Turning a corner?
WASHINGTON: Watching the post-game speeches (his and hers) you cannot but wonder whether the series is from Mrs Clinton.
It is not about math (or maths) or about mojo or momentum. As Tom Brokaw put it on MSNBC - almost as an aside but the point is a vital one, surely - the problem for the Clintons is that attacking an upstart, a pretender, is relatively easy to do without necessarily being offensive to the wider public. You can still look serene and on the right side of history.
But attacking an icon - a black icon - becomes way more difficult. The man is the same. The policies have the same flaws. But the perception of your attacks is altered by the glory that others have attached to him. Just upping the ante will not do. In fact it is difficult to see what WILL do.
It really does look as if Democratic voters might have turned a corner: is the Associated Press take on the exit polls in Virginia, suggesting that granny is now backing Obama, as is Jimmy who works at Dunkin' Donuts (great coffee) and all manner of people who previously backed Hillary.
Hello, I'm 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
Dear Justin: Very insightful comments! The Clintons have always made their way with a mix of aw-shucks charm and viciousness. Anyone standing between them and their ambitions was fair game.
They don't know what to do with Mr. Obama, since he is neither charmed by them, or afraid of them.
And, as the process grinds on, people realize that they are unwilling to endure 4 or 8 more years of a Clinton White House. These are dangerous times, and we need a grown-up in office, not two massive egos consumed by the pursuit of power.
Stay tuned, this will only get more interesting!
Hillary Clinton has a far stronger character than her spouse, whose tarnished legacy she set out to recover by running first for senator and now for president. Once this campaign is over, she should be rewarded for her heroic effort with an amicable divorce, freeing her at last to fulfill her role of dedicated public servant.
Her uphill struggle is painful to watch, because she repels voters every time she reminds them of the dot-com Bubba she wants to bring back. Who under 35--except for wronged spouses who confuse their private lives with the nation's destiny--is going to value Hillary's boasted "experience" from the 1990s?
I can't help feeling sorry for Hillary. She may have missed her greatest chance to become President by four years. She's worked so hard to plan and position herself for this run since being First Lady that she possibly out stratigized herself. Had she just stepped forward during the last election cycle, she would have easily won her party's endorsement and probably gone on to take the general election. But, she chose to wait.
Who could have guessed back then that she would be blindsided by a younger, little known challenger and that the juggernaught she so painstakingly built all these years to carry her to the White House might possibly get derailed.
I think the problem now that the more she and McCain hit him he will look as the dems candidate. both of them have started already from their response. This is risky because she will look as a GOP's attack-dog-in-chief. However, as most anchors are bitting that he will be another Mondale, remember Regan/Mondale debate. Could he manage to prevail the scrutiny as part of his training-on-the job exercise, he will have overtaken her by far.
No matter what happens, we will have a chapter in the political campaigns books named the Giuliani-Clintons Firewall theory. let's see how the conclusion will be written.
I think the New-yorkers theory make more sense to me. What do you think?
To be honest with you, I thought that Hillary Clinton would win Washington, D.C. tonight even if she failed to carry any of the other states. Now I suppose the Clinton campaign will have to recast itself in a new and innovative way. It will be interesting to see what they do in the next few weeks leading up to the Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania primaries. Will they change their message, start talking about hope and unity? Yes, it will be very interesting to see how the Clinton campaign chooses to move forward.
Let the choice of the Democratic Party majority win, whichever candidate that may be.
What I cannot stand are
1 SORE LOSERS -- "The other side MUST HAVE cheated!" or "The electoral college/the super delegates STOLE the election!"
2 FERAL VICTORS -- "Take that, you biatch!".
Come November, let the candidate who
1 seriously calls for the level of debate to be raised, and
2 is able to rebuke supporters who relish a mudfight/catfight/gangsta war
be elected President.
Let swing voters decide what lies in the next four years--watching the conduct of supporters as well as the respective candidates' response--and decide which side deserves to lose.
If you think Barack Obama is untouchable now, wait until the Republican machine gets their hands on him. Hillary has made a Giuliani-like mistake and bet on the powerhouse March 4 states of Texas and Ohio and has lost all momentum. Mccain has already started to target Obama in his vicrory speeches tonight. I have never seen such intetest and turnout for just the primaries. The general election is gong to be a wild ride.
Another thing to consider is Hillary's extraordinarily high negative ratings.
The only thing that would be able to unite the fractious, dispirited Republican party around a candidate the base is none too fond of (McCain) would be rallying against Hillary and stirring the old demons of Clinton hatred.
I certainly hope so. I voted for Obama in California, and I've been donating money. I just think he's the right choice for this country. The contrast between what he offers and what Clinton offers is stark. Today's speech by Clinton at Texas where she pandered to the crowd by talking about evil predatory mortgage companies, vs Obama's positive uplifting message is a great example. Clinton didn't even congratulate Obama.
Americans love the myth of rule by the people, but the truth is that the country has always been run by a pretty closed white, protestant, political elite. Hence we've also always loved the idea of an outsider coming in to sweep away the old in Washington. Obama is an outsider, and one that is charismatic, young, and good looking to boot. Most of the people I have discussed the primaries with take issue to Hillary b/c they see her as a mean spirited and jaded Washington hack. She has become someone, who despite being a woman, represents "politics as is." Obama addresses those issues directly. Now that he has proven his viability as a candidate, I would be very surprised if he does not win the nomination.
