Gore's beard and Obama's poetry
Huge apologies to all those who have had trouble posting - we will try to sort it out. 
Chris the Tory you are not alone of course - in fact, I ought to remember my own posts because you remind me that people like you were the subject not long ago. And Joe Ware - please, No! Too yesterday to be cool. Too last year in fact. And liable to grow a beard. And never ran anything except the Vice President's office. Etc, etc. Bet the endorsement will come though in order to keep him seen at the right Hollywood parties.
meanwhile has some wonderful Clinton camp detail.
Lisa, you may well be right about Obama and the point about thoughtful versus uncertain: this is the kind of thing that hearing a debate (as I did) rather than watching tends to accentuate - hesitation does not work on radio.
Dr Aliu is one of several people who think they have detected an anti-Obama bias in this blog: I have searched my conscience and found none - honest! This is for him - and for in the Times of London no less (sorry it's a few days old - I missed it).
By the way the issue of how to make a political speech is a live one back in my homeland - where parliamentary life generally makes oratory rather finer than it has been in recent years in the US. I agree with this piece by one of the UK's foremost bloggers about the autocue (the glass one that you are not meant to be able to see) which I think damages John McCain, who looks a bit glassy-eyed sometimes when he stares out at the crowd. Does Obama even use one? Or Hillary? Are US politicians in fact here...
Hello, I'm 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
With the talk of Al Gore, perhaps it should be pointed out that there's always the possibility (admittedly it's not at all likely, but it's certainly a possibility) that if, come the Democrat convention, there seems to be no way of deciding who has won out of Clinton and Obama, they could decide to abandon both of them and let beardy have the nomination.
I just got back from a trip to Morocco, home, and i must say this. NO ONE I talked to favored Hillary Clinton, and certainly not McCain (or should it be the other way around? I mean, even Ann Coulter is willing to vote for Hillary instead of John). Actually, people like Obama so much abroad that they have started getting used to the idea of "too good to be true." That remains besides the point though.
Here's my take on Clinton, or rather, my increasingly resounding interrogations as to Hillary: one political analyst (forget my bad memory) said that Clinton could come back, using the argument "after all, she is a Clinton", i.e. a powerful political machine. To be honest, there was not a moment in my life where I thought that SHE was. Bill was a genius of politics, that look in his eyes and that sincere friendliness added to his intellect made him worthy of the Oval Office (or the Oral Office as it was called back then...). But it's Hillary RHODAM clinton who's running. Hillary is not Clinton, not friendly, she has nowhere near that sincere look and I fear she is not even close to mastering the rhetoric and political ingenuity that her husband has. Could it be that the world (especially the US, though) is slowly coming to the realization that this is not Bill Clinton Deux? That this, actually, may be RHODAM vs. Clinton? There is nothing Clinton-like to this woman and it really seems like her husband is also just pretending she is one (does he have a choice?). Do you ever notice the look in Bill's eyes as of late? Does it strike you that he may be silently saying "that's my wife alright... i love her... but she ain't me."
Any Barack Obama bias that may be in this blog will be countered by me right now:
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE AMERICA - VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA TO BE YOUR NEXT PRESIDENT. HE IS A GREAT ORATOR AND HE KNOWS HIS STUFF.
Many thanks.
About autocues - we, the constituency, are becoming more sophisticated. I don't want a newsreader (no slight intended) as a parliamentary (or presidential candidate). I suspect that more and more people feel the same. I have watched the candidates' debates on youtube and Obama does not impress sans autocue. In the main he comes across as dry and stilted. Even speaking with autocue (for instance, after Super Duper Tuesday) he oftentimes sounds like he's reading rather than speaking. However, this is nothing compared to Ted Kennedy's endorsement speech - an autocue horror up there with a number of Menzies Campbell's performances over here. Do you think that Hillary's (we all still refer to her by her first name) best chance is to go au naturel a la John Major and ditch the big rallies and speak from the heart on Main Street USA? Or does dhe hold her nerve and calculate that the super delegates will scrape her home?
