Obama over Bill
WASHINGTON DC: The biggest issue after this is surely the future of the president. Not Bush, Clinton. Two facts from South Carolina: the first that Bill Clinton's advocacy was of marginal importance, at best, in a place where he has a real constituency (black people).
To quote the AP on the exit polls: "Bill Clinton's campaigning in the state was cited as an important factor by nearly six in 10 voters. Overall, those who said it was important voted in favour of Obama, though by smaller margins than those who said it was unimportant, suggesting the former president's effort may have helped Hillary Clinton slightly."
I see that President Clinton - did I really hear him tell an admiring audience the other day that he was not in politics any more? - has been out comparing Obama with Jesse Jackson. Is that just a touch heavy-handed?
This is an just in, but where is the Endorser-in-Chief: Oprah? I saw someone on CNN (I think) suggesting she "man marks" Bill around the South now - why not?
Hello, I'm 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
I'm a Democtrat, and look back on the Bill Clinton years with fondness. I always admired his street-fighting sense when dealing with right-wing attacks. But, what is honorable in "war" is not acceptable in a family quarrel. Bill's gone out of bounds on this, and it's not becoming of an ex-president. If Bill can't remain statesman-like while supporting his wife, then he should just stay on the sidelines. Interestingly, I was really torn between Hillary and Obama, but the recent behavior of the Clintons is really pushing me over to the Obama side.
Gregg Seiler
San Francisco, California, USA
I take offence at Justin Webbs' decription of the Obama win in SC in this article as "obamonster". Sir Justin, this is the type of school boy humor that is not exportable and not in the traditions of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú.
Bill Clinton is pathetic with his Jesse Jackson comparison. The last black candidate in the South Carolina Democratic primary before this one (2004) won 10% of the vote in comparison to the 55% Obama is projected to win. The African-American voters in South Carolina in 2004 were about 47% of the primary voters, but the black candidate still didn't win. So much for his explanation of Obama's win.
What Bill Clinton said about Obama was a blatent lie. Despite the fact that Obama was one of the only people in the senate at the time to vote against the war, Clinton claimed that that was not true. Somehow the Clinton campaign is trying to claim that because Obama voted for extra money to be diverted towards the troops after he had voted against the war, this means that he was never against the war in the first place! Anyone with half a brain can see the fault in that line of argument!
What annoys me is that Bill Clinton knew that Obama was against the war from day one (look at the offical votes, he stood up and voted NO when very few would) yet he stood up and claimed that he wasnt! Michael Foucault would be enraged at Bill becuase he tried to exact power falsely! Bill knew that despite the fact that his statement was totally untrue, the average person would believe what he was saying, simply because he was the President of the USA, without probing any further! Thats is unbelievably manipulative and I hope that Americans can see through it! Hilary Clinton accepted million off Rupert Murdoch, one of the most right wing conservatives in the states, a man who directed his media outlets to regularly slate both Bill Clinton and his wife in the past! How hypocritical do you have to be?????????????
Justin --
Finally, you are beginning to have the slight sound of journalistic humility in your posts. That sound is easily detected by a strange lack of opinion in this post on the night of the Sount Carolina primary. But a scant few weeks ago you were trumpeting about something you clearly had no understanding of... the popularity of Senator Obama over Hillary Clinton. You even had subtly picked up the jargon of America newscasters, wondering out loud why Americans would choose someone, Obama, who merely stood for what you clearly thought was superficial newness, over someone who supposedly represented "experience".
Take it from someone who worked hard for Bill Clinton's campaigns in two presidential elections in Pennsylvania, and who (after moving to New York City) voted for Hillary Clinton twice... Hillary Clinton is not the woman the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú (in all its sentimental, correspondent by correspondent Clinton-hoping glory) thinks she is. She was a lackluster senator at best, and as far as the ability to lead in the Senate, or on any important initiative at all – a trait most desired in a president – she would get just above a failing grade. Aside from that, what the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Clinton Love Machine seems completely blind to is this:
If Hillary Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, she will lose in a landslide against the Republican, John McCain. In other words, the country will be doomed for another 4 or 8 years. Not only is Obama a person who represents change, he is a person far more capable of being a truly inspired, and truly electable Democratic candidate.
As anyone who's worked in American politics knows, if your candidate heads into a major election with a large percentage of the electorate already decided about you, and with years of seeing you in the public eye... you better make damn sure the middle likes you. As far as Hillary is concerned? Check the recent polls for how moderate and liberal Republicans, as well as Independents, feel about her. It's about a 30% approval rating, and it hasn't changed much in ten years. In other words, they hate her. But – quite aside from the fact that Obama is a smarter and more inspiring thinker and leader than Clinton could be even on her best day – when you look at Obama's approval rating in the latest polls among moderate Republicans and Independents, he gets close to a 60% approval rating. Do the math.
...If the Republicans get a candidate who a Democrat or Independent can vote for while holding their nose, they will beat Clinton in a landslide. What Republican has the highest rating among Independents and Democrats? John McCain.