Hillary does remind me of the very popular student who finds her role diminished by the new kid in town. There is really not much that she can do or say in the way of being
critical of Obama that doesn't make her look jealous
or cruel. I do feel a bit bad for her. Her chance seems to be slipping away.
On a related topic, do you think that if it is Obama versus McCain, that the two of them might have similar
campaign slogans? Obama's
could be: "Hope, without war" and McCain's, "War, without hope" Eh, catchy?
It would be wonderful if Justin Webb would start to focus on Policies rather than droning on about personalities and trivia.We all know that he loves America and all its works, but he is being paid by the British Taxpayer, and we expect higher journalistic standards than those of the media of the Coutry he is so enthralled with.
Barack Obama an "icon"? Martin Luther King yes, but Obama, not quite. I would wager that most of the electorate (other than in Illinois) had hardly, perhaps never heard of the senator before this year, despite his speech at the previous Democratic convention. It cannot be denied that he has made an enormous impression in a very short time - strong on imagery but not on policy. Today imagery carries as much weight as before, if not more so - the Nixon-Kennedy debate showed what a difference it makes. I have heard it said that those who listened to the two on radio thought that Nixon won, and that those who could see them on television considered that Kennedy had. Mr Obama has masterfully conquered the airwaves, rather more than Mrs Clinton, but other than "change", we still don't know much about his policies. But at least he can read a Teleprompter (Autocue) better than John McCain, whose "victory speech" this evening appeared to be read directly off an unrolling script somewhere to his front and left. Ronald Reagan was considered to the "the great communicator" and in that regard, Mr McCain could well emulate his technique.
Do you get paid to write this fluff? I wait a day and watch PBS to get good analyses
I think the "change" is palpable and it is not about changing the Govt. for the good of the country. The change is in perception of Hillary. I agree, the corner has been turned, rightly or wrongly, as you assert regarding "attacking" of an icon.
It was a tough choice. As a woman, I would have loved to vote for a female president. However, after the Clinton and Bush dynasties, it is time for a change and a new leader in Washington. Others I've spoken with feel the same way. Plus the Obama supporters canvased my neighborhood and Metro station handing out literature on the candidate. Never saw a member of Hillary's campaign.
On a more cynical note, I feel he is the Democrats best hope for beating McCain this Nov. Hillary carries too much baggage that the opposition can use against her. Obama's main problem is the perception of a lack of experience in Washington. But that didn't stop either GWB or Clinton from becoming president.
If it's been written about, I haven't read it yet. Or it have been dropped in response to some abstruse aspect of political correctness... I'm refering to the distaste that not a few Europeans feel (among other things re this US election) about the "dynastic" element of having a Clinton, Clinton follow-on from a Bush, Bush presidency.
Given that the US President is seen as a combination of monarch, prime minister and arch-prelate, is it regarded in the US as a Good Thing to have a wife, son, etc. of a former president pick up the reins?
Obama represents choice more than anything, and I think people are finally coming around to that idea. Hilary represents mediocrity, and the kind of America, and the world for that matter, that the Clintons watched over in the 90's simply doesn't exist anymore. We don't need another mouth piece from the Me generation anymore than we need the pendulum of partisan politics to swing hard now in the opposite direction. Let the political dynasties of the late 20th century fade. Let us have something, someone new to shower our ignorant criticisms on!
Try this one on for size: a not very well liked candidate will lose to a very well liked candidate
As a sympathizer of the Democratic Party it seems it鈥檚 failing in its duty to realize that an American Presidency is not a place to start learning! Great challenges are abound the world over (most especially the issue of Islamic Militancy to which as a Muslim I pray America prevails) than to only think that rhetoric and ability to speak well without committing one to any position as the only qualification for the Presidency!
The crucial difference is credibility. It just cannot be altered or diminished no matter how good may be is one's spin doctor. It is either one is perceived to be telling the truth or not. Either one is a liar or not. After almost six (6) years of deception practiced by GWB upon the American people, they are now looking for a straightforward candidate. Honest to the core and can be depended upon on one's words.
Justin - great news from Granny to granch child are behind Obama but has he got any substential policies or there is another fad on its way to write 21st century's history.
Still labelling Obama, Justin. I think a doubt is arising about Hillary's own capablities. Is she really 'papabile'? People see her differently now, out of the brightness of the Clinton inheritance, with the magic of Bill removed and left on her own to do the communication/political job. She's not inspiring anyone at a time when, above anything, people need a lift.
We are just so proud of Americans. It is wonderful seeing whites, blacks, Asians and Hispanics all cheering Obama. This gives hope to the rest of the world who are struggling with ethnicity, tribalism, sexism, and all the discrimination in our society. America is indeed the country of hope and opportunities.
Bravo America!
Bravo White Americans in particulary
Jebiwot Bischof
Zurich Switzerland
There must be a rat on board the SS Hillary - it's every man for himself -that includes first mate Jimmy!
The Democratic Party seems not ready for the presidency of America and consequently leadership of the world. In this stage of mounting challenges from extremist it seems more intrested in ability to speak well without having a position than having the necessary experience to the lead the WORLD!
Today's world requires a leader and not a learner!!!!!!!!!!
The Democrats seem to have a great ability to self-distruct and are likely to do so again as their two candidates fight each other while the Republicans rally behind the one candidate. This could lead to another Republican administration in the States. I will be surprised if the American people actually elect a female or an African-American to lead them as I don't think the population, in general, are ready for either Democratic candidate. And, unfortunately, I have to agree with Doril Lessing in her assessment of Mr. Obama's chances of surviving if he were to be successful. Good luck to all of them.
