Slopes off?
Alex van den Bergh raises a ghastly prospect particularly for those of us hoping to get a week's skiing in before the summer. He (or she) is right of course: equally it is possible, is it not, that Clinton could win the most votes in Texas but lose in terms of delegates allocated? (Because of the complexity of the system which gives extra weight to activists and areas that have voted heavily for Democrats in the past.)
I wonder about Nick Payne's suggestion that she should get personal: I have seen her do it before live audiences and she does not seem able to do it in a way that comes across as authentic.
Greta, I salute your learned contributions.
Apologies to Abby and others who have pointed out that the Nation of Islam was NOT founded by Mr Farrakhan as I incorrectly suggested.
John Lewis raises the New Hampshire Cowardice Issue as we should call it: do you think we will dare report it even if she throws in the towel and moves to Canada? I'm going to take a day off that day.
And Brett I hear what you say about Israel: I heard someone suggesting the other day that Obama had made a major mistake by failing to name Israel among America's top three allies in the world. Does it matter electorally for Obama if he does upset Jewish voters? Anyone remember the story about what James Baker is alleged to have said about the need for Jewish support for the Republican Party in his era?
Keith suggests (Obama Rolls with the Punches) that Mr Obama lets others do his dirty work for him and I thought it was indeed striking that when the Senator was asked about that statement he said airily that it was a fight "at a staff level!" What does that mean? Does he take responsibility for it or not?
This claim from K Tyson is interesting. "Obama's office in Houston is flying the Cuban flag with a big picture of Che on it." Is it true?
I read the debate on socialism in Obama on Poverty - and noted Margaret's comments in particular. I am sure many Americans who lack the time to read blogs (I sound like Hillary here) would agree. As for the debate aftermath: the first paragraph of sums it up.
But much, much more interesting - do please take a look at the West Wing video to be found - it's worth waiting for after the advert - for a fascinating explanation of why Obama and The West Wing really are linked (as someone suggested on this blog some time ago, I seem to remember).
Hello, I'm 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
As a ardent fan of The West Wing, I find the comparisons made with the Obama to be fairly wide of the mark. Santos' victory was never supposed to happen: where it not for the untimely death of actor John Spencer (Leo) Series 7 would never have ended as it did. Russel was by all means considered unsuitable for the role of the President by key elements within the Democratic party, and, as an independent observer, not like Hilary Clinton in this respect. As the depth of Santos' Education Plan, where is such detail apparent in Obama's campaign? Obama may be a visionary candidate in many ways, but this should not lead to an exaggeration of his similarities to a candidate from a TV show that was, by and large, beyond the pale of ordinary politics, be it American or not.
"Does it matter electorally for Obama if he does upset Jewish voters?"
Here is a link to a discussion that Obama had with Jewish leaders in Cleveland. He demonstrates (whether you agree with him or not) extremely well thought out positions on the uncompromising questions he is asked. A lot less hot air, a lot more wise insight in my opinion. If you think Obama is all about political hyperbole, you really should read it.
I find Justin hard to listen to because he is so anti American, anti Republican,anti Bush. I do admire him however for managing to get away with his brazenly tendentious despatches on what is supposed to be a neutral,impartial public boroadcasting service.(We call that chutzpah round here)
I worry about Obama, I worry about his vagueness. I also worry about his clarity - on Iraq. He speaks with a disturbing moral certainty but only seems to address a question from six years ago - whether to go to war. The President in 2009 doesn't have to find the right answer to that question, it's history. He or she must decide what to do now, and that is something Obama doesn't want to talk about. When he is forced to address it, he says something stupid, like he did the other day, suggesting he would send troops back in "if Al Qaeda formed a base in Iraq". This is a pattern - he stumbles when forced into specifics. He'd rather fight yesterday's battles, and prove, in schoolboyish fashion, that he was right and everyone else was wrong.
The fact is, his arguments about withdrawal didn't make sense even a year ago, and make much less sense now, after what looks like the clear success of the new counter-insurgency strategy. Precipitate withdrawal could have truly dire consequences in the region. In fact, in many ways, the calculations about what could happen mirror the warnings of those who counselled against the original invasion - a power vacuum, a resurgence of terrorism, civil war, invasion by Turkey, the involvement of Iran. No matter how bad things are now (and they were much worse before last summer), they can always get much, much worse.