So, please try to at least slow the monolithic, Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Condescension Machine, and gently peel the Cambridge diplomas from off of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's many eyes... Barack Obama would not only be a much better president, he can actually beat John McCain, and kick the Republicans out of the presidency.
Howard C.
Pennsylvania
How can you tell Bill that he is not the President,and when many Americans have forsaken the Bush administration he re emerges. They want somebody new and substantial like Barack Obama ,forget race,and Obama wins hands up.You cannot just forget race however especially when the Clintons are using it against Obama.
Mr. Webb,
Just for future reference, there is no "President Clinton".
Only the current president of the United States is called "president".
Mr. Clinton and all former U.S. presidents are titled as they are: "former president Clinton", "former president Reagan", etc.
Thanks.
Obama clearly out ran Bill with his coalition prowess and his hope for the future. WE CAN! WE CAN!
Bill should be an elder statesman.. . not a cheerleader for a defeated machine.
a very expected win for obama. in fact given the polarization one can clearly see that even the country democrats are unwilling to accept a black for president. however, the issues lie much deeper here. the man clearly does not represent change. what exactly is his message? it is easy to talk. but hillary is right on this one - his record does not show a commitment to ideas and certainly not ideals. any ideas and any ideals, if you ask me. the only purpose is to win at any cost.
mccain is the man here. clinton is the woman. they share passion for ideas. both have made mistakes, but both believe in what they think is right. hope one of them becomes the prez.
Obama's victory in South Carolina is a repudiation of the dirty, divisive politics that characterize George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton.
I've never been proud of an American President before. I could be proud of Barack Obama.
Barack Obama won the S.C. primary because he inspires people to believe in an America continuing to dominate the world. That type of feel good talk really goes over well here. That's how we elected GWB twice.
A question rarely asked is why among 350 million Americans, we cannot find a candidate who is not related to a former president. Are we no different than Argentina or India?
Why are we the only advanced industrial democracy that chooses its leaders as if they were the heirs to a monarchy?
There was more of an excuse when we were a young nation and chose John Quincy Adams.
To return to a kingdom, Queen Elizabeth would be a much better choice (if Her Britannic Majesty would even have us) than Mrs Clinton with Buba as Prime Minister.
The Democrats should be forewarned that Clinton fatigue is a widespread malady, and Bill's execrable performance this week explains it.
I would prefer to see neither Obama, the youngster, or Hillary the Witch become the next president.
We need a grown up.
Barack Obama has a great voice and speaking demeanor, which can be alluring, while Hillary comes off as shrill.
But that doesn't mean Obama has a clue about running America. He touts "Change". But change what? He doesn't really get into many specifics. That's because he doesn't have specifics. Though admittedly I did hear him say he would raise the capital gains tax from 15 -28%. Hello?
Americans are choosing a Chief Executive, not a messiah. Surely the only criterion, given that all the Dem candidates are individually good people, is who has the most judgement and experience in dealing with the many issues that cross the Presidents desk each day. Massive commercial enterprises pick their leaders based on these criteria.They need to!
We have witnessed with George W Bush what happens when an inadequate individual gets the world's most powerful job. The USA has lost the worlds respect and hopefully the new incumbent will restore that. So it's not really about race or gender,but will the new president have the judgement and executive ability? Get it right America, for all our sakes!
Hmm.. I don't think Oprah would want to be as closely involved with Obama as Bill clearly is with Hillary. It could backfire.
But I feel sure that she will use some timely tactical interventions to get her point across.
I am sick of seeing the all of the networks promoting hillary when Barak Obama wins a Primary! It has happened everytime Obama wins! It happened when he won in Iowa, the following day hillary was on every major network newscast at Prime Time.
The same thing happened when he lost in New Hampshire, hillary all over the networks news at 6:30 pm Then when Obama won in Nevada, who was on the news? hillary... When Obama won in South Carolina, on all the networks they covered hillary!
The major networks are manipulating this Primary by promoting hillary and bill! I am disgusted! I am a white male, 52 yrs old, and a Special Forces Veteran of Vietnam and I am reminded of Robert Kennedy when I listen to Obama. I want to light the flame that was snuffed out by forces loyal to the Military/Industrial Complex and have survived to this day!
They have destroyed this country and I believe ONLY an outsider can change it now!
Is "man marks" a Briticism with which I am unfamiliar or a condescending stab at Afro-American slang?
As an Australian happy to finally be rid of the lap dog Howard, and counting the days to the end of Bush, I'll be happy if it's Obama V McCain in November. That's a win win for the US, Australia, and maybe the rest of the world.
Could you please change the obamonster title? That's in very bad taste; especially since it carries the subliminal message of Obama being a monster...unless of course your purpose is to play out the long held fantasy in the Western world of the black man as a monster who needs to be controlled!
As an American, and a rather unabashed cynic, I must say that I am completely unimpressed by any politician. I am neither democrat, nor Republican, but I am finding myself leaning toward the Obama camp. Bill Clinton is rightfully lauded for his efforts as President, but he and Hillary are really not taking the high road. Unfortunately I feel it will get considerably worse, before it gets better.