Just looking at some sums - Democrats have around 4000 delegates in total of which 800 are "super delegates".
Both main candidates have around 1200 delegates so far.
By my rough sums we are almost at the stage where it is impossible for either candidate to get enough votes through the state by state primaries/caucuses even if the sweep the board from this point on.
It looks certain to go down to the super-delegates!
I have said all along that America is not yet ready for a woman president. It is too patriarchial to conceive of a woman holding the reins of power.
Maybe Obama will be a good choice, because all at once the East looses it's automatic hatred of the West and the US.
After all, he is from an 'oppressed minority/majority', he voted against the war in Iraq and having Obama in office would be a good PR move for the 'grandaddy of the world police force.'
O what the hell... Go Obama!
He is not an icon or a rockstar. He fought a brilliant campaign based on reality. He was unknown, without a base but knew that the times called for energising and inspiring the people. Dour policy statements cannot address young and old, men and women, black and white, rich and poor all at the same time. Emotion can be a powerful strategy. He used that to build his base from scratch. Now that every one has sat up, his campaign will move to a different phase.
No resume ever won a battle, but tell that to the Clintons. It is fought in the field.
In retrospect, the shift happened on 5 February simply because the result was not decisive in Clinton's favour. Further, Obama's subsequent victories mean that he will soon have a majority of the States.
Obama has done what every landslide politician does (think Blair in 1997): his message is that 'they' are the past, and 'I' am (or 'we are') the future. Behind him, he has a younger generation who care more about Iraq, the economy, and climate change, and less about health care. Most people, I think, realise that he will assume office with a team of experienced managers; and that his job is to set the agenda. Clinton, on the other hand, appeals to the past. Oddly, she should have run in 2004 as the 'back to the future' candidate.
Add in Obama's iconic status, and his eloquence, and Clinton only has one option: to demonstrate not competency, but greatness. One comment that has not been picked up this week, but which is telling, is the Economist calling her 'an inspiration free zone'; another is Chris Matthew's suggestion last year that she would make a fine Leader of the Senate.
Hi 主播大秀,
I completely agree with your most recent article. Obama appears to be inching ahead though I don't think anyone would suggest that the race is done and dusted. The Clinton machine is still running despite the two resignations and her ratings are still high enough to mount a successful comeback.
And let's not forget the super delegates. There are enough of them to screw Obama over if the two of them are still neck and neck come the conventions. Furthermore, in spite of the results, Obama's 3 wins came in what were predominatly black constituencies. (Although, you could argue that Clinton won in what were predominantly white constituencies.)
However, her tactic to focus on Texas parallels Rudy Giuliani's failed tactic to concentrate on Florida. I don't think she can just accept the other states as write-offs as to do this will only serve to distance her from the electorate. And we ALL know what happened in Florida....
Yours sincerely,
Richard
If, as Janus suggests, the best chance for the Republicans is to attack Clinton, then that can only play into the hands of Obama and the Democrats.
Aren't Americans looking for a genuinely positive outcome this time round rather than more negativity?
Don't we also need to remember that Hilary Clinton could not get the Healthcare Reform that she championed for several years ago?
Hillary is Lady Macbeth. Obama is then their Macduff.
Obama is an unstoppable force of history and Hillary should prepare to concede after losses in Texas and Ohio in order to unite the Democrats and achieve victory. However, neither she nor Bill are capable of sacrificing their will to power for the benefit of anyone. Their scenario for success has unwound against a movement which opposes their attitudes as much as it does Republican arrogance and self-aggrandizement which has brought misery to so many people domestically and internationally. At last Obama is ahead in the delegate count, even allowing for so called committed super-delegates surveyed by AP, who were propping up Hillary's numbers. The Americans like to back a winner, and jump on the bandwagon, so momemtum will surge through Texas and Ohio with personal appearances by Obama who will be seen as an historical phenomenon created by the people themselves, an irresistable lure for participation and mobilisation at the general election. Superdelegates are looking at the revival of the Democratic party and electoral gains at all levels in November. They won't be long in jumping onto this bandwagon to success.
I hope the super-delegates are paying attention. The party is looking increasingly like selecting Obama as their choice for President, but will the super-delegates fall in line with the popular vote or risk tearing the Democrats apart by voting for a trailing candidate?
Clinton's most valuable asset has been, since the start of this race, that she is far better known than Obama. For the majority of undecided voters on polling day that has translated into a vote. Until now.
The longer the race goes on the more name recognition he has, the more dependable he seems and the more voters feel they can trust him. Familiarity, as well as an inspirational personality, erodes the sense of him as being a bit of an unknown quantity. Hillary needed to kill him off by Super Tuesday and she hasn't managed it.
Her dependence on Ohio and Texas on March 4th smacks of Giuliani in Florida. It will be make or break for her, just as it was for him, but I suspect the result will be the same.
as an american abroad who voted in the first online primary i am proud to say i voted for barack obama... i am sick and tired of the scare tactics... of candidates who think they can demand my money for overpriced insurance... candidates who pretend to understand those whom have never known wealth... i want a candidate that gives me hope for my golden years... for my grandchildren... and hope for all americans... a candidate that knows when i cannot put food on the table i cannot afford private insurance... a candidate that does not know the taste of a silver spoon... a candidate with morals whose spouse also has morals... i do not want another monica under the desk in the oval office...
I think the race has got to the point where Hillary just can't win, she's lost so much integrity recently that her nomination now seems impossible.
I don't think I'm alone when I say I just can't see Clinton getting the nomination but that Obama looks all set.
