So, . She looked utterly shell-shocked after the loss in Iowa - is she beginning to get that serene look back now, the one she had last summer when she swept imperiously through the early candidate debates?
Never mind what we hear from the Obama camp about his achievement in getting this close; these events are magical as much as rational. And the magic - that was his - is now (maybe?) hers to squander...
Jump to more content from this blog
Hello, I'm Justin Webb and I'm the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's North America editor.
You can stay up to date with Justin Webb's America via these feeds.
Justin Webb's America Feed(RSS)
Justin Webb's America Feed(ATOM)
If you aren't sure what RSS is you'll find useful.
|
Nick Robinson: |
 |
|
Douglas Fraser: |
 |
|
Brian Taylor: |
 |
 |
|
Richard Black: |
 |
|
Jonathan Amos: |
 |
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú © 2014 The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
Isn't it funny how now she's winning we're hearing more from Hillary and Bill about how dirty Obama and his campaign is. The media has got to stop fuelling this sort of propaganda and stick to the facts. Obama is the honest way forward for the US and international relations. How are we supposed to believe US voters have become more credible in the last eight years when hispanic voters are voting for a candidate because of their sex and what their husband did for their welfare?
True she has won, but looking at the delegate count (which is what ultimatel matters in the convention) Obama was 1 behind (12 vs 13) so it was very close and being the winner doesn't matter too much. South Carolina will be key.
The media has been so utterly kind to Obama and so negative toward Clinton until about two months ago.
I understand why. Obama has real star power; he is very very likeable; and the man can speak.
But now Clinton is winning where it actually counts: with the voters. It seems like so many were so fast to condemn her and her race, especially after her loss in Iowa, but Clinton is a total fighter. She will not step down.
I am happy to see her getting more positive coverage if only because it makes the election more interesting.
And America deserves that right now. If there is one thing America needs after the past eight years, it is a tight race between many qualified candidates. This is the most anticipated election sine '68 in America. Maybe even since '60...
Is it her own allure or rather the borrowed lustre from her husband, though? And if the latter, then Sen. Obama may have to start attacking Senor Bill's record in office which some Democrat voters are viewing through rose-tinted goggles after 7 years of even more incompetent presidency.
Cai,
In case you are not aware, in a democracy, people should vote for whoever does them most good. So, if Hispanic people want to vote for Hillary for their own gain there is nothing wrong. That is how the winners receive the mandate to govern in the interest of voters. I find Barak Hussain Obama a phony. I will not vote for him ever. He is unelectable in my opinion.
Clearly Clinton no longer looks like someone about to be pushed out of the contest. Obama is under some pressure to win in South Carolina. But, even if he should fail to do that, it really does not make sense to talk about an established front runner until we see the results of February 5.
Her slogan needs to be, "Vote Hillary, Get Bill"! Her best hope is to offer her intelligence and detail-mindedness on policy combined with her husband's charm and charisma. Her downfall will be her charisma meeting his lack of self-control...
Politics is dirty business. This is true no matter what side you’re on. Attacks are launched from all sides. We only know about candidates what they are willing to tell us, and honestly there has been a lack of substance from all camps.
To say that a Hispanic voter is likely to vote for Hillary Clinton because her husband (as President ) supported initiatives that benefited Hispanics is as valid a reason as any to prefer one candidate over another. I don’t know what you are basing your suggestion that there is an inherent benefit in being a female candidate on. I disagree with you on that point.
The real issue before voters in the Democratic primaries is the selection of a candidate who has the best chance of winning in the general election. So …is the US more likely to support a white woman or a black man on election day? I’m afraid to say that it really is as simple as that.
If you want to think ‘scary’, think about what will happen if the Republicans get back in. Two of the front-runners are religious fundamentalists. If one of these guys get in, the US is facing continued erosion of civil rights …including the probable overturning of Roe vs. Wade (i.e., illegal abortion). The rest of the lot isn't much better. This is serious stuff and the US desperately needs to get it right this time.