Cheers. Keep up the good work.
Jack: it isn't possible. It really isn't.
I mean, it's technically possible- the same as it is technically possible for GW Bush to decide that abortion is OK after all- but the how would you justify it?
A close democratic race with record numbers of votes for candidates.. and the party decides to throw away ALL the public votes and go with a candidate that no-one voted for? I dread to think what would happen.
There seems to be no doubt that Mr Obama relies on an Autocue, known as TelePrompTer here - just Google Obama Teleprompter to see the results. One of interest is:
and there are many others, so much so that some have labeled him "the teleprompter candidate". (see )
On the other hand, Mrs Clinton seems able to extemporize. She speaks from her heart, he speaks from his script.
I don't understand this talk about OBAMA being short on specifics, I guess someone wants him to read his future budget on the campaign trail. I have not seen other candidates doing this at least.
No candidate can claim to have all the knowledge needed to run a Government. Remember this includes economics, law, science and technology, military intelligence etc. Hence at the end of the day all candidates need experts to fashion out policies.
However what I think differentiates these candidates include leadership, honesty, good judgment and every other thing will follow.
Hillary lacks leadership skills, at least she has been unable to manage her campaign properly (hence the failures and resignation of Patti Salis Doyle and Mike Henry). Most of her family allies do not even believe in her campaign hence the Obama camp getting support from former Bill Clinton Allies.
She lacks good judgment hence the vote for Iraq war. Her lack of good judgment also plays out in her designing a campaign machine that will last up to super Tuesday and not further even when Democratic primaries is meant to last about 4 months after super Tuesday officially.
How does a candidate who claims to be prepared from day one and who also claims to defend Americans design an election battle that does not stand the test of time.
On honesty she falls short. She can not possibly succeed on Health care reforms when she has taken money from lobbyist who these health care reforms will not be favorable to their business. Perhaps this was why her former health care programme during the 80's failed. But unfortunately Hillary is doing the same things and promising different results.
I THINK THIS IS THE HEIGHT OF DISHONESTY.
Hillary's outlandishly over-the-top childish grins and crazed-looking smiles do not inspire confidence. She reminds one of a pampered "Daddy's girl" reaching out for a prize she's been promised - not a mature and seasoned woman offering to try to tackle one of the most thankless and horrendously difficult jobs in the world. At least Obama looks concerned - as well he should be: as USA Prez he would be walking onto a brutal minefield filled with no-win power plays, as once again the USA faces withdrawal from an illegal, immoral and "unwinnable" war, and yet another huge group of shattered and broken vets returns from losing in front of the entire world. McCain looks back to days long gone - he calls up John Wayne cliches and truisms rather than realistic insights for today's challenges. Our Minnesota Senatorial candidate Al Franken seems to be the only candidate with the proper combo of sardonicism and grim determination to be credible. And he's just left his day-job as a comedian.
"By the way the issue of how to make a political speech is a live one back in my homeland - where parliamentary life generally makes oratory rather finer than it has been in recent years in the US."
Yes I've noticed that, British politicians have made speaking words which say nothing a fine art, so much so that they've pared it down to its barest essentials.
"Mr. Prime Minister."
"Mr. Speaker, I refer my right honorable frend to the reply I gave some moments ago." And you know how effective that is when it's the Prime Ministers reply to the first question at PMQT. How effective? None of the other ministers actually voices an objection, they just grumble like a bunch of underfed lab rats.
An autocue also gives the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the words are being fed to "please" (scripted to pacify) and hence the words spoken are of somone else, not the speaker. In addition that the speaker is not well versed on the subject and needs "assistance". Ergo, what is the point of the speaker..?
Ditch the autocue...
Well done, Mr. Webb. Barbara Ehrenreich and her daughter (Rosa Brooks, Georgetown Law professor and LA Times columnist) speak for me.
We really believe Obama will restore habeas corpus, forbid torture and end these weird "renditions" of other country's citizens to Guantanamosque prisons.
