Winners and losers
The Huckabee concession speech was a stunning attack on Mitt Romney - surely suggestive of a Republican civil war if the eventual choice comes down to Huckabee or McCain against the Michigan winner. Huckabee praised McCain for his "civil and decent" campaign in South Carolina. He did not mention Romney by name but the implication could not have been clearer: that the Mormon business leader has overstepped the mark in his previous attack efforts and stands to have his so called Nevada "victory" shoved where it does not belong. Might Huckabee be a rather nifty McCain VP choice?
But I get ahead of myself. Another thought from the McCain victory: surely Mike Huckabee's failure to win is a massive blow to Rudy Giuliani in his effort to seriously begin his race in Florida? A Huckabee win would have allowed the former New York mayor to present himself as the alternative to the God-bothering tendency in the Republican party. Now McCain is the secular choice, along with Romney I suppose. The chaos benefited Giuliani; if the chaos is just a little less chaotic now, Giuliani is in trouble. Another thought on the McCain campaign - they can do sexy! Look at ...
And a final non-horserace point about the Republicans: they are in quite a mess. The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú sometimes gets it in the neck for being overly excited by Democrats (I reject that, by the way, but the charge is out there) but the nastiness of the battle ahead for the Republicans is surely far more of a genuine punch-up among real enemies, policy enemies, than is the Democratic fight. Nobody can pretend that the Clintons and Obamas will be going out to dinner any time soon but, on policy they are, frankly, pretty close.
And so to the Democrats. Hillary Clinton because she won women and she won Latinos. She also won because some voters think - or are persuaded to think - that Senator Obama is a Muslim. This is a fact: I met otherwise well-informed voters in New Hampshire who believed that he refused to be sworn in as a senator with his hand on the Bible. It is out there; it really is. It does not explain the Clinton victories but it adds to them.
Obama must win in South Carolina, of course, to keep the show on the road - and he can win given the large number of African Americans who will vote next week - but he also needs to re-tool his campaign urgently to reach out to the Democats he is missing; in particular he needs to find those women who went for him in Iowa. He has the better brand but many shoppers seem to think they cannot afford it. Think Bang & Olufsen!
UPDATE:
Here is another quick thought on the Obama/Osama issue. A friend writes to me from Las Vegas: "After it was all over here last night met a bartender who considered himslef a liberal, working class guy, life long Democrat, hated Bush, pretty worldly, who told me he didn't vote for Obama because the guy was 'brought up a Muslim and once a Muslim always a Muslim'."
Hello, I'm 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
Congrats to Mitt for a great win today in Nevada (37 point spread victory!) and to McCain for a slightly smaller one in SC (3 points.) Huckabee ran a great race and will be out if he cannot win Florida.
Thompson had a good day and will not leave the race yet, but he is running out of money.
Dr. Ron Paul managed to clean up on McCain in Nevada, taking second place and, for the first time (perhaps), joining the national race...
Duncan Hunter dropped out after a disappointing Caucus finish in Nevada, but we respect him along with Tom Tancredo, who recently left the race to endorse Romney.
Finally, old Giuliani sounded what could be an attack today on Romney and McCain. He is truly on the ropes in Florida, and I predict he will be out of the race in a week. I suspect Romney will take Florida, where he commenced operations today and has been in a statistical tie with Rudy and John. The economy and the family are pretty important to Floridians, and Mitt has the corner on both.
The moral of the day may be that God loves all his children. Something for all to celebrate!
Regarding your text about the news being overly-excited about the Democrats: Have you not seen the media lately? It is almost entirely focused on the Democrats, though in my opinion, the Republican race seems to be the more interesting, only because there are no clear front-runners yet. But even in the articles that are supposed to be centered on the Republicans, many of them still infuse the Democratic race in there; some even focus on it more. There may be some truth in those claims, likely concurring with the recent polls that show how dissatisfied the people are with President Bush. It almost seems as if the media does not want another Republican in office.