And I'm a Hillary supporter.
Strictly speaking, Obama is of mixed-race origin, not black.
However, I suppose the general perception in the USA is that he is 'black'.
However, to get more Latinos on his side, Obama would do better to play up the 'mixed-race' angle.
I think he'll beat the Clinton's (yes - both of them) anyway to the Democratic nomination ... they just have too much negative baggage to overcome.
Boy, will she turn on Bill then!
I reckon Barack Obama is going to win the Democratic nomination and go on to become President of the United States. I reckon he's going to pick Kathleen Sebelius as his Vice President and I then reckon he's going to arrange a meeting with Fidel Castro but I reckon Fidel Castro's going to be too ill to attend. I also reckon John McCain will be cemented as a symbol of hate among conservatives after he loses the election in November and I reckon Mitt Romney's going to run for re-election in 2012. I reckon Tony Blair will become President of Europe and I reckon he's going to meeti with Barack Obama and they will become best friends.
A Caribbean Woman's Perspective on: "Why Americans REALLY See Mars as their Future 主播大秀."
* * *
Watching the current vagaries of the American Presidential Election unfold before me on television, I am finally receiving a conclusive response to a rather pressing question, namely: 鈥淗ow can the Planet MARS and its Assumed Inhabitants be a Universal Metaphor for STRANGENESS, and also America鈥檚 Much-Desired 主播大秀-Away-From-主播大秀, at one and the same time?鈥
This conundrum rears its perplexing head whenever I notice, as a Caribbean Woman, the appallingly 鈥渃ould-care-less鈥 attitude American WOMEN seem to hold, towards even the thought of any betterment of their basically, and still existing Non-Human status in America.
For American Women, lamentably both young and old, appear as pleased as the infamous Punch-Puppets, to thirstily imbibe GLIBNESS over SUBSTANCE. Or, in Hollywood parlance: to crave the circus-like and often painful 鈥淭HRILLS鈥 that have been state-crafted to be their lives, over cleaning up the ominously-hardening SPILLS that today remain as their REAL Lives post-1920鈥檚 Woman鈥檚 Suffrage efforts. Lives lived within America, as elsewhere around the globe, sans Women鈥檚 Naturally-Accruing, and therefore Inalienable Right to Human Dignity and Socio-Economic Enfranchisement.
These ever-present Facts are being made more disturbingly apparent, within the current political dispensation. One where American Women, like other women around the globe from whom so much has been taken by Men and Man-made Institutions, now find themselves with CHOICE! REAL CHOICE! A Priceless, since otherwise INSTITUTIONALLY-RARE OPPORTUNITY for Women to usher in a WOMAN as their national policy maker-and-changer! A Woman Leader, who would therefore BEST REPRESENT WOMEN, since naturally imbued with a greater vested interest in - not merely 鈥淕IFTING,鈥 but MORE FACTUALLY: RE-INVESTING, RE-INSTITUTING AND RE-ACCQUAINTING Women with every vestige of their hitherto MALE-APPROPRIATED, MALE-CONSTRUCTED and MALE-CONTROLLED physical and economic existence as Equally-Human and therefore Equally-Deserving HUMAN BEINGS.
Instead however, American Women seem more concerned with their nation鈥檚 thriving so-called REALITY T.V., than about THEIR REAL BUT REALLY WARPED-FOR-TV LIVES CONTINUING TO BE PLAYED-OUT AND 鈥淧LAY-ACTED鈥 ON-AND-OFF THE T.V. SCREEN! To me, looking on in chilled-amazement from here in the Caribbean, American Women appear more excited about determining which Woman Doll 鈥淭he Bachelor鈥 will next haul-off by the metaphorical 鈥渉ank-of-hair鈥 (鈥r plumped-out Lips, pumped-up Breasts or other such conveniently-inflated bodily appendage鈥!) into his Hollywood-style, glitzed-up lair to live 鈥渉appily ever after,鈥 than with UNCHAINING WOMEN FROM UPON THE AMERICAN ENTERTAINMENT STAGE, WHERE THEY LAY PROSTRATE AND NAKEDLY EXPLOITED !
All the above leading me now to ponder another puzzler Stranger even than the Mars Question, namely: 鈥淚s Hollywood really in America, or does America construct鈥nd live happily thereafter, within its Psychological Hollywood 主播大秀?鈥
Cultural evidence is therefore the only Ticket a watching world needs, for its front-row seat view of the outcome of the 2008 Presidential Election. A much publicized event, and one that will clue us all in, without a shadow of a doubt, as to whether: 鈥楾was The Butler that Did It,鈥r America鈥檚 Women that Didn鈥檛.
Ultimately the big question must be whether the US is ready for a choice between their first 'non-white' or their first 'non-male' president.
Of course, it will be even scarier for them to have a republican pairing of McCain (reputedly to the right of Bush) and Huckabee (ready to impose Biblical laws everywhere).
At least I hope so, otherwise the scary concept of a second Bush term of four years ago might just turn into a rose-tinted memory of 'the good days'.
I'm struck by the similarity between the current primaries and the storyline in the later series of the West Wing. A maverick, 70+ Republican, liked by independents and not entirely trusted by his own party. An upstart Democratic contender who comes from nowhere to take on the established frontrunner and a race for the nomination that goes all the way to the convention (as depicted in the final episode of season 6). I suspect it is this eventuality that many Democrats want to avoid and with McCain all but assured of the Republican nomination, many in the party will be wanting the primaries to come to a decisive conclusion very soon.