We don't need to wonder what Obama would think about the bugging of MP and civil rights lawyer Sadiq Khan while meeting with client, constituent and childhood friend, Babar Ahmad (a software designer awaiting "rendition" to the US -- despite facing no charges in Britain or Europe).
The only, only issue for me in this election is restoring the Constitution (our shared common law), and ending Napoleonic dictatorship, codes and aggression.
Begging the question -- why has this story not surfaced in US news? What's not fit to print?
With the talk of Al Gore, perhaps it should be pointed out that there's always the possibility (admittedly it's not at all likely, but it's certainly a possibility) that if, come the Democrat convention, there seems to be no way of deciding who has won out of Clinton and Obama, they could decide to abandon both of them and let beardy have the nomination.
Hi Justin,
First of all, thanks for the witty coverage of the primary season. It is necessary to have an outsider's perspective on the ground there. It is now clear that the democratic nomination will drag out for another couple of weeks to months, the republicans having put out their man, although GOP have a smaller chance of winning in november, with McCain really lacking support from the base! They will perhaps still make it if the democrats remain long such an undecided lot! So it is going to be either of the two men, Barack or McCain, or Hillary as 44th president. Barack is not just a flash in the pan, as we have seen. But does he have what we need right now from the next american president? Barack is the youthful alternative, but sorry to say that at this point in time, Hillary would make a better president because she is tested, and ready, thus Barack would be the wrong choice, not because he is not good, but because the timing is wrong. Let’s trust that this time America will make the right choice, unlike the past 2 elections!
Thank you to Jon (no 32 in Justin's previous post) for picking up that it was in fact the lovely Mr. Romney that thinks that we are all immoral across the pond. I misread Justin's earlier post (/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/02/value_for_romney.html) as being a continuation of a reference to Mike Huckabee. I apologise to the Huckabee campaign if my comments, as picked up by Justin, have influenced any voting in the US. I'm sure Mike loves his European brethren...
And Jon, I hope you enjoyed your false idol worship and rock music session. I must join you some time if I can fit it in after my numerous discussions with Satan.
I think that it is unlikely that Obama would pick Gore as a running partner. I think he will almost certainly go for Edwards. My 'dream ticket' would have to be Hillary as President and Obama as Vice President. It would be fantastic, Hillary's experience at a crucial time with Obama getting the best possible experience, ready to run for President in 4/8 years time.
I certainly don't think this blog has been anti-Obama. I have moved from being pro-Democrat, but wishing there had been a Gore or a Colin Powell (who is spiritually a democrat in my ciew) involved to supporting Obama. Largely a sensation of pleasure at his early wins and mild disappointment at the subsequent Clinton successes. I'm now conciously pro-Obama and have seen nothing in thise blog other than informative and reasoned comment. The column correctly shows that no candidate in this election represents is anything other than broadly well intentioned (well none of the leading contenders anyway) and Obama did indeed have the worst line in this election as you cite. This has been Ö÷²¥´óÐã coverage at its 21st century best.
Obama is an empty Socialist shirt. He is "Style" with no substance. Hmmm.... how will he fix issues let me guess; Raise Taxes. Same old Democratic solution. Raise taxes, and buy votes, and create issues between our own people. No nation has ever taxed itself to prosperity. Both of these clowns are Socialists, and Clinton a Marxist. Vote No on Clownery, and yes for "Leadership". Neither Democrat offers Leadership.
Could Clinton's slide and Obama's rise have something to do with McCain's virtual coronation? With the right losing their grip on the Republican nomination, taking a risk on the more radical figure might seem less dangerous.
If I had a vote in these primaries, I'd have been inclined to support Clinton as the candidate more likely to survive the heat of the main campaign and emerge victorious over Romney. Knowing that the worst we'll end up with is McCain I'd switch to Obama.
With the Democrats apparently swinging to Obama at the same time as my preferences were changing, is there any evidence out there that McCain's success is influencing their thinking?
I would hope to interview both of them...
at
To me, at least these two are definitely better than Mr. Bush.
I enever understood why when we are given two of the most calibre candidates in centuries, and we have to choose one of them?