Justin,
In this posting, you mention that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú gets accused of being pro-Democratic (AKA anti-Republican). You state that you disagree with this accusation, while simultaneously calling republicans overly "God-bothered" and also claiming that a political campaign about issues in the Republican primary means the Republican party is in quite a mess. I do not see supporting a candidate or party that supports your values, whether faith based or not, as God bothered. I also do not regard the differing views of Republican candidates as a negative. I certainly prefer a discussion of issues in selecting a candidate versus a discussion on personality, as we see in the Democratic Party. I enjoy the blog.
With Kind Regards,
Brendan in Pennsylvania
The fact that It is out there; it really is. is sad, but true. But it will still be out there come November. The Democrats need to choose someone who can pick up votes from across all states and all sections of society--not just registered Democrats involved in the primaries and caucuses--if their candidate is to become President. Sadly, this includes the ill-informed who believe such nonsense about Obama.
Thank you for the entry Justin. As always you seem fit to not even mention Ron Paul, his millions, supporters and him placing 2nd in Nevada yesterday. I shall be writing to the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Trust. I will not pay my license money to someone who is activley censoring my candidate.
My money is on Hilary to win although I would prefer Obama to win - he seems more honest and intelligent.
The idea that lots of US folk think he is a muslim just shows that he needs to counter that by showing (on all TV channels) an advertising campaign showing a home movie clip of him being sworn in as senator and putting his hand on the bible etc.
No doubt the Huckabee camp would be fuming and red in the face if Obama did manage to show a clip of him being sworn in with his hand on the bible.
I don't think Obama will do this though, and I don't think he will become president.
They will put Hilary in because she is the right age, right colour (for them) and right class. They will excuse her being a woman because the other candidates are either too old, too wierd or the wrong colour.
When she gets into the White House she will not be told what to do by Bill (the First Man?) unless she asks him for his advice.
Hilary appears to be headstrong and to have strong alpha mom opinions (and after Lewinsky she would have every right to).
She will be different from Bush (not as crazy or destructive at home or abroad) - but not differing much from most middle class white middle age presidents.
#2 I think it's more to do with the splintered race with the Republicans. What can you say about the results? Who stands to win? It's just all too fractured at the moment to really say anything profound. Guilliani isn't even properly bothering with the race at the moment. Wait until one or two of the many frontrunners are out, then the battle proper begins. For the Democrats, it's already there.
Really enjoying your blog Justin, and I will continue to follow it for the duration.
I'm hard pushed to choose between Clinton and Obama myself (although I don't have a vote - I'm just an interested Brit!).
As Johnathon Jones has stated - there's a lot of focus on the Democrat race, but who will they be up against? Past history suggests it should be McCain. I think the question for Democrats everywhere will be - who can beat him?
Thanks for the latest. I understand the concerns about UK media outlets getting excited about the Democrats. My reading of it is that the Democrats have two strong favourites, each of whom represents a landmark in American politics. This makes a better story than a group of unfamiliar Republicans. Also the turnout for Democrats has gone through the roof, indicating that the media is simply reflecting excitement rather than stoking it.
One request I would have is for the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú in general to cover the selection process itself more rigorously. There is a lot of focus on polls and percentages, but not much about how many delegates have been selected as a result, and which candidate has how many delegates at each stage. Is this because the rules are so complicated and in some cases vague?
The biggest story is the LOW turnout for Republicans in SC. This seems to be a continuing pattern. Twice as many people are coming out for the Democratic primaries.
Dear Mr Webb,
Might I suggest that you visit the archives and listen to James Naughtie on the Today programme on the morning after Clinton's election in 1992? 'Over-excited by the democrats' doesn't begin to describe it.
'Bias' is too crude a word to describe the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's response to the Democratic Party. It is rather the case that the Democratic position sits more comfortably with the liberal Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú 'world-view', which predominates among production staff.