It irritates me that Obama started the whole attack process when Hillary was high in the polls. I so admired his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention about there being one America. I have admired his uplifting speeches and talk about a new kind of politics. Yet, when his numbers stalled... he followed the Karl Rove book of attack maneuvers. It disillusioned me. I support Hillary and I think President Clinton is a good advocate for her. I don't believe he should be "sidelined" in order to appear like an "elder statesman". Frankly I abhor all the attacks on all sides.
One more thought. Oprah Winfrey has changed from an excellent talk show host to someone who seems to view herself as a westernized Dali Lama. After her endorsement of Obama (which also soured me), Whoopi Goldberg said on "Good Morning America" when asked the impact of Oprah: "She doesn't walk on water".
It irritates me that Obama started the whole attack process when Hillary was high in the polls. I so admired his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention about there being one America. I have admired his uplifting speeches and talk about a new kind of politics. Yet, when his numbers stalled... he followed the Karl Rove book of attack maneuvers. It disillusioned me. I support Hillary and I think President Clinton is a good advocate for her. I don't believe he should be "sidelined" in order to appear like an "elder statesman". Frankly I abhor all the attacks on all sides.
One more thought. Oprah Winfrey has changed from an excellent talk show host to someone who seems to view herself as a westernized Dali Lama. After her endorsement of Obama (which also soured me), Whoopi Goldberg said on "Good Morning America" when asked the impact of Oprah: "She doesn't walk on water".
Americans are reckless, and easily swayed by speeches. All an aspirant needs is to talk and talk, frighten the people against an unknown enemy to win an election. When the majority of the world was against Bush on his reelection, America voted for him and now keep criticizing him. So, who is to blame? The voters of course.
And now Obama( he will make a good professor). Don’t you need experience? No credentials? He talks of change. Change from what? frying pan to fire? Americans should evaluate better and not be swayed by stupid speeches.Politicians, remember never are serious about what they say.
This just in, Justin ....
Millions of democracts, independents and republicans feel they have had enough of the dynastic Bush/Clinton rule. Look at the demographics of Obama victory in SC - the young voters (18-29) are turning out in droves, all voting for him. They are going to vote in the coming election, and will do so in the next several decades. They are all inspired by the critical need for change - from fear-mongering to hope-inspiring, from dominance to principled leadership, from bullying to partnership - and they are all for Obama.
If America wants inspirational change, the answer is Obama. It is shameful that you chose to characterize his victory as 'Obamonster'; the monsters are the Clintons, and Bill has demeaned the image of US ex-Presidents with his aggressive, partisan and mendacious attacks. If the Democratic Party backs Hillary, it will be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and condemning the nation to four more years of Republican rule, and the world to four more years of fear-mongering and bullying. Do not remain tangled in this web, Webb!
I'm tired of the Bush and Clinton families that have dominated our presidential politics for the last 20 years. The Bushs are leaving in 2009, but the Clintons are trying to get back in.
No one talks about this in polite discourse, but if Mrs. Clinton secures the Democratic nomination, the Republican-conservative attack machine will come out fighting and drag us all through the mud again as we are forced to relive the scandals and sexual escapades of Bill Clinton. If she still manages to win the election, then it will be as if Monica Lewinsky moves back into the White House with them and we'll have to endure at least four years of muck raking.
It is time for Democrats to reject the past and select a new leader to represent our party. His name is Obama.
For every 100 people who voted for Senator Obama in South Carolina:
90 were black
8 where white women
2 were white men
(source data from exit polls as a more realistic presentation )
This adds up to:
80% of black voters voted for Senator Obama
90% of white males voted against Senator Obama
70% of white females voted against Senator Obama
A very convincing racial divide and something that should cause all Americans concern.
Another post that conjured controversy from thin air. Most seem to be from staunch partisans. My reading of the 'Obamonster' tag was simply that monster can mean 'huge', and Obama's win was significant. I disagree that it was huge however, after considering the demographics of his support in South Carolina. I fear that he had to do even better than that to convince people that he can win on Super Tuesday.
PS. In fact America is rare in that all its former presidents retain the 'President' title. This opens the door to confusion if Hillary is successful, as there will be two recent President Clintons. Would this make her President Clinton II in the style of a consitutional monarch?
Thank you for posting Caroline Kennedy's endorsement of Barak Obama.
It's true ... Mr. Obama's grace, intelligence and honor remind me of Jack Kennedy ... AND Bobby.
The Clintons are Boris and Natasha.
My preditction? A "Fractured Fairy Tale," in which all the king's horses and all the king's men cannot put Hill/Bill together again.
Republican's couldn't hope for more to help them win the election. Admit it! It takes an enormous amount of an innate inability to provide leadership and appeal to prevent the republicans from staying in the White house after Bush. This is better than we hoped for.
The liberal-left tradition of playing of the race card, this time by Clinton, backfired badly. The pervasive, but cleverly-veiled racism of white democrats is at last seen for the sham it is, although the warning flags were evident after "Aunt Jemimah" characterization of Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.