Why can't we have them both?
Sorry, I do not see how Al Gore is relevant in any respect.
Unless Hilliary can employ InfoUSA to get higher approval ratings, I think her insincerity will pull her down further.
I like that Obama looks forward with positive resolve, does not chronically blame and slander others, and is less anxious to use our military.
Republican Presidential Nominee?
Regarding the leading contenders,
McCain on the side of the Democrats and Hilary Clinton and Obama vying among the Republicans, we are prompted to ask two questions. How credible is each one of them? How predictable?
McCain is, in my opinion, both credible and predictable, if his track record is anything to go by.
As to the credibility of the Republican contenders, the fact that
they are running neck to neck shows
that both of them are 'so-so' in the
Primaries and caucuses so far. As for
predictability both seem to fall short of McCain. Therefore, to compete successfully against McCain,
the choice for the Republicans may
have to be among three and not two, the third being you know who.
I saw Obama speak in Madison, WI this past Tuesday in front of 20,000 people. He had an autocue on each side of the podium but I never saw him staring at it. Maybe he was very familiar with the speech he was giving and didn't really need it.
The Clintons seem to think that the White House is theirs by 'right'.
What did they really do with their 8 years in residence? Bill was a grand orator but realistically, very shifty. Both are frighteningly desperate to get back in the big house at almost any price.
Their falling star can't all be due to a 'right wing conspiracy' as HRC has always argued in the past.Why are they surprised that the poorest sections of US society aren't that bothered about their impending demise? The answer is really easy. What did they effectively do with all those years at the top for those most in need? Move off the stage for the love of God and the American people. Let a brilliant young,gifted,charismatic black man have a go.... if you're really democrats at heart. Which i doubt.
Obama could not do any worse than BC or GB, and could well move that nation a long way towards the reconcilement it so desperately needs within itself and with others. Obama is electable and acceptable to very many shades of opinion. The Clintons guarantee deadlock and stalemate for the lenght of their 'stay' in power.
Obama has the style but not the content; it is annoying that Clinton is being cast aside by Obama’s campaign as a representative of ‘dynasty politics’ whilst in the same breath his campaign staffers compare him to being either the new Robert or John Kennedy. The biggest worry for myself as a pro-Democrat British citizen is that Obama (although not promising anything and remaining vague on the key issues) will suffer if elected President to win a second term. He is building-up hopes that can't be matched by even the greatest statesman. Good policy takes time to initiate and deliver - and if elected the results will not be seen straight away. I always remember a Turkish poet stating that the bigger the fanfare you come into office with, the bigger the disappointment you will be to the electorate when you leave. At the minute I'm sticking with Clinton for the long term strategy required and for pragmatic reasons - the very hope that Obama might bring to a new generation of Americans, if it fails to be translated into clear policies once in power, could be the catalyst for apathy in future elections. Also in relation to the autocue comments, Obama always appears lost when adlibbing and granted he is a good orator but compared to our parliamentarians he would be murdered at the despatch box on PMQs because of this lack of spontaneity.
Could Clinton's slide and Obama's rise have something to do with McCain's virtual coronation? With the right losing their grip on the Republican nomination, taking a risk on the more radical figure might seem less dangerous.
If I had a vote in these primaries, I'd have been inclined to support Clinton as the candidate more likely to survive the heat of the main campaign and emerge victorious over Romney. Knowing that the worst we'll end up with is McCain I'd switch to Obama.
Let's take a closer look at who's really qualified and or who's really working for the good of all of us in the Senate. Obama or Clinton.
Let's take a look at the "experience" of Senator Clinton
Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term - 6yrs. - and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law - 20 - twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.
These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress www.thomas.loc.gov, but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you.
1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton's bills are, more substantive. 16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.
There you have it, the fact's straight from the Senate Record.
Re: WOW! | Report to Admin Reply
By Ben Vos Yesterday at 10:11 pm EST
Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize.
During the first - 8 - eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced
233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.
His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded **the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law, **The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, - became law, **The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate, **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, - became law, **The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In committee, and many more.