It has been almost 20 years of the same 2 families in the White House. I believe this will be the salient point as the contest proceeds. Despite all else, it would appear that change just for the sake of change is needed now.
I don't think we can refer to Barack as a 'black icon' at this stage. And Hillary is up against so much more than his cultural and political identity.
The amount of money he's drawing seems to enable him to work on both his own presentation on a large scale and his grass roots organization. Money is Obama's ace and Hillary can't match him. And at this stage, I think she's bluffing (no, I took the metaphor too far).
In addition to Justin (or Tom Brokaw's) point, the media has not really penetrated Obama's life as much as they have his rival. In the past, Hillary has been ripped apart with comments made about her failed health reform policy, how she handled her husband鈥檚 affair, and even her cleavage! Obama has, for the most part, been spared. For a start, nobody wants to tear apart (or at least appear to) someone who promises to build bridges, unite parties, and bring change in Washington. The Clintons tried (looking up his kindergarten essays for one), but that backfired tremendously. Secondly, the media up until now probably believed they didn鈥檛 need to as the man had no chance in heaven.
That could change now that the spotlight is well and truly on him. Hillary had her fair share of it when she was ahead and I imagine the media will try and dig up something 鈥 anything on Obama given his current position. Though the mental road-block described earlier will probably prevent them from going too far.
Well the Republican party would unite against Abraham Lincoln if he had a -D after his name. They have that kind of discipline and focus. It's not left them this election cycle. The Bush-McCain fights in 2000 were nastier than what's been happening in the Republican primary this cycle and Bush came out of that primary at least as weakened as McCain appears now.
The lolps or the lol "polls" now show Clinton beating McCain and Obama losing - lolps, I mean polls this far out are laughable even by current standards.
Crossover voters in open primary states that won't vote Democratic in General Elections aren't helpful to clarity at all.
This "primary" on the Democratic side is being increasingly recognized as empty and self-destructive. Too many super-delegates, too many 406 total voter turnouts carrying entire states, too much "proportionality".
All this primary season has done for the Democrats is strip us of our better candidates, and leave us with a potentially over-weakened candidate or an unsupportable one.
This was a gimme for the Democrats and as usual they've turned it into a losing battle.
Terrible year, just a terrible year.
The Red Sox won the World Series after being 3-1 down in the Conference Series.
Anything is possible.
Let's hope he gets the momentum to take a significant number of pledged delegates in Texas, Ohio & Pennsylvannia. Even the estblishment superdelegates must now think twice before they support HC, if Obama has more pledged delegates than Clinton and if the superdelegates succeed in nominating HC then surely we will have the biggest crisis in the Democratic Party since '68 and probably lose the General Election. Can I yet again pose the question to the experts amongst you...How are Edwards and Romney's delegates reapportioned, is there a system to this?
It is somewhat ironic that Obama鈥檚 mantra is 鈥淐hange鈥. This abstract and non-specific objective is repeated ad nauseam, yet what is to be changed, and in what regard, is never spelled out.
Back in 1992 another Democratic Party candidate for the presidency, one William Jefferson Clinton, campaigned on the platform of 鈥淐hange with stability鈥, being equally non-specific.
16 years down the road, Mrs Clinton is running for the White House, and is being beaten with her husband鈥檚 old slogan 鈥 and by all accounts her husband鈥檚 participation in her campaign has not helped her either.
Having just moved to the USA just over a month ago, my African American wife has just finally started to believe that Obama could win.
In fact I hear about people supporting Obama now just because the inevitability of Clinton has well and truly been smashed.
Although she voted for Obama in Missouri she never really thought he would beat Hilary, and I just think that the rest of the country has finally realized that the Clinton dynasty isn't inevitable.
I think the situation is slightly unfair for Hillary, in the sense that because Obama has chosen "hope" as his main rallying call, and because it seems that in America attacking "hope" is not acceptable, it's as if Obama is beyond attack and scrutiny. For a candidate to be beyond scrutiny in that way is rather unfair to any other candidates I think, which is the situation Hillary is in with Obama. I also find the level of anti-Hillary sentiment to be quite shocking really, from a British perspective.
As no-one has said it on this topic yet, I'll be the one to do so: Justin how dare you and the 主播大秀 comment about news in the US? News coverage of a foreign country? A columnist writing columns? Whatever is the world coming to?
Why is the Republican turnout so low in the primary elections?
Your reporting seems to be that we don't care because we don't like the candidates. Not true!
I am an old harley-riding grandma and have never missed a primary in all of my years voting. This year I will. The reason is the same as MOST of the "silent majority" and even the "conservative right" ... that is, we will support whomever wins. Most of us have no strong opinions on who the candidate is of the top 3 (now 2). Had Ron Paul made any headway at all, then we would have been more concerned, but 99.9% of us can accept McCain, Romney or Huckabee.
I think the situation is slightly unfair for Hillary, in the sense that because Obama has chosen "hope" as his main rallying call, and because it seems that in America attacking "hope" is not acceptable, it's as if Obama is beyond attack and scrutiny. For a candidate to be beyond scrutiny in that way is rather unfair to any other candidates I think, which is the situation Hillary is in with Obama. I also find the level of anti-Hillary sentiment to be quite shocking really, from a British perspective.
I am a white, middle aged, female, with a post graduate education. I have never been involved in politics before, yet I am watching the primaries with avid interest. I see Obama as the choice because he will have people up and doing things-just like JFK did. He will unite the country, whereas clinton is a divisive figure.