I know something whereof I speak, having worked at the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú some years ago and witnessed the phenomenon at first-hand.
Justin Webb: The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú sometimes gets it in the neck for being overly excited by Democrats (I reject that, by the way, but the charge is out there)
The Today programme (9 January) devoted approximately 28 minutes to discussion of the New Hampshire primaries; of this, analysis of the Democrat result took up more than 23 minutes.
McCain starting to look attractive. To we non-Americans his non-dramatic presentations are perhaps appealing. In Michigan he did not promise market-unrealistic promises to revive the US big 3 car manufacturers. A concern is his age. Not now, but if he does a good first term, the US people may be reluctant to vote for a second, for the VP gets closer to being a 'heart beat away' from the top job.
McCain starting to look attractive. To we non-Americans his non-dramatic presentations are perhaps appealing. In Michigan he did not promise market-unrealistic support to revive the US big 3 car manufacturers. A concern is his age. Not now, but if he does a good first term, the US people may be reluctant to vote for a second, for the VP gets closer to being a 'heart beat away' from the top job.
On the point of coverage, you are right to focus more on the Democrats because that is where the interest lies (turnout in their primaries is significantly higher than in the republican ones)- the next president will come from that race - the Republicans are just running a pointless sideshow. And as for Obama, he needs to start 'tearing up' -I think it means 'crying'!
Really interesting that some voters thought Obama was Muslim. This is not necessarily some pernicious Democratic tactic. My elderly great aunt - who is nonetheless very email savvy - circulated a message urging all of her relatives to protest the swearing in to Congress of a Minnesota Muslim. A fervent evangelical, she was not pleased when I replied that if someone has shown a commitment to public service, then I don't care if they are Muslim.
It's hard to tell where the "Obama is a Muslim" story originated, but I've heard it from several conservative Republicans (and not necessarily the Christian evangelicals). I imagine that it will get a great deal more play on both conservative talk radio and the internet, should Obama be the Democratic nominee.
My late father believed that Joseph Goebbels was right - if the lie is outrageous enough and told often enough and not refuted, people will perceive it as truth. Obama needs to get his truth squads in place, just as McCain did this past week in South Carolina.
Agree with Antisilence. Why no mention of Ron Paul? His progress is very interesting to many people but it doesn't seem to matter what happens, media commentators ignore him as a fringe candidate - something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. No doubt, this comment won't even be published, thereby maintaining the news blackout, even though another (albeit informative) comment gets published twice.
Really great to see that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú are acknowledging Ron Paul.
If you check this image below you will see that FOX News is still ignoring him, which is absolutely no surprise.
Here he is showing 3rd in Nevada (he actually ended up finishing 2nd) but no sign of him there, instead they have replaced him with the Huckster lol.
"God-bothering"? Christians pray to God; they do not "bother" Him?
Obama's loss in Nevada is indicative of a problem which he will have if he is selected as the Democratic candidate and that as an African American he does not seem to attract Latino voters...is it just me or is there a problem between African Americans and Latinos. If Obama wins the nomination he needs to win the electoral votes in states like Florida, New Mexico and Colorado to get elected President. He needs to promise the VP to Bill Richardson, but Richardson was in Clinton's cabinet.
I am very confused by the invisibility of Rudy Giuliani in the Republican race. The man had a large lead in all polls right up to Christmas, and has subsequently dropped off the charts. What happened? I occasionally see mention of his "strategy" to start in Florida, but surely that cannot be a strategy. Momentum is very rarely stopped in these races, and Giuliani cannot have seriously thought that joining late would give him an advantage? Its a mystery to me, can someone please shed some light on this?
The fact that 'It is out there; it really is', is because there is an email circulating, that says that 'under Islamic law a child picks up the religion of their father' (mothers should have converted, but if not they have no rights), and that 'because his father (same name Barack Hussein Obama Snr) was born a 'Muslim' then so was Jnr.