To white dems, racism is OK when directed against one's political enemies.
Apparently even when they're democrats.
Just another Clinton dirty trick. Here's another one. I am from Michigan and it's really something that now Hillary wants to seat the Michigan delegates she "won" by virtue of being the only Democrat of importance on the Michigan ticket. How many black voters were disenfranchised from voting for Obama because of this neat trick by the Michigan and National Democratic party? No one seems to care in the US national media. Just watch, it will all be swept under the rug when the delegates from Michigan get seated and our votes go to Hillary.
Once again political pundits in the media will project the ultimate outcome of the nomination porcess and the election on the most recent twist in the race. The size of Obama's victory in South Carolina may have surprised the press but it didn't surprise me. Only a few months ago, African Americans were discussing whether or not Obama was black enough for them. Now many voters in South Carolina say they voted for Obama because he is black. Again this came as no surprise to me. Had people said that they voted for Edwards for example because he is white, they would have been labeled as racist. Double standards in America? That's nothing new. (Does this remind anyone of the way they voted in Iraq or Kenya or any of countless other places around the world?)
We will know a lot more after February 5 when 21 states vote in primaries and a large number of delegates are committed. Until then, the media and everyone else is just guessing and those guesses are based on specious arguements resting on inadequate information.
My utterly unreliable predictions; Edwards will eventually drop out of the race and cut a deal with the Clintons maybe to run as VP but it may not happen as soon as February 6. I also think John McCain will be the Republican nominee. Whether Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama becomes the Democratic Party's nominee may not be decided until the convention. Now wouldn't that be exciting, the first one I can remember in a very long time where we don't know beforehand how it will come out.
Senator Obama's win was expected and does nothing to prove, yet, that he is the choice of a majority or plurality of Democrats nationwide. It also does nothing, yet, to prove he would be electable against the putative Republican nominee John McCain.
This still seems like Hillary's year in the Democratic party, not Barack's, although he is positioning himself for a run in 2012 or 2016 in which his chances will be infinitely better, assuming he is not unseated from the Senate in the meantime, something that freqyuently happens in Illinois.
I wonder what Caroline Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama will mean for his campaign. I'm British and have to say I have always viewed John F Kennedy as one of America's most remarkable politicians. I know too that the entire Kenendy clan are beloved by the American people. Surely this endorsement, while not being able to fully counter the power of the Clinton machine, is significant?
I am a 56 year old white male who was raised in the UK, but has lived in the USA for 26 years and I am an American citizen now. I follow elections very closely and fondly remember sitting up late into the night in England with my dad as the results came in. Politics in the US has become a disappointing, tawdry affair in my view, partly due to the checks-and-balances nature of Congress and the presidency. Deal making trumps democracy and money buys votes. President Bush has reduced America's standing in the world to an embarassing extent and he has alienated our allies. People have become so cynical about politics that barely 50% of eligible voters even bother to show up. Then along came Barack Obama. His appeal is clear - he restores our optimistic view of the future. He literally gives one chills when he speaks and he represents a broad coalition of American voters. Can he go all the way? Who knows - the Clinton attack dog machine will be out to get him, attempting to marginalize his appeal on racial lines. But I can tell you one thing, this 50+ white male will vote for him as will an increasing number of others. Go for it Barack - we need you.
I am not from South Carolina, but I am young (30), white, male, and though I'm a registered Independent my affinity has always been to the left. I am all for Obama. I think we are in fact seeing a real change in the political realm in the USA and he personifies that change for most of us. This is the guy we have been waiting for. He is all that Bill and Hill are but with real substance and sincerity, and frankly even more charisma than Bill at his peak if you ask me. For those of you who are older and love the Clintons, please WISE UP people. And you women who support her mostly for the "It's time for a woman in the White House" stuff need to turn off the Soap Operas, put down the Feminine Mystique, and realize she is not the kind of woman you want in the White House. And frankly I've never understood the broad appeal of the Clintons with the older and female set. A close look at Bill's record yields few achievements, much less any great ones. And I'm no prude, but he brought absolute shame to himself and his legacy with his adulterous ways. Hillary...come on. She's a carpetbagger and a coat-tail rider. We could do SOOOO much better in finding a first female President. Besides, those who support her have NO idea how much the right hates her. They will rally, and I mean RALLY, to keep her from becoming President. She will probably not be able to win the White House. The Republicans can handle Obama or even Edwards...but Hillary? No, they'll GO NUTS. Mark my words, she would either lose or would be so hamstrung politically that she would never be able to get anything accomplished. I admire her spunk, but if she truly cared about what is happening in this country she would support Obama and seek a lesser role where she would be less polarizing. That's if it wasn't all about her and her husband getting back in that White House. LEt's end the dynasty people!!!!
Yes, it was a monster win of more than 50%, but you shouldn't suggest that Obama is the monster, as you do in your link 'obamonster win'. What do you hope to win with such tricks?