This is turning out to be very interesting, no one knows exactly whats going to happen. It is turning out to be a White Knuckle Ride. November is still a long way off. One thing is certain, this is more entertaining then our elections. I am delighted that I shall be in New York for Election Night, It will the end of a fantastic weekend after completing the New York Marathon just two days before.
Obama is sounding more like a preacher every day. I now cringe when I read his comments. Can rhyming be far behind?
Pat Schroeder, wit and former congresswoman from Colorado's first district (who coined the term "teflon-coated President" to describe Ronald Reagan) aptly (and presciently pre-Monica) summarized Bill Clinton's FIRST term:
"It's as if he took us to the dance and went home with someone else."
Mr. Webb, you've got it backwards. Billary is the icon ... rank-and-file Democrats are toppling the hollow Clinton statue.
It seems the vote is turning against Clinton. If she doesn't find some miracle weapon against Obama very soon, I don't see her winning the nomination.
If I'm not mistaken there are 1025 pledged delegates still up for grabs, and if Obama can ride his momentum wave and keep getting 60% or more of the delegates, he'll be way ahead come August.
Clinton seems prepared to make a stand in Texas and Ohio, but it seems unlikely the Giuliani Method will serve her better than its inventor. It might be her last stand.
And all the while, her opponent slowly grows to become a larger-than-life figure, his bid for presidency outgrowing the label 'campaign' and becoming more of a general movement for change which happens to have a presidential candidate spearheading it - at least if we are to believe his portrayal in online culture and, increasingly, mass media. In many parts this 'movement' has transcended the 'lowlands' of policy issues - whether this is for the better or for the worse remains to be seen.
It's no surprise Clinton looks a little pale in comparison with that down-to-earth, no-nonsense air of hers (in that, she reminds me of the German chancellor Merkel). It's Clinton pragmatism against the American Dream, or at least that's what we're led to believe. The polls seem to show it's working out just fine for Obama, at least.
I'd go as far as saying that, right now, the only thing that could hurt Obama is his own success. It suggests that there's "no need to vote for him" since he's on a roll anyway and might rally the Clinton supporters who said just that when she started out way ahead of him. Somehow, though, I don't really see that happening - the Obama 'movement' has been extraordinarily successful in getting people out there to vote, and recently even in 'stealing' Clinton voters. Of course, there's always the possibility that the media will turn on him for some real or perceived slight, although that seems rather unlikely considering how media-savvy he has shown himself so far.
The greatest danger to Clinton, on the other hand, is Clinton herself. If she, rattled by recent losses and heading into the Democratic convention trailing Obama in the delegate count, decides to really force the issue of the Florida and Michigan delegates, it will get very ugly.
What a joke. Obama's voting record made him the most far-Left Senator of 2007, and everybody thinks he stands for "hope" and "change", right? The only thing he stands for is far-Left policies. Everyone else is making his race an issue, which obscures the reality of his political history. Didn't George W. Bush run the first time as someone who would reach across the aisles? Anyone remember the bit about being a uniter, not a divider? Yeah, politicians always tell the truth when they say they want to get past partisan politics, especially when they're running for President.
Why can't everyone be honest here?
Just what has he done to deserve being called an "icon"? More like a false idol At least Justin Webb finally realizes that there is some projection going on here. How intelligent is it to want somebody to win just based on race, denying everything else about the man? Sadly, the 主播大秀 can't be bothered to report on Obama's actual voting record. All you can do is say he's not so far from Hillary when it comes to policy.
Obama barely has any experience at all, but because he's black, nobody is allowed to criticize him. That's the price America has to pay for centuries of mistreating black people. So be it. He stands there spouting platitudes, and all the young people eat it up, because they don't know any better. How many times have we heard some Obama fan gush about how "no other candidate has spoken to me in that way in my lifetime"!! Generally they're too young to have much experience listening to candidates at all. But now it's not just the youngsters, eh, Mr. Webb? It's Granny and Jimmy, too? Uh-huh. Let's see if they actually get to the voting booths in November.
Justin Webb just can't get enough amusement out of Obama's success in a United States that - in 主播大秀 opinion - is too racist to elect a black man (Don't pretend that's not the case, Mr. Webb - I've seen you and your 主播大秀 colleagues state that on air several times). Hence the current trend of cheerleading we see here and from other 主播大秀 talking heads. One supposes that nasty, racist America will somehow be redeemed in their eyes if we elect a black man. The rest of the Obama supporters are really just deluding themselves into thinking he actually stands for anything other than far Left policies. Everybody plays along, in willful denial.
That's what's really going on here, but nobody will admit it.
Whatever you do America, please not another Clinton. Either go for Obama or McCain. We (the rest of the world) are sick and tired of these self-righteous family dynasty usurpers to the throne. Surely, either Obama or McCain represents change and hopefully some new ideas. God alone knows why anybody would want to become president after the GWB. Come on land of the free and home of the brave...be brave vote for change
The media too has not really penetrated Obama's life as much as they have his rival. In the past, Hillary has been ripped apart with comments made about her failed health reform policy in 1993, how she handled her husband鈥檚 affair, and even her cleavage! Obama has, for the most part, been spared. For a start, nobody wants to tear apart (or at least appear to) someone who promises to build bridges, unite parties, and bring change in Washington. The Clintons tried (looking up his kindergarten essays for one), but that backfired tremendously. Secondly, the media up until now probably believed they didn鈥檛 need to as the man had no chance in heaven.
That could change now that the spotlight is well and truly on him. Hillary had her fair share of it when she was ahead and I imagine the media will try and dig up something 鈥 anything on Obama, though the mental road-block described earlier will prevent them from going too far.