This, and a few other 'facts' about his education in Indonesia (allegations that he was at a Muslim school and 'registered' as a Muslim), have led to a lot of web pages being posted with this "He's a closet Muslim' statement as fact.
I guess that this will continue to circulate as 'fact' until either an Immam in Jakarta says that he's not a Muslim, or Mr Obama publically disavows being a Muslim and states again that he's a Christian.
Even then, someone will point out that Islam allows Muslims to lie to defend the faith against non muslims, so maybe he is stuck with the lie forever.
As someone once said "A lie can travel around the world twice, before the truth has even got out of bed". The 'Obama is a Muslim' Myth is tackled here
The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú has been 'over-excited' by Democrats in the 40 odd years I have followed American presidential elections. A good example which sticks in my mind is the joy in James Naughtie's voice on the Today programme the morning after Clinton's victory in 1992. The basic Democrat position conforms naturally to the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú 'world-view', which comes so naturally to the majority of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú production staff that it is rarely examined and acknowledged as the bias that in fact it is. I know a little of which I speak, having worked for the corporation some years ago and witnessed the phenomenon at first-hand.
Justin Webb: The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú sometimes gets it in the neck for being overly excited by Democrats (I reject that, by the way, but the charge is out there)
The Today programme (9 January) devoted approximately 28 minutes to discussion of the New Hampshire primaries; analysis of the Democrat result took up more than 23 minutes. Even that wasn't enough time for Jim Naughtie - he was still waxing lyrical about Obama and Clinton when the 9 o'clock pips cut him off mid-sentence.
The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú sometimes..overly excited by Democrats.
Surely not! Say not that there could be truth in the claims of "Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú bias" by "God-botherers"!
to Penyberth #16 - yes, there's a problem between latinos and blacks, especially in the western states with large latino populations. Then Barack sank whatever latino support he may have had in Nevada with his unbelievable comments praising Reagan last week - as one latino voter commented on a blog yesterday (I'm paraphrasing): 'we remember what Reagan did in Latin America.'
Now come on Justin! It's pretty obvious, and has been for lo these many years, that the liberals at Auntie Beeb would prefer to see a Democrat in the White House. Their love affair with the Clintons has hardly been a covert stance since Biil first ran for Commander-in-Chief, and I suspect that in their heart of hearts most Beeb staffers are voting by "proxy" for Bill and Hill.
It is all very well speaking about Nevada or Florida etc., and the various candidates and voters therin.
What about the likes of America overseas territories that are not states? Do they (like Puerto Rico, American Samoa and Guam) have the right to vote in the US presidential elections? If so under what "state" election - Washington DC? Please advise.
Thank you.
Your blog seems to me both insightful and unbiased. Thank you. As for the difference between coverage of the Republican contest and the Democratic contest, so far as I can tell at the moment from where I sit in the US, no Republican except McCain has a realistic chance of defeating either Clinton or Obama in the November election, so the likelihood is, given the chaos so far in Republican campaign strategy, that Clinton or Obama will be the next US president. if that's correct, it makes sense to focus more on the Clinton/Obama contests than on what's happening in the Republican primaries.
This remark is not because I prefer either party, or any particular candidate; I'm unimpressed by all the candidates who have a chance of winning a nomination, or the election. I don't know who I would vote for, or even if I'll bother to go to the polls. But of course, there's a reason why I find the candidates unimpressive. Among those US political leaders with both experience and good sense, who would want to be elected president in 2008? That's like Scott wanting to be first to the South Pole; lots of hubris, not much wisdom. So the people I would get enthusiastic about as candidates aren't running. The ones who are running and doing at all well so far seem not to have thought through the difficulty and seriousness of the problems the next US president will face in the first year or two after taking office.
A good friend of mine in New Jersey, a committed and intelligent Democrat, won't vote for Obama because he thinks he's a Muslim. And nothing I can say can change his mind. It's unbelievable but that's why Obama, who should win, won't.