If Bill Clinton wants to compare Obama to Jesse, then I would like to take this minute to compare Bill Clinton to Larry Craig. Give me a break. I wish someone would retire these Clintons in a timely fashion, because four more years of them in office means emigration for me.
I don't know where the dude who said 90% of white people voted against Obama got his numbers.
Apparently, it was too tough for hiim to go to CNN.com and 'discover' that Obama received 1/4 of the White Vote in South Carolina, and about 80% of the Black Vote. In a state that still flies the Confederate Flag on its statehouse, that represents a big leap from years past.
Also, its important to note that Obama had to share the white vote with Edwards, a native son of SC and very popular among white Democrats. This was a resounding win, and Hillary supporters can try to spin a 28 point loss any way they want but the fact remains they got taken to the woodshed in SC.
FIRED UP! READY TO GO!
Once again former president Clinton is evoking race by comparing Jesse Jackson and Obama.
South Carolina has thought the Clinton'c camp a lesson- that American people are capable of moving beyond race.
It is my hope the Obama campaign will take the high ground and continue to offer the possiblity of bringing American people together to solve the tough challenges this great country faces.
" Obama ... is running a dignified and honest campaign" - Caroline Kennedy.
Now that truly is a complete break with the past and everything associated with 'the past'.
Let us (the world) hope that enough Hispanic Americans can see that too as they hold the key.
'Millions of democrats, independents and republicans feel they have had enough of the dynastic Bush/Clinton rule.'
... again, the Republicans who've started moaning about 'dynastic rule' kept this concern of theirs very quiet in 2000 and 2004. It's almost as though they operate a double standard, or are getting a bit desperate.
Paul #35
You are utterly confused. Read a lot more history of America and you will see many of your statements are based on ignorance and wishful thinking rather than facts. Politics in America has ALWAYS been a tawdry affair. For me, that is one of its most endearing assets. At least they don't actually kill each other (well there was this one time when we had a Civil War that tore the country apart but that was a long long time ago.) If you are or ever were expecting an American political campaign to be run like a college debating society would handle itself, forget about it. That Joe Kennedy's Mafia friends stole the election in Chicago which threw Illinois' electors into John Kennedy's side and won the election for him when the real winner was Nixon is not news. Go back 100 years or more and you will see the same kind of thing over and over again. This stuff today is timid.
That American politicians must cut deals to get what they want is built into the system. Deal cutting doesn't trump democracy, it is democracy. The founding fathers preferred that the government be paralyzed before any one branch could rule over the others. They are forced to compromise and make deals if they want any of their own programs implemented. That's how the system is designed to work and it is a main protection against dictatorship, checks and balances pitting equally ambitious, self serving, unscrupulous people against each other. The system assumes the worst in people and has no illusions about human nature the way other inferior systems of government do. That is an inherent part of its genius. Look at Parliamentary systems where the Prime Minister is effectively one of the legislators, he is an MP and there is no real separation of power between the legislative and executive branches. His majority party or coalition rubber stamps what he wants to do or the government falls as it is falling right now in Italy for about the 50th time since the end of World War II. In Britain Parliament may not even get the opportunity to vote on the EU treaty at all, that's how undemocratic it is there. And the PM is only elected by his own narrow constituency, not the nation as a whole. The Articles of Confederation which preceded the Constitution provided a much weaker central government. It didn't work.
Americans have always been cynical about politics. Many usually are too happy and disinterested to care who wins, they are preoccupied with their own lives. They only rush to the polls when they feel something is so wrong they want a major change.
It's a sad day in America when someone can win an election because he is good at delivering speeches rather than because of the substance of what he has to say or what experience he brings. IMO, neither Obama nor Clinton is qualified based on lack of experience to become President right now but that doesn't mean one of them won't win. Both are obviously exceptionally intelligent people and in many ways very attractive candidates but they are not seasoned nearly enough and both have views insofar as I can tell which are not in the mainstream of American politics. That could change if and when one of them gets into the oval office, they often have to learn on the job. In other words, as executives, both are tyros. Inevitably new Presidents are tested by foreign governments fairly quickly once they are in office. Kennedy had the Bay of Pigs fiasco which ultimately led to the Cuban missile crisis. That almost led to an end to all human life on earth. The current President was tested by China within months when a US reconnaissance plane was forced down by a cowboy Chinese fighter pilot who accidentally crashed into its wing over international waters in a game of chicken (he was killed and the plane kept by the Chinese military.) President Bush showed he was weak lacking any resolve. Even 9-11 required an entire month before he responded giving the leadership of al Qaeda ample time to retreat from Afghanistan to the sanctuary of Pakistan and his inexperience led directly to the invasion of Iraq because Saddam Hussein misjudged the resolve of the rest of the American government to act. Anyone in the oval office including Gore would have invaded Iraq under comparable circumstances which is why Congress gave overwhelming approval even though some of them like Clinton dance around the facts. In the end, people get the government they deserve and if the American people wind up with an incompetent who stumbles into one disaster or another, we'll just have to live with it. We'll probably survive it but will the rest of the world. BTW, for those in foreign countries who think that somehow election of a Democrat will be good for them, bear in mind that Democrats owe many favors to organized labor which would like to see an end to free trade and a return to protectionism. Leaving the WTO and returning to an era of protective import tariffs is not beyond possibility.