In all, since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.
An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no record according to some who would prefer that this comparison not be made public.
He's not just a talker.
He's a doer.
Obama has the style but not the content; it is annoying that Clinton is being cast aside by Obama’s campaign as a representative of ‘dynasty politics’ whilst in the same breath his campaign staffers compare him to being either the new Robert or John Kennedy. The biggest worry for myself as a pro-Democrat British citizen is that Obama (although not promising anything and remaining vague on the key issues) will suffer if elected President to win a second term. He is building-up hopes that can't be matched by even the greatest statesman. Good policy takes time to initiate and deliver - and if elected the results will not be seen straight away. I always remember a Turkish poet stating that the bigger the fanfare you come into office with, the bigger the disappointment you will be to the electorate when you leave. At the minute I'm sticking with Clinton for the long term strategy required and for pragmatic reasons - the very hope that Obama might bring to a new generation of Americans, if it fails to be translated into clear policies once in power, could be the catalyst for apathy in future elections. Also in relation to the autocue comments, Obama always appears lost when adlibbing and granted he is a good orator but compared to our parliamentarians he would be murdered at the despatch box on PMQs because of this lack of spontaneity.
I have listened to both Obama and Hillary. I have overwhelmingly decided on Hillary.Obama gives a great speech and knows when to pull at the heart strings of such matters as student funding,healthcare and keeping it green.However he NEVER gives us a plan..oh he has on Healthcare..which leaves millions out.But during his debates he stumbles and evades the questions.Check out your history and political patterns here in the US and see for yourself..it's not over til it's over..Look at Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale??She just won New Mexico..it's not over yet..don't even try to predict..especially after Bush won over Gore..whatta rip off!
I can't say I've noticed any particular bias against Obama, or Clinton for that matter, or John McCain by Mr. Webb.
As far as I can tell Mr Webb makes sure to include whichever rhetorical pablum or meme that happens to have floated to the top in the press on any given day (Hillary cried fake tears, McCain is a "maverick" despite his pandering, Obama is a progressive liberal despite failing to vote against torture, voting for continued funding for Iraq and being opposed to universal health care for example) to which he adds random musings.
IMHO Mr.Webbs' TV reporting is usually neutral and more substantial than his blogging. Still, kudos to Mr Webb for responding to his commenters regularly and for not simply reprinting his TV transcripts here as others in the pundit business often do.
Jack,
I have to admit I've thought the same thing.If they end up having a brokered convention if one of the candidates doesn't make it past the magical 2,025, what are the chances that Gore will try and get nominated from the floor? Justin, I have to agree- I like the beard, although I don't think it looks presedential. Perhaps he's going for the Swampy look?
love the insight into the election, nice to read a version of the news not aligned to either party. I do have a question about your interview with GW, how many of your questions were pre-submitted and how much of the interview was tough on the fly questions like those that we would see in Britain and not rehearsed.
The Weekly Standard article to which David Cunard posted the link above is quite harsh on Obama's ability to speak extemporaneously. And Dean Barnett, the author, seems to disagree with me that Obama looks more thoughtful than uncertain when speaking in debate; in fact, I believe Mr. Barnett actually uses the word "uncertain."
Interesting that he compares the extemporaneous Obama to John Edwards, and makes nary a mention of Hillary Clinton. I don't know if she uses an autocue (teleprompter), but I doubt it would make a difference in her case. She sounds the same in debate as in oratory. Sure of herself, yes, but not exactly an interesting speechmaker. She adopts a mechanical tone that reminds me of my Constitutional Law professor in law school. While the subject interested me, the presentation was always a bit bland. And I caught myself more than once during one of his lectures thinking about what I was going to have for lunch that day.