I realise that this is a purely technical point, and maybe it's churlish to get in the way of the groupthink, but although Obama received fewer votes, than Clinton in Nevada, he got more delates, and it's the delagates that count. Call me crazy, but actually, he didn't lose, he won.
"The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú sometimes gets it in the neck for being overly excited by Democrats (I reject that, by the way, but the charge is out there)"...you must be having a laugh, Justin...the gloom on Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú faces in 2004, the soft ride given to Clinton over Rwanda & Lewinsky, the overused "neocon" label, above all the sniggering contempt for the so called"religious right"..do we have to go on?
The Democrats are a machine party that still operates by the rules of Tammany and, until recently, had the unwavering support of the alphabet networks - then along came Fox and the blogosphere and things began to change.
Thre is still a long time to go before the November election and Republicans are banking on the negative vibes that Hillary gives out to the millions of Americans outside the the Democrat core. They were worried after Iowa because they feared a new face in Obama, a face outside the DNC loop but the Clinton effect divides Americans even more than the Bush effect - though I doubt if we would ever hear it from "Today" or yourself, Justin.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Women are not voting for Obama any less in Nevada or New Hampshire than they were in Iowa. The difference is John Edwards.
If Obama wants to win convincingly he has to win John Edwards' spoils, which at the minute are going to Clinton. He needs to get his team doing more to win the undecided voters on the day of voting and he needs to do more to win the votes from those that believe Clinton is more likely to be a succesful leader, even if they think he is more "electable".
If Edwards ducks out after SC the big question is what he will do. If he puts his resources and support to Obama, then it'll be Obama to beat and not Clinton.
Re: David Smitham,
American territories do not vote (meaningfully) in the national election. Some can cast votes, but they don't count. The same is true for Washington, DC. You have to be a resident of a state.
As one would imagine, many US citizens residing in territories and DC are not happy with this. If you've visited DC, you may have seen the slogan on the license plates "Taxation without Representation", a wry allusion to Americans' complaint while subjects to King George. There has been legislation to allow DC to vote, but it has never passed. One argument is that Washington residents would be too skewed by the general political environment. A more cynical reason is that DC would always vote Democratic. I hope to have been helpful.
One fellow caucus-goer in Nevada summed up the experience by quoting Will Rogers: "I don't want to belong to an organized political party - that's why I'm a democrat".
People here received e-mails that 'Obama is a Muslim' (not true and never was to my knowledge) etc. in 'swift-boat' fashion. I hope there is a swift and effective response to these dirty tricks.
Also, unless I am mistaken, there is a subtleby lost in reporting a big Clinton win in Nevada. Did Obama not leave with a nearly equal number of precict delegates despite trailing a few % in caucus 'votes'?
James - #41, I hate to say it but you haven't been that helpful, or correct. Ever since the 23rd Amendment to the US Constitution was passed in 1960, voters in Washington DC have voted for President, with DC counting exactly the same as a small state, with 3 votes in the electoral college.
The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú are focusing more on the Democrat race- not in the detailed political blogs like Justin's, but in the 3 minute national news coverage certainly.
Personally I don't this is necessarily the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's fault, the gulf in culture between the American voter and the British voter is so large- and I think this is where the 'bias' comes from.
In Britain people like Huckabee, Romney etc... wouldn't even be serious candidates. Small wonder then that people in Britain don't really want to know about them at the primary level.
so what if Obama is a Muslim? Is a person's religion more important than his/her strategies for defense, terrorism, economy, e.t.c.? I thought people voted based on issues rather than their religion. Correct me if I am wrong...
The results in South Carolina will not determine the result of the Democratic nomination - Super Duper Tuesday is where that will happen - and where I suspect Clinton will win the big states that matter. If Obama cannot win any of the big states like California, New York, Florida, Texas, Illinois or New Jersey he is doomed.
A friend of mine, who lives in New Hampshire, told be that her mother, who I did take to be a reasonably well educated woman, doesn't trust Mr Obama because she believes he is 'an Iraqi spy'.