To Paul Winter: Deal-making in politics distresses you? And you think that happens only in American politics? Perhaps you should go back to your British roots and ponder the words of the Anglo-Irish statesman, Edmund Burke, who wrote:
"All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue, and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter." Sensible words from the 18th century that still make sense in the 21st.
Deal-makers don't bother me. I worry much more about politicians like Bush who think they have no need to compromise, no need to pay attention to what the other side of the aisle tells them.
I'm also not worried about the demographics of the SC vote. Many of the male Dems in SC are conservatives at heart and Obama struck them as a tad too liberal and/or too inexperienced or they voted for fellow southerner Edwards. The women voted for Hillary or, again, their fellow Southerner. But that doesn't mean they won't rally around the final Democratic nominee, whoever he or she turns out to be.
Has anyone considered that the 'monster' bit might just be intended as it being a monster win, as in, a huge win? I don't really visit this blog much, but unless Justin often makes slights like the one several of the above posters are criticising, it seems fairly clear to me that he wasn't making a tremendously unsubtle jibe at one of the democratic candidates.
it will be down to age in the end.
remember boomers we will look after you ...or not depending upon how you led the world during your time. and frankly there are a hell of a lot of people that vote for obama because He is younger.
hillary willmake me as left as can be vote for anyone else as long as it's McCain.
I will not vote for someone who is so power hungry as to make me hate the democrats.which I will if they nominate her.
to those that say Obama is too young.
too young for what???
hillary has only age not wisdom.not experience.
she has done very little that was right so far.
she objects to obama doing his job as a lawyer
I for one have had enough of her generation of white americans ruining the world.they are the generation that heard silent spring ..and ignored it.
the most selfish generation in the history of the world.
and i am fed up with them telling us how to live.
if your all so good then how come you all spend so much time getting analysed for you problems.
New blood might bring a new world. oh and as for the testing of a president by china.
I had predicted like many that Sodam was bluffing and writing poetry.
both hillary and bill and bush and most of their older paranoid boomer generation thought we better go to war.
like i say i'm fed up of paranoid boomers
deal making and compromise are not the same .
or there would be one word to describe it.
you can have a deal with no compromise.
The presidents who came to and served on upswing of good economic times got credit undeservedly. During Bill Clinton era not only democrats, all republican governors claimed they were the reasons for their states’ economic success. If the govt or Mr. Greenspan knew how to do that, it should have been continued uninterrupted. They all claimed credit every time when industry rebounds and did nothing to help industry and people.
People have been fooled enough. The American economy is governed by its industry. When the bad times hit, only the ordinary Americans lose jobs and suffer until the industry re-adjust and comes back while the govt simply do nothing. So, we need to open our eyes and see in good times and bad times what the politics do. How much more tax they collect to run their own political agenda inside and outside this country. Same old phrases healthcare, education, immigration, veterans, ….. come to light only during elections and never get resolved.
It is high time to elect someone anew at least to see what he may do. America needs new ideas outside of those who have rotted in Washington for long and wanted to ride more by deceiving and dividing people. America needs real change for better for its people and to be inspired around the globe.
Mark#43-
It's really OK if the populace of the USA decides it's important to be able to reliably produce their own food, fuel, and war materials in an emergency. There is a real dollar value to be placed on that ability, especially by the survivors. It might be rather tricky if your trading partner had a bigger threat from your opponent and failed to supply the necessary parts to keep your hardware operational...
Also, the Iraq threat data was apparently largely fabricated or intentionally misinterpreited by Bush's team. I doubt that a different President would have acted (Gore!?! come on, McCain mebbe...) in exactly the same manner without exactly the same motivations.
PS - Organized Labor are not the folks behind the international Mortgage crisis, and they for damn sure haven't benefitted from NAFTA. They ARE closer to making up a representative slice of the populace than the 1% Lords of Creation that we now have calling the shots. Politics is indeed messy, but there has to be something in it for everyone, or eventually the pesants end up storming the castle. Why go that far? I'm willing to give Obama a chance; he's a smart optimistic guy with new ideas, plenty smart enough to find reliable help for any topics he may not fully understand. That's not "rocket surgery" after all. No one can do it all himself.
Obam feels he is ready but when it comes to reallity deep down he is not ready to be a president,To rule a country which has power machine of the world economy is not easy as we see in our eyes
People don't seem to realize that 9/11 had its seeds sown in the clinton era. when i think of 'that woman' and her red-faced husband i can only see old boy, back stabbing, underhandedness, what's in it for me, what can you do for me, old fashioned politician attitude. the usa and the world do not need that.
we need someone who is going to unite the country,who will listen to the people and not the politicians and their industrial/oil cronies. we need someone who wants to take our country back to its greatness.
look into who is supplying the clinton money. look into who is supplying obama money.
if clinton becomes the democratic nominee, i would have no choice but to vote republican, REGARDLESS of who is running.
obama is the person who will bring about the changes that our country needs. he will find the right people to surround him to make those changes. he will choose wise, experienced people who are willing to make our country great again.