So ...let's hope Americans educate themselves and get out to vote. There is slim chance of this, but it could happen.
The "magic" is money, heavy corporate backing with a formidable machine and a former president husband as the "tough cop"..Her voting record in the Senate is pro-Bush doctrine and the Iraq war. She has the old consciousness about priorities (war and war funding) and we do not need a replay of the past eight years. We need a leader who is an independent thinker who represents the people's best domestic issues and not the war machine. Hillary was one of those in the Senate who voted us into this economic and social chaos and has already shown us her set of priorities. Her machine has the capability of completing the destruction of our democracy. Her candidacy is frightening. . . .
OBAMA WON MORE DELEGATES! Hilarious.
I love how people comment on the American electoral process without knowing anything other than, "I hate Bush," and "fundamentalists are bad." Even correspondents, like this blogger, don't seem to have much grasp of the events on which they report.
You won't get any real argument from me on Anti-Bush and Anti-Fundamentalist fronts, but it's a hell of a lot more complex than that. Say what you will about Americans, but I don't know too many Yanks who go about offering unsolicited and uninformed opinions about the parlimentary processes of other Western world powers.
Obama is ahead on delegates and, even if just by a few, that is more important than political posturing and acceptance speeches. You win the delegates, you win the nomination, period. No matter how many acceptance speeches you make, that's what gets the candidate on the ticket. Everything else is just an attempt to garner mindshare.
And, if it's close, there are going to have to be some concessions made so that the candidates can get the required number of candidates. For some true political wonks (and I'm not one), it's the true world series of the election.
South Carolina - critical - is going to be new ground as the democratic presidential nominee looks to be either a woman, or a black man in "Ol' Dixie". There's all sorts of history there that will certainly play into people's voting. I don't thinking anyone can predict what will happen. Heck, Edwards might take it. He is a white man, from the region. Maybe South Carolina isn't quite so ready for change as people are hoping.
Firstly apologies to Justin, I might have submitted that first comment too many times because I didn't think it had got through!
Lynne I just don't agree with you that it's acceptable that people should have such an influence over the selection of such a powerful international representative, if their motives carry *such* depth as that they liked her husband, or that 'it's time for a woman'.
More pathetic is that Hillary is playing on this for her campaign. Or is it just pathetic that that is what is reeling people in? Yes, the two Democrat (credible) candidates both have a 'niche', but they are both irrelevant compared to what is important in a US president now. Do we hear Obama trumpeting that he's a black man and that he's fighting back as an oppressed black man? No, so much so that he will lose many black votes for being 'too white'!
So why must Hillary stoop so low as to push the fact that she is a female with a great chance of becoming president? Understandably, because she's been told to and she's been told too because her aides know it'll work to get her votes. If people are going to vote for Hillary because she is a woman or Obama because he's black then I hope these people don't vote. Politics isn't a game, it's not paint by numbers, I mean these guys spend so much money and work so hard that surely at least they deserve voters who know why they're voting for who they're voting for.
Lest we forget that Bill Clinton's presidency is partly held in such regard thanks to his successor's ineptitude. Clinton was clever in disguising many, many underhand and detrimental decisions that he made by being likeable. Bush was never intelligent enough to cover over his wrong-doings. Why is this relevant? Because no matter what way you put it, this will be Bill Clinton's reign Part 2.
As I said before, Obama is an honest candidate, he is see-through and that is not a criticism. He has put himself out there and if nominated and elected will not be given the opportunity to spin himself back into a political comfort zone. He has views which are realistically ideological - who is Hillary Clinton to patronise a vision which comparable to what the US has now is almost utopian? If she was a man, without an ex-president for a partner, lets be honest - why would you vote for someone like Hillary? She has no outstanding plans or targets. Americans are massively concerned with the situation in Iraq and she has proved herself to be a complete hypocrite in that area; there is plenty of material proving she backed this war from the start. Why does the US want another conceited leader?