Time to wheel out Oprah Winfrey again, methinks ! What's the betting she will be out in force on the television on the eve of Super Tuesday ?
I agree with the posters who note that the Hillary/Obama race is much more compelling....both have good chances of making it into the White House, while the Republicans are still having demolition derby amongst themselves. Until they sort themselves out, it's a little hard to fault the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú for paying closer attention to the Democrats.
To #39 "callingallcomets": well, I didn't notice gloomy faces at the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú in 2004, but I think most of us can agree that our current president is ignorant and incompetent. That may not have been clear to the American electorate in 2004, but it was abundantly clear to anyone who followed global affairs or economics. Maybe those Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú folks knew something after all.
"22. At 02:53 PM on 20 Jan 2008, Alan wrote:
"God-bothering"? Christians pray to God; they do not "bother" Him?
"
I think the term means people who bother other people with their chat about God
Can someone clear this up for me: I read somewhere that Obama has got more delegates out of Nevada than Clinton: if so, who's actually won?
Can someone explain Post 37?
I do enjoy this blog.
Thanks
re: James Stevens,
On the contrary, DC does vote for the President: DC is entitled to as many votes in the Electoral College as it would be entitled to had it Congressional representation (so, currently 3). What DC does not have is any Senatorial representation, or voting Congressional representation (instead, they elect a non-voting Delegate, Eleanor Holmes-Norton).
Legislation has passed the House to convert this non-voting delegate to a full-fledged Congress(wo)man, and to counteract the fact that this will always be a Democrat, Utah would simultaneously be granted an additional At-Large seat, as this is confident to be a Republican, however it fell in the Senate in September.
The other US territories, however, are in a Colonial situation, where they can be drafted to war by a President in whose election they have no say.
To Tom Rutherford and John Smith,
Thanks, both, for the correction. Sorry for the bad information: I had in mind congressional representation for DC, as noted by Mr Smith.
"I Agree with Antisilence. Why no mention of Ron Paul? His progress is very interesting to many people but it doesn't seem to matter what happens, media commentators ignore him as a fringe candidate - something of a self-fulfilling prophecy."
But he is not a fringe candidate. he has raised more money from grass roots than any other candidate and he has secured more county delegates from Nevada than Mitt Romney.
The media will not tell you this because they are deliberately and wilfully self censoring the news in direct contradiction to what Justin Webb himself promised in only November when he promised to report and analyse. I guess then that Justin was not terrified of what he percieved as a fringe candidate. Well the Fringe candidate has defeated the former front runner 'Rudy' in almost every single real poll taken since.
Ron's supporters are very bright and know the rules and are playing them to a T. They are not the mere headline skimmers who can be mislead into supporting illegal and immoral wars. They are far more politically aware than most of the mainstream political journalists if most of the coverage of the election is anything to go by.
re post #43...mmmmm..so the Americans were really stupid in 2004 (must be true because the Daily Mirror said so) but if Clinton/Obama wins in 2008 that means Americans are now clever because they will have chosen either a woman whose "experience" rests solely on being someone's wife or an attractive suit who regurgitates Jimmy Carter's old campaign speeches - and this is being clever?
Mr. Huckabee's petty, tasteless remarks also were directed at Senator Thompson, who offended the good reverend by simply pointing out the long, consistent public record the man assembled as governor of Arkansas.
Just like the last Baptist governor of Arkansas who pursued Presidential aspirations, Rev. Huckabee deeply resents anyone, anywhere, anytime who challenges his version of anything.
As a Republican, and conservative Christian, I find this to be very unsettling, and not a trait of character that qualifies him for office.
You are absolutely correct, this is going to be a long process of sorting out in the Republican Party, as it decides on a 'global' basis what it is and what it is not.
Senator Thompson, among others, has been a catalyst who has (in his own words), 'held up a mirror' to the party. It's not a pretty sight, is it?