Surely having Bill Clinton so visible in the campaign just perpetuates the idea that this some great, partisan game, in which its partcipants are fighting for power, rather than beliefs. Of course, it is a great partisan game, in which its participaNts fight for power. But that's not the point. Exciting as we all find it from an external view-point, surely a conscientious American voter is at least a little bit more concerned with the job the leader is going to do.
Therefore, it seems a little odd to me that President Clinton would have any effect. How naieve would you have to be to think that the former president's endorsement of his spouse represents anything more than self-interest?
I think the whole problem with the Clinton campaign is that it smacks of personal ambition. Now, I'm not foolish enough to believe that Obama -- or Edwards -- are running on purely altruistic grounds. However, when Obama gets up on that stage, and his voice reverberates with the gravity of his world-changing statements, it can't help but strike me as genuine. It feels like real emotion, real hope and, most importantly, a collection real beliefs. When Clinton gets up on the stage, next to her husband, I can't help but think of dynasties and opportunism.
(Isn't that what this field is, by the way? A group of politicians, all of whom have a gimmick they're trying to sell to the electorate. For Huckabee, it's his religious roots; for Giuliani, it's that he was NYC mayor during 9/11; for Romney, it's the artificial buzz created by his money; for Paul, it's his extreme economic views; for Mccain, it's the fact that he's not as bad as any of the others. For Edwards, it's his poor background, coupled with the endless rhetoric about the middle-class; for Obama, it's race and the improbability factor; for Clinton, it's her gender, and it's her husband. Just like it was Bush's Father was for him in 2000.)
What I'm getting at is that Obama taps a market that Clinton seems to be ignoring -- or even avoiding. As a 17 year old cynic, I can safely say that I wouldn't dream of campaigning for Clinton, if I was an American. I might, by contrast, be willing knock on fifty thousand doors for Senator Obama (if I'd just heard him speak).
Despite all my affection for him, that's partly because of Bill Clinton.
It's interesting to hear Republicans complaining about 'dynastic rule' - it wasn't something they seemed unduly worried about in 2000 or 2004.
And it's also interesting to hear them so worried about voting dividing along racial lines and how that would be terrible for America. In 2004, 88% of black voters went for Kerry, only 11% went for Bush.
Thank you #7 Alice and #48 Mike.
Your statements may not be popular, but they are accurate.
Compromise and appeasement, however popular, are not necessarily the solution to all political interactions.
I was very enthusiastic about Hillary, right up until she started her campaign.
It's been hard to put my finger on exactly what feels wrong, but I sense a vindictive, petty, spiteful person. Not someone likely to build coalitions, but to bludgeon opposition.
I'm not sure I would like to see Hillary as Commander in Chief, willing to prove to her doubters that she can be tough.
There is an image that sticks in my mind; Obama had announced his candidacy, and it was the first time he and Hillary had met on the senate floor since his announcement. They were about to pass each other in the aisle, and Obama reached out to greet her, and shake her hand. She abruptly turned her back, and publicly snubbed him on the Senate floor. Maybe that says it all. I want a leader that reaces out, instead of poisoning future relationships; a President with the graciousness to welcome a competitor.
Bill's position as Hillary's bulldog has been shocking to me. I loved and respected Bill, but it's all gone now. Everything coming out of his mouth sounds so alien, it's as if "Bad Hillary" was coaching his attacks. Either that, or the Clintons have secretly hired Karl Rove.
Obama '08
His father is black. His mother is white.
One could say he is black, or he is white, or neithr black nor white.
My question is: why he is always referred as a black candidate ??
Does this mean that majority white US society is profoundly racist ??
I am an entertainer by profession and the most important thing I learned about performing is knowing when to get off the stage. Are you listening, Bill?
"Deal-making" is the prostitution of politics and has been the principle obstacle to achieving democracy in America. The biggest "deal" that has been agreed is of course, the sclerotic two-party system which insures results favorable to vested interests. Compromises are made between competing ideas; deals go to the highest bidder. Money clinches deals and delivers favors. Money buys influence and the more you have the more you get back. Little people don't have the means to make deals and are effectively shut out of the insider system. In a sharply divided class society like America, the rich rule through the venal duopoly single party state of America. Clinton(s) have been playing the game a long time and Obama is learning fast. But in the end the Clintons have made more deals and done more favors for people who count in this rigged system and should prevail. The Clinton's ability to please the AIPAC voters in pivotal states like New York & Florida should prove decisive. Although Obama has proved pretty good at that of late too, so don't expect any serious "change" in ME policy, or much else, no matter who squeaks through. Niether Clinton nor Obama would be in the position they're in today if they represented any real change in the status quo. Everyone is for sale in America.