Is there anyone anywhere who is not tired of the Clintons and what they represent? We need new voices and change. We need Senator Obama on the world stage.
No mention of Ron Paul anywhere.
Of what are you scared?
I guess maintaining war is more profitable for some folks than peace.
Politics is a dirty game. Who has more resources and the ability to manipulate issues to his or her gains will definitley win at the end of the day. I guess there are no perfect candidates that any can agreed upon. So, it will be the best man win. To me, Obana and Clinton are just the same. They have their weknesses . The important factor is that Democrats win and the candidate should be someone who know most about domestic and international environment. We need someone to concentrate not only of its own nation but play a vital role in International peace.
So, NO change after all. The WASP mentality lives on in the USA! They are not ready - will they ever be? - to accept a black person to lead them. As for the vote for McCain - the main supporter of war, after Bush - what does that say about Americans learning their lessons? I fear the outcome is already decided and it will be a McCain versus Clinton contest. Who wins will be debatable till the end -for the sake of the world, let's hope it is Clinton. Unfortunately, Hillary reminds me of Mrs. Thatcher -perhaps that is her attraction for American voters!
@Raymond
That's because Mr. Paul is a joke. His ideas are naive, and he is either panders to racists or is one himself.
I do not understand the short memory that the voters of America seem to have about the Clintons. No mention of any of the land deals which were raised in the early part of the Clinton reign of office, or that Hillary a lawyer who was married to Bill when all of this was going on. Have they forgotten the woman who stayed with her husband all during his numerous affairs, because she enjoys the status that Public Office gives her and her family. Now she is seen openly crying to get the votes saying what a difficult time it all was. American voters should surely have more respect for a woman who was now fighting this election on her own credentials, not listening to sob stories from the past, personally most women would want that part of their life kept private.
Please, please, not another Clinton in the Whitehouse
What was good during Bill Clinton's presidency was America had both a good economy and a balanced federal budget.
What was bad during his presidency was the constant parade of scandals (Monica Lewinsky was only the worst), and animosity and deadlock with the Republicans that, at times, ground the federal government to a halt.
Senator Hillary Clinton voted with the Republicans on the Iraq war. She introduced her own economic stimulus package shortly before President Bush unveiled his. Still, it is no secret that the most conservative Republicans hate the Clinton clan.
Right now we in America are in the beginning of a recession caused by bad borrowing, and the federal government is the worst offender. How is the government supposed to bail out the country when the government needs bailing out itself?
Who will we be getting if we elect Hillary to the White House? Will Bill be her economic advisor? Will she follow the failed policies of the Republicans?
Will lewd sexual behavior still be a scandal when it is committed by the First Gentleman? (Would that be the title?) Are there more fund raising and financial scandals that could damage the reputations of other associated Democrats (ala Al Gore)? Could the allegations of voter tampering during the primaries be used by the Republicans after the election to impeach her while in office?
Will the close race with Obama split the Democrats to the extent that the Republicans are elected again?
It's amazing what's at stake, and how unpredictable the outcome is.
I believe that the general world view of the USA will be much better if Obama wins and would surely be better for Americans too.
However, it is up to Americans themselves to elect a new leader.
I do think that a Hillary Clinton win will ultimately leave Americans bitterly divided, which is not good for them or the rest of the world either.
Those in the rest of the world outside America, who seek to divide and destroy, will be hoping for a Clinton win rather than an Obama win because the mere presence of a President Obama, by definition negates much of the destructive propanganda.
Can Americans see that though?
That really is the question.