I don't fault politicians for using telemprompters. Frankly, I would rather they spend time doing the business of the government than memorizing lengthy speeches. And there are only a very few skilled individuals who can elegantly speak off the cuff. If Obama is not one of those people, then none of the candidates this year are. I can't say I've seen the Obama that Mr. Barnett mentions in the Weekly Standard article--the vitriolic Obama who degenerates into a classic partisan politician when speaking off of his cue cards--although I've seen him without the teleprompter. Certainly he is not as eloquent in the debate setting, but I also don't believe he changes so much in manner and speech as to be stripped of his title as a good communicater. And, really, I believe that's more important in a US President than whether he or she can attain Martin Luther King Jr.-level oration every time he or she gives a speach.
Al Gore "never ran anything except the Vice President's office." For that matter, what has either of the candidates actually "run"? He has been in government far longer than them both, serving in the House of Representatives (1977–85) and the Senate (1985–93), representing Tennessee. Possibly "too Washington" but just as experienced (even more so) as Obama and Clinton - and with a Nobel Prize to boot. It is an unlikely choice, but not because "he never ran anything".
Greta #11: The reason the MP bugging insodent hasn't "surfaced in US media" is because 1. it is largely a UK-based story (although there inlys is a connection to the US), and 2. because our national media-selfish as it is-is a little preoccupyed with selecting the next screwer up of the world comunity (or so many world citizens seem to think), and that story doesn't feature particularly high on the agenda due to that fact. I should point out, however, that that story is mentioned in our world news programs, and our 24 hour news channels (I.E. CNN, MSNBC), etc, even if it isn't mentioned in our national news. Also, I really hope you are serious about Obama, and aren't just being sarcast. If you are, I agree with you.
#9 Mark: I couldn't disagree more with you. Not only are British prime ministers renoun for great speech makeing, they are also well known for being able to respond to harsh questions/atacks with seemingly effortlessness and flawlessness. The insodent which you raise, to my knoledge, hasn't happened. I think PM Qs is a wonderful place to see the above mentioned qualities in full effect.
One last note: to those who think that Gore hasn't done anything worth while in his life because he didn't win the presidenc-despite the fact that he lost by a hair when he did ran, your probably right. I mean seriously, how important is preserving our planit for future generations anyway, right?
I am a Dutch man living in Asia. I am so glad the Bush years will be over soon. Whoever is elected, it will be a 1500% improvement on the Bush-Cheney farce. See the interview on Ö÷²¥´óÐã recently? I could not believe it. I am very much in awe of Obama and his positive view on the issues. But even if McCain were to win, he is so much wiser (greener, to start) and experienced and sensible than Bush. So... The future looks bright, no matter what happens in November.
Obama does not use a teleprompter all of the time (or even most of the time-- I think) to speak to crowds. I have seen him live talking with mike in hand and pacing on the stage. He seems quite comfortable. His content contains both inspiring concepts and some policy details. I find that a good balance for someone who is seeking to be US President.
As a volunteer for the campaign, I have been astounded at the enthusiastic support Obama is receiving from volunteers and voters. He is the most successful insurgent candidate I have seen in at least two decades. I think he will have the ability to move people such that there will be a strong mandate for some of the policy changes that are needed. He will also be able to make for a Democrat majority in Congress too. I am not convinced that his opponent can achieve either of those results.
"Dr Aliu is one of several people who think they have detected an anti-Obama bias in this blog: I have searched my conscience and found none - honest!"
Are you kidding me? You always take cheap shots at Obama, you refuse to acknowledge his recent success, and you easily buy into Clinton's phoney claim to be more "exprience" (you have often alluded to obama's inexperience while subtling touting Clinton's "experience"). Commom, we are not stupid.
My conclusion? You must be too biased to be aware of your bias. And that's sad.
Hi Justin
Is it me or is Senator Obama getting a particularly easy ride in the media? Some of the comments about Senator clinton (even above here) border on the vitriolic. Things are said about her that would never be mentioned because she is a woman, and would be a superior candidate in my view. Much of my reasoning to support Hillary is that I know nothing about what Barak Obama stands for. What I've seen of his speeches are rosy, MLK-esque but seemed quite devoid of content. I even looked at Obama's election website, and could not find anything much that was useful to read about his policies.I would be nervous seeing someone who I know nothing about becoming US President... again.