Obama has invested so much political capital in this unwise policy that I suspect he would find it nearly impossible to do an about-turn without losing a huge amount of credibility. Essentially, the only thing that might save Iraq is a further stabilisation of the country between now and January 2009, which would (through sheer luck) allow him to start withdrawing without causing too much damage.
The more I listen to him, the more I'm convinced he should not be trusted with the keys to the White House.
What is it that you wanted Senator Clinton to do at the debate? Come in and break some scandal involving Barack? It accomplished many good things for her: Proving for the final time that SHE is the President, while he is the "candidate"; revealing Barack's close ties to Louis Farrakhan and watching him disgustingly spend a great deal of time parsing the words "denounce" and "reject" when it came to rejecting Farrakhan’s brand of terrorism all together; this, "my friends" will come back to bite off one of his cheeks entirely; and Hillary's big wink to America that we all know the press continues to be biased, misogynistic, and discriminatory when it comes to covering her as the first viable woman running for president. We're all in on the mess, except for all chauvinists at MSNBC INCLUDING Russert. You ought to link Gail Collins NYTimes Op-Ed from today: "Hillary, Buckeye Girl." But you won't. And, her superior command of Foreign Affairs actually made his lack of the same look really scary. I echo SNL's Tina Fey, "Get on board Texas and Ohio. Bitch is the new Black!"
In terms of what might happen in Texas, all I can say is God I hope not!! But if it does, well-world comunity, prepare to laugh even harder!
With respect of Isrial, I'm surprised! I mean I always knew they were in our top 10 allies in the world, but the top 3? Really? Somehow I always thought it was the UK, Canada, Australia, and then Japan and Isrial, or something along those lines. I don't know. I guess to some extent its all in the eye of the beholder. But regardless the jewish vote will be needed in both parties.
In my view, Clinton's petty attacks on Obama have damaged her candidacy. She does best when she focuses on policy - healthcare is HER issue. But going after Obama on such things as copying someone else's speech, or whether Obama's denounciation of Farrakhan was indeed a rejection, plays straight into the Illinois senator's hands. He can easily take on a presidential air and say, "This is thing I'm talking about changing." After seeing the debate yesterday morning over a bowl of cornflakes, I'm inclined to think he has a point.
Loved the West Wing video....art imitating life or life imitating art..??!!!
Agreed with #1...Hillary has lost the plot by playing into Obama's hands and not sticking to what she does best...and that he (Obama) has a point regarding the same old same old politics.
It seems more and more she is now past her sell by date, her time was 2004, not 2008. Obama, love him or hate him, represents a change in American poltics, just as Blair was in the UK.
So long as Obama doesn't end up being totally vacuous like Blair, then there is indeed hope. He should pave the way for "proper" candidates again. But if he fails to deliver....what will happen to all that hope???
"Obama's office in Houston is flying the Cuban flag with a big picture of Che on it." Is it true?
Nope. Fox News mistakenly reported this about a week ago (?) but it was in fact the office of a volunteer who was told to take it down once the Obama team arrived. Fox retracted, kerfuffle over.
Thanks for the responses, Justin. It's good to know you read ours.
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed
I find your blog to be very fair to all.
All who fret about Obama's Iraq stance or McCain's tax stance seem to forget the drive to the center that is usually in effect in Washington and was intended by the USA's founders.
Once in office there is a chance for a reality check, preferably in the first few months.
A Democratic president will bring a more engaging foreign policy overall but might meet reality with a more measured (slower paced) withdrawal from Iraq to leave a secure and safe country behind.
A Republican president might meet reality with the impracticability of extending the Bush tax cuts in the face of the deficit and our infrastructure needs, and/or a much harder sell before another unilateral use of force overseas.
Why is it that Obama’s supporters sound like fanatics? They try to win debates by screaming louder than their opponents. They speak on behalf of all democrats, failing to realize that half of the party is not part of this self-proclaimed movement. Finally, they also make fallacious appeals to logic by evoking such tangible terms as "motivation" and by making demands that candidates should quite a race because they are hampering the democratic process. Last I checked, trying to bully someone out of a race is hampering the democratic process. As a Canadian observer in U.S. politics, and someone's whose financial interests lie in the U.S., I really fear for our neighbour.
Well, I can't remember if I've commented it but I've certainly been thinking about it, re the West Wing. I've been watching season 6 roughly in time with this year's campaign season, having not