Republicans are a smart bunch. They're helping propel Obama to the nomination, and then, come November, they'll abandom him and elect McCain. I'm resigning to a McCain presidency.
Justin,
What intrigues me is if Hilary Clinton loses this contest to Barack Obama on a narrow share of the total delegate vote, could she have any real legal power to appeal; by means of challenging the exclusion of the Florida and Michigan delegates? I feel that this could get very messy.
The worst case scenario for the Democrats I believe would be a situation where Obama wins the nationwide caucus & delegate vote, but Clinton scrapes through to win the party nomination with the larger share of the super-delegates (her husband has a large contacts diary I have been told).
By the way, John Edwards has been 'sitting on the fence' for 2 weeks now...thats got to hurt anybody!
I wonder if some can explain to me why when 8 years ago we had a Republican candidate with limited Washington experience that made him an outsider and it was a good thing.
Now when you have a Democratic candidate with limited experience of Washington he is merely inexperienced?
Of course I suspect the answer is certain sections of the media are so devoted to the Republican cause that they are incapable of any sort of balanced reporting. Come November if its Obama versus McCain it will become clear that McCain is a politician past his sell by date with no new ideas and no new policies, hardly even able to summon genuine support from a large section of his own party.
I would like to add that I do not approve of the label you apply to Senator Obama. He's a man and he's doing fine.
In your blog you say Obama's policies have the same flaws - what flaws? I'm not suggesting there aren't any, but that's certainly editorializing with nothing to back it up. What flaws and where, Justin? I mean, if you want to inject opinion into it, please explain the opinion.
Xing wrote:
Americans love the myth of rule by the people, but the truth is that the country has always been run by a pretty closed white, protestant, political elite.
It seems you love myth too, Xing.
In fact, the country has always been run by a pretty closed, Male etc elite. Funny how you left out the most startling and most defining factor of all: Male.
Now, how the heck could that get left out? For whose benefit?
In regards to Obama representing the "far-left" and the remarks as to "what change?":
Obama outlines many specifics for his plans for change. Do some research on him(and the other candidates) if you want to know what they plan. Obama stays focused on energizing speeches not policy speeches because that's how you rally support.
As far as the comment that he represents the "far-left", these days the left represented by Obama is not so far from the center. He only seems to be far-left because the republican party with their vocal religious right has been dragged so far to the right of the center and the democratic party has inexplicably followed until they became more of a center party....leaving those of us on the left without any representation. Why is Barak gettin so much support? Especially from the youth vote? Because he brought the democratic party back to the left of center where it should be. Bush and Obama finally answered the question American youth has been asking since Clinton (who was as close to the right as you can get while still calling yourself a democratic candidate...does NAFTA and welfare reform ring any bells?). The question being: "What's the difference between the parties and why should I bother if there are no real options?"
If Bush has done anything good for this country, he has shown us exactly what the difference is.
Thank you to Obama for giving us "far-left" youth something to vote for.
I agree with others that Obama isn't an icon--yet. That will play out over time. But he is a movement. He would have a cult following, if only he didn't have so many mainstream folk following him as well. Should he win the Presidency, and he does well (after G.W. Bush, it would be difficult to look worse), he will become an American icon.
My main fault with some comments above is that people have this misperception that Obama is all rhetoric and no policy. After watching several of his speeches, and seeing him debate Clinton on more than one occasion, I cannot see how this argument holds up. Both Obama and Clinton talk as much about policy as the other. The main difference between the two is that, while Clinton lectures on her 3-step plan to do this, or her 4-step plan to do that, Obama delivers his policy without making his listeners feel like their back in school. But the important point is that he does talk policy, and he does so quite a bit. His website has complete outlines of his plans on various issues. But some Clinton supporters love to push the perception that he's all talk, no action. And, unfortunately, those who don't bother to listen will actually believe this.
I have no big problem with Clinton's policies on various issues (I'm not a huge fan of her health care plan, but that stems from my belief that no adult should be forced by the government to take their medicine), but I do have a problem with her method. I've never been enamored with the Clintons, I admit, but never have they appeared more ruthless than in this current primary season. If this were a different type of primary season, and they were running against a candidate that doesn't inspire tens of thousands to his doorstep, the Clinton campaign would seem positively normal. Her strategy would be seen as a winning one, not a coniving one. But she's running a old-school campaign against a new-school opponent, and it's turning people off.
Frankly, I can't see how Clinton could be ready on "day one" anymore than Obama or McCain. Being the wife of a President doesn't mean you're ready to be President. Neither does being a senator, or a war hero, or a state official, or a community organizer, or a lawyer. The voters of America take their chances every time we elect a candidate that isn't an incumbant (and sometimes when we do). There's no job prep course for being the President of the United States. More than anything, it takes an open mind, a grasp of the issues facing America, an ability to communicate with both sides of the aisle, and the ability to communicate with foreign nations.
And yes, it does require, at least to a certain extent, likability. Fair or no, Obama has that in abundance, and Clinton does not.
Neither candidate can win without superdelegates.
Never underestimate Bill's charms.
# 67 Chris: You need not worry about the posibility of Obama getting the popular vote and Clinton winning the nomination based on the super deligates. The super deligates are only brought in to the mix when the regular deligate count is just too close to call, and they (the super deligates) are expectd to vote with the popular vote, not their own personal concience. Clintion could, in theory, demand a re-enstatement of the deligates from Fla and Mis, but my bet is she won't, because everyone agreed that those two states would not take part in the process from the beginning, and for her to change her mind like that would most likely paint her as untrustworthy, not to mention cost her a lot of court battles, time, and money.