Senator Obama will not win as the democratic candidate. He is certainly too unexperienced. Hillary Clinton will for sure will the big states such as California, Texas, Florida, and New York.
Everyone seems to be voting for Obama, but the truth is, that this is just everyone tagging along doing what the rest of the world is doing. This in fact, is the certainly the wrong way to choose and pick our president. Hillary, along with her vast accomplishments and immensely packed records show us that SHE is the correct and ideal candidate for the democratic candidacy and will in fact be the our best choice of president for the proceeding term.
Has anyone forgotten that we enjoyed BUDGET-SURPLUS ECONOMIC GLORY during the Clinton Years? I'm sorry, but Long Live Hillary. OBAMA is a high risk.
"Change"-- Americans are all about the soundbite. Nobody in the American media has bothered to ask what Obama is changing & he hasn't bothered to tell them. The American media and voting public have failed miserably in looking behind this sophomoric mantra. Any high-school class president could have thought of a better campaign slogan.
Excuse me Joe, get your facts right. Obama was not a senator when the big kids voted on the war. What President Clinton was referencing was that it is fairy tale for Obama to say he voted against the war, when he couldn't vote. Anyone can say I was against the war,when they didn't actually have to put their mark to it. Since being a Senator, Obama has voted exactly the same way as Hillary Clinton and in fact he continued to vote for the Patriot Act.
Mark S. Orr... I agree completely.
I used to say that if only Bill Clinton could run again, I'd vote for him. I was less thrilled with Hillary, but I probably would've voted for her.
Then Bill began his disastrous series of dirty tricks against Obama. Hard to believe he could know what he's doing.
If we get Hillary in the White House, we're going to get this new ugly Bill along with her, maybe trying to overshadow her. Obama worries me because of his inexperience, but I'm going to vote for him over Hillary now. Thanks, Bill!
The media needs to stop giving Obama a free ride. He is simply not ready for prime time.
Some facts that aren't being publicized by the media:
1) Robert F. Kennedy and Kathleen Townsend Kennedy endorsed Hillary. The entire Kennedy clan does not support Obama. People are being mislead. 2) Jesse Jackson said he was NOT offended by Bill's remark re him. 3) Obama started the whole "race" issue and much earlier than MLK day -- all the way back to his days growing up in Hawaii.
As for the "tone" of the race, get real. This is a prize worth fighting over. If Obama is crying now, what's he going to do if he gets the party nomination? Cry behind Oprah?
Hello!!!! Has anyone cared to view the candidates plans and reocmmended policies. As far as the dem candidates, all I keep hearing is "Obama doesn't have the experience Clinton has" or "Clinton isn't inspiring." I would mention John Edwards, but he recently dropped out of the race (and I felt he had some good ideas also).
As far as Obama and Hillary, the list of "changes" they would make fall along the sames lines as what many Democrats and some independents and maybe even Republicans want to see (depends on the many various issues), with some differences in how to reach those goals. So instead of relying on comments from others about how this candidate has "experience" or how that candidate is "inspirational", check out their positions and plans and judge for yourself.
I myself was torn between Hillary and Obama, so I did the research (I didn't want to rely on claims pushed by media or others). I didn't want to vote for Hillary just because she had "experience" as many folks say; nor vote for Obama because his speeches sound good. I decided to support Obama because I agree with the actual plans he recommends (and not just the fact that he calls for change). And I agree with his focus on bringing all sides to the table (business/emply/cust, rep/dem/ind, politician/people, etc.); we do need to do more to encourage this). All in all, we definitely need more focus on each candidates plans for major issues.
Please research not just records, but what plans these candidates are pushing for. We don't know what the future holds, and yes we can be cynical and say, "Oh, all politicians lie," but we need to hold these candidates more accountable to what they say and what they want to do and critically examine their campaign promises.
Don't get me wrong, things such as experience, judgement and an ability to inspire Americans are important to consider; but I think we shouldn't rely on heresay or assumptions nor make voting decisions based soley on theoretical discussions -- "who said what about this group" or "they did this in the past, so surely they can make it work in the present/future," or "they're the right choice becuase they keep saying the word change"...you get my drift. Check out the facts and decide for yourself. Both candidates have announced plans for change, check it out (go on their websites, look at their records, etc.).
So for those that say Obama doesn't have the experience or he won't know what to do -- check it out, his plans look very sound to me.
For those that say that Clinton doesn't care or will probably continue her past mistakes -- check it out, her plans also look sound (although, my objections have to do with how her plans dump money into state programs/control with out details on how to watch/ensure progress and avoid mismanagement, which is very common).
Let's talk about those issues.
Sorry to be so late getting into the fray, but I thought your No. 1 blogger used a strange choice of words in referring to Bill Clinton as a "street-fighter", and referred to what is not honorable in "war". I agree with him that Bill has opened his mouth and put his foot in it several times on the campaign trail towards his third presidency, but "fighter" is hardly an appropriate description for our former "Commander-In-Chief".
Need I add that I am a veteran, and that I voted for McCain in the Florida primary?