Hillary has only gotten started... sabotaging herself. As those who had her as a senator (and voted for her in New York) know very well, she always has another dreary piece of ambiguous speech, back room concessions to the Republicans, or shoddy piece of watered down legislation up her sleeve. Don't count her out... or should I say, in? Barack Obama is many times more appealing when it comes to actually embodying a truly new take on American politics. Hillary's methods, opinions and ideas are as new, independent and innovative as the smoke filled rooms of Tamany Hall politics of old New York. She will undoubtedly self-destruct by the morning after Super Tuesday. And thank God. Let's win the election against the Republicans... which almost all polls report is more likely with Obama then with Clinton.
to John Constable #21, I disagree that a President Obama will 'by definition negate much of the destructive propaganda' about America.
I've three reasons for this view:
1. His face will mean little to the 'terrorist' fringe - it's not like they've refrained from killing untold numbers of brown-skinned Muslims in the Middle East, Pakistan, India and elsewhere, so why would being biracial help Obama at all? Might even be a further provocation;
2. I notice that the countries with people whom Obama most dazzles are those with (recent) histories of slavery and/or colonialism, and within those countries, it's the black (understandably) and white populations who are most carried away with him. I ask the whites who think his election would be so grandly transformational - for whom? yourselves? Is it some kind of symbolic absolution for the sins of your forebears? More pointedly, would you even be carried away by such a symbol if you didn't carry some unexamined racism in yourselves? I suggest that people, within the U.S. and worldwide, who do not have your history or need your particular kind of absolution are unmoved by the 'symbolic' thrill of Obama's campaign. The rest of us are looking at the man for qualities such as responsible leadership of the powerful U.S., experience, etc., for which we have some real doubts;
3. In the same vein as #2, I am troubled by the astonishing number of Obama supporters who shout down any criticism of him, for any reason, with specious claims that all such critics are racists. And it's not only Clinton supporters who've raised substantive concerns about him in recent months. Would these people spend the entire 4 years of his presidency also attacking any criticism of President Obama as racist? Where is democracy in that? I myself have serious concerns about his recent statements for taking unilateral military action against al Qaeda centres in Pakistan *with or without* the permission of Pakistan or approval of U.N. Isn't that the same beligerant, rest-of-the-world-be-damned, cowboy unilateralism that the world community so loathes and has put all of us in such danger in these hated Bush years? Where is the great progressive policy change in same old, same old, U.S. sabre-rattling like that? I find Obama's statements so far about foreign policy to be utterly conventional, in terms of recent U.S. policy, and well within the range of swaggering, myopic U.S. bullying that has marked the Bush years. If criticising or opposing such Obama rhetoric and policy is attacked as out-of-bounds 'racism' by his supporters, God help us all if he wins the election. Think about it.
Cai,
I'm appalled by your statement that U.S. voters are less credible because hispanic voters might vote for Clinton because of her gender and her husband. Do black voters who vote for Obama because he is black, make voters less credible? Or do Christians who vote for Huckabee because of his beliefs, make voters less credible?
What you might find acceptable reasons to vote or I might find acceptable reasons to vote are totally irrelevant. This is America and last time I checked, regardless of ethnicity, if you are American, you can vote for whomever you prefer.
I don't know if it is your intention, but with your postings you seem to come off as only wanting "certain" people to be able to vote. I hope that's not the case.
Are the Republicans involved in the primaries?
Going by the B.B.C.'s coverage, I thought saint Obama was the only candidate.
I'm 63, almost 64 years old, have never blogged - just watched from the sidelines for years.
can't believe how many words people can spill (#23)
I am very encouraged by Barack Obama's success, and I didn't become a convert by watching his charismatic 2004 convention speech - I missed it. I read his book - Audacity of Hope - and liked everything he wrote.
A friend asked me if I "hated Hillary" - of course not, and I will certainly vote for her if she becomes the Democratic nominee - but I think she is a polarizing figure, I don't like the prospect of Clintons in the White House again (the dynastic, score-settling problem) and I think Obama embodies our best chance of turning American politics toward a more productive, civil model. Hillary Clinton is armed for bear; Barack Obama understands how wide the common ground is, and I think that's where our hope lies.