that I am qualified for, simply because she has been my spouse for x years?
As to being "ready on Day 1", she wasn't even prepared for a primary campaign in Texas and Ohio, having assumed she would win by Super Tuesday. So how can anyone be confident that she has the "wisdom and experience" to be President?
The idea that Obama is being treated with kid gloves by the media is really quite incorrect. Obama hasn't been in politics as long as Hillary has, so he has a smaller record to criticise. If you look at any one of Obama's failings - Rezko, state-funding for campaigns, weaknesses at debating, the 'wierd' way in which his followers are devoted to him, and what some have called the vapid nature of his rhetoric - you'll find that at least as much attention has been devoted to them as to Hillary's failings.
The fact is, Obama has the most votes, the most delegates, the most states, and he fares consistently better in every opinion poll against John McCain. If the media keep on reporting this, they're saying no more than the truth. If they're painting Hillary as the underdog, that's because she now is, and she should be grateful for the sympathy vote it engenders.