Here's hoping the senator will find a viable means of remaining in the race. As a partisan, I would prefer he win, but barring that, he is needed to keep everyone else honest.
Thanks for your good insights, and your fair-minded presentation of your thoughts.
Keep up the good work!
Why is Obama 'the better brand' over Hilary? He's a congressman, in the midst of his 1st term as a Senator. What has he done that is so great, besides make some speeches that make people feel good? Speeches, I might add, that have come from other great black male orators, political or not. And you know what? B. Clinton is right to attack Obama, because the press otherwise treats Obama as if he's a rock star that gets a pass and a 'wink-wink' for ill-advised or negative comments that have been attributed to him or his camp. Instead of looking to the
Clintons as being so negative, maybe we should be asking why all the stories on the Clintons are mostly negative and Obama's are mostly positive? If that were the case, would you not fight for your candidate (especially your spouse)if you thought they were being treated unfairly? These candidates are running for the President of the USA, arguably the most important and complex job in the world. This blogger himself suggested that it was odd that Iowans would vote for Huckabee and Obama, the 2 candidates with the least amount of international experience. ALL candidates should be vigorously vetted. And if you want it, you need to fight for it. And you know what? The last time we got a candidate who ran as a 'uniter', we got the present President
Bush. The last time people (to my recollection) voted for 'hope', we got JFK who had a spotty international record and we now know told MLK to wait.
If the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú seem biased towards the Democrats, I'd suggest that it's really a reflection of British bias towards them. I think we generally prefer American presidents who aren't intent on starting World War III.
I wonder if the rumour that Obama is Muslim spreads quickly and is hard to dislodge because people find it convenient to believe such a thing. Those people who are inclined to be prejudiced against him because his father is African don't want to admit they are racially prejudiced,even to themselves. To "find out" that he is Muslim is a gift. It allows them to be prejudiced against him because he is Muslim. It's OK to be anti-Muslim in America at the moment. No one seems to think it unreasonable, even people who call themselves "liberal" and whom I considered knowledgeable.
Mr Kelly is wrong on all counts and have not done even the slightest investigation on Islam to rush off to contribute nails for Obamas coffin.
Here is the explanation from a Muslim.
In Islam everybody is born a Muslim (that includes kelly) and is thier parents/guardians/society that later change them. Everybody is born with the believe in One God. This aspect of islam is what Kelly is distorting to mean "in islam child picks up the religion of thier father". Again kellys comment is so unintelligent because what if the child refuses? How can he then be a Muslim? Faith is primarily in the heart and nobody can force the other, not even the Sharia. The Sharia which kelly ignorantly quotes is a political system where the constitution is replaced by Qur'an and Sunnah. Now tell me how a constitution can make you believe in anything. The law of the land can bind you to something but will have no control whatsoever on your heart. People should therefore not get emotional and write things out of context simply because they dont like someone. And when kelly says Muslims lie to defend thier faith, he is taking the argument to another level, because kelly is now portraying obama as some spy which is simply unacceptable. The extent people go to discredit another. I personally dont care who wins because it is an american affair. I just set the records straight about islam. Maybe Paul Ron would be more interesting to me if I were american.
I believe either Obama or Hillary will be a good present.
I vote Hillary because I am a woman. If women do not support women, do we expect men to support us in all professional fields?
"As always you seem fit to not even mention Ron Paul, his millions, supporters and him placing 2nd in Nevada yesterday. I shall be writing to the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Trust. I will not pay my license money to someone who is actively censoring my candidate."
I think the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú could well afford to offend the 14 Ron Paul supporters out there in Lala Land.
it is an unfortunate affair that Americans are looking up Mr Obama - fearing that he may be Muslim and having serious concerns. This shows how not only American foriegn policy makers but a great majority of Americans are against Muslims and Islam.
It is time, I think to make decisions based on relgion too- because he/she is Muslim, Christian, jew....... follow the great Americans.. Shame.