# 12 Pendragon: You said, "It would be wonderful if Justin Webb would start to focus on Policies rather than droning on about personalities and trivia.We all know that he loves America
and all its works, but he is being paid by the British Taxpayer, and we expect higher journalistic standards than those of the media of the Coutry he is
so enthralled with.". First of all, are you suggesting, as your post certainly does, that Americans don't expect to be presented with our presidencial candidate's policies by our news media? Because if you are, that couldn't be further from the truth. Everyone knows that the UK has the best journalists in the world-that is a fact. But to imply that all we want from our news media is pritty speeches and pie-in-the-sky philosophy is, in my opinion, frankly immature, and rude. Second, your snitty, and somewhat, I feel, judgementle tone on your presumption to know of (Justin's) thoughts on this country are unhelpful as well. You have no way of knowing for sure what he thinks unless you have spoken to him personally. I, honestly, don't care whether he likes us or lothes us, just so long as we get a knoledgable and fair-minded news report from him-since he does represent the 主播大秀 on this country. And this,I think, on the whole he does a very good job of. It is not his job to report the news on the candidates in the blog. That is what web cites, tellavision, and radio are for! His job, on this blog, is simply to more often than not, give his opinion on events in this country/the world.
Lisa wrote: And yes, it does require, at least to a certain extent, likability. Fair or no, Obama has that in abundance, and Clinton does not.
I like Clinton; therefore she has likability. q.e.d. I don't like Obama; gosh, he doesn't have likability. q.e.d. Poor lamb. I also think Hillary is an icon. q.e.d. Shame on the 主播大秀 for not employing me to spout my personal preferences and biases. oh, well...spout, spout...
Only time will tell how it all ends. I personally think Obama matches up better against McCain by providing a better contrast.
Clinton is facing a problem that is a typical quirk in American politics. In a way she has too much experience. By being around as long as she has people have been able to come to conclusions about her before the election can even begin. American voters tend to rally behind a candidate as they meet him or her for the first time. They've been down the Clinton road before, and while that is a plus for many voters, it's a significant negative for others.
"""In fact, the country has always been run by a pretty closed, Male etc elite. Funny how you left out the most startling and most defining factor of all: Male.
Now, how the heck could that get left out? For whose benefit? """
Haha, and that's why the First Lady has been important since the days of Eleanor Roosevelt.
I have been an ardent supporter of Hillary since the start of the campaign but have noticed several things which have disappointed me and am now disillusioned with her campaign. She was all supportive of NAFTA when Bill Clinton made it happen and now she wants out of it. And she speaks so much about campaign reforms while continuing to accept lobbyist financial support; I wonder what kind of reform she will bring out if she becomes president. She openly distanced herself from Bill Clinton's comments in presidential debates and declined to take responsibility for them; I was expecting better from her. I wished she never blatantly copied Obama's slogan of change while never really adding substance; in fact, she also started meeting mayors and governors of states she was visiting which she never did before while Obama was doing that from the start. She has resorted to petty ads in Wisconsin that Obama won't debate with her; just seems a lowly thing to do while fighting for something so important.She should have managed the finances of her campaign better to sustain her publicity efforts instead. Now that I think of her 'experience' and 'readiness on day one', I think that she's maybe ready on day one but is she ready to be correct and do the right thing on day one?
I'm (very) cautiously optimistic that we're "turning a corner" as the article's title states. I'm from Chicago and am thus one of Mr. Obama's constituents. As such, it's been a little hard to take that he has been so busy with the presidential campaign. That said, I'm crossing fingers and toes and everything else that he secures the nomination and later the presidency. It has nothing to do with our common Chicago ties--rather, he is not a long-time part of the monster that is Washington politics. Politics has waaaayyyy overshadowed actual leadership in the last several years, and we're in desperate need of leadership. Part of leadership is indeed trying to get people to feel better about things. I've been lucky enough to spend nearly all of the Bush presidency outside of the U.S. His fearmongering along with the general nastiness of US politics has made the country a place I have no desire to live in right now. Politicians have adopted a divide-and-conquer stance which has damaged our country terribly, willfully pitting Americans against each other. I do believe that will not be the case with Mr. Obama. Also, after eight years of audacious corruption and lawbreaking by elected officials at every level, I think he might actually bring some integrity back to Washington. It's time for an end to politics and a resurrection of leadership: Clinton and McCain cannot bring that--Obama might be able to.
Yada, yada, yada! The press has succeeded brilliantly in turning another sham election into a mock watershed event. On and on they go about "historical", "groundbreaking", "turning point", "most important ever", "like no other", "icon", "rockstar", etc., etc. etc. With breathless hyperbole like this, there can hardly be anytime to discuss trivial matters like concrete policy positions. And so it goes, the system is 'reinvented': it's all about race and gender & "change' and experience" and the public dutifully laps it all up, caught up in the rhetorical frenzy. Never mind that there's not a dime's worth of difference between them on any substantive issues. In America, image counts for more than ideas. Which is why we have the kind of frothy candidates we do, instead of a man of true integrity and principle, like bland Ralph Nader. Another election, another scam. When the lights go down, it will be business as usual and all the corporate robber barons that control the Duopoly Party will be grinning all the way to the bank.
Obama is the man if America has to maintain its influence over the world against China.
If you vote otherwise China is going to be the next super power. Africa and Asia will think that America is racistperiod.