Yes, Sean(#30), you are right. He is getting an easy ride. Just look at McCain too. His flip-flops have been just as big as Romneys' yet the media "loves" him so they haven't mentioned them as much. But Obama's record as a senator is quite thin too and he has less to criticize. That being said, much of the media it seems just doesn't like Hillary. On MSNBC, that Dan Abrams brought this up too and I agree with him. They just don't like her. Also I'm to the left of both Obama and Clinton and it disturbs me to here Obama call himself a "change" agent. He may "change" the tone but that won't bring about changes that will affect peoples' lives. As a progressive, I am most disturbed by a couple of things(he hasn't been in office too long. I mean the Senate), that Obama, the "change" agent, has voted for. 1) He voted for the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. He asked for some changes to it but he still voted for it. 2) He talks about how he always was "against" the war in Iraq. Yet, he continued to vote to fund said war. The other day he had the nerve to talk about how money spent on the war could be better spent on problems here in America. Well, of course but he failed to note the hypocrisy there.
3) His first vote in the Senate was to vote "yes" to confirm Condi Rice as Secretary of State. If he was so against the war in Iraq and such a progressive before he got into the Senate, then why would he vote for she who lied to the American people about Iraq and who should have been in deep trouble for her role in preventing 9/11?
Now one might say "Hillary voted for the war and so on." This is true but I made my peace with her a long time ago. My problem with Obama is how he is portraying himself in this race.
All those touting the war against Iraq as immoral etc etc, I for one am glad none of you were around during the late 30s. Because if you lot were around, you'd put appeasement loving people like Obama into power and we'd all be ruled by Hitler now.
Obama has great charisma but he's all style and no substance. Withdrawing from Iraq is the worst thing the US military can do. It's the absolute WRONG time for the military to be labeled a laughing stock. Terrorists must know that the West has the will to go through any difficulty to end their evil and running away is EXACTLY the WRONG message to send them.
Obama appears sincere with the interest of the common people at heart. Apart from gaining increasing support in the US, Obama is also more acceptable internationally than any other candidate. Let me tell you one thing, people globally look at Obama as a peaceful person who will restore peace in the world as far the US is concerned. Enough of the bloodshed, enough of the hatred to Americans. Poor Americans, hated for someone elses's faults. So give a chance to Obama to restore the vadly needed peace and chenge positively the world pereception on the US.
From afar I watch the candidates race, and like many people outside your country hope Obama wins. Clearly he is inspirational and takes the focus off of the seediness that has surrounded US politics and the behaviour of many of its politicians, including Presidents, for years. Most of all, however, because his face, as the leading figure in the country, would send a powerful message to many people around the World that a new dawn is coming for the most powerful ountry on Earth.
I love looking at the Ö÷²¥´óÐã news because I feel like it's less biased than the American news. As an American, I just want to say that I am hoping and praying that Obama gets into office. I am 25 years old, and I feel that the people of my generation need a hero in America. I have come to maturity in a time in America where we are taught to fear our government and the world around us. Diplomacy needs to return and this culture of fear needs to stop. Either way, Bush will be out soon! I'm sure the British are just as excited about that as I am. Maybe now I can admit to being American when I travel (I usually lie and say I'm Canadian to ensure my safety)Keep your fingers crossed, Britain! I know I am.
Unlike you, with your ear to the ground, to be so dismissive of the 'Gore for VP' rumour. He is already being talked about as the guy to mediate between Clinton and Obama, and facilitate a truce.
Clearly he would need to be rewarded for this. And he really really wants to push his climate change agenda. If you are so sure Gore will never be Veep, just answer this one question - Who else could it be ? John Edwards is always the nearly man - I don't think it will be him.
I hear people say that Hillary has experience and therefore should be the Democratic choice for President. I don't see it that way. Her experience is about the past, this election is about change for the future and Obama has that vision.ed
Can Americans not see that:
HILLARY IS BILL
making the bid for his THIRD TERM??!
Gore may be offered the VP slot.
But he will have the dignity to scorn it.
Obama is riding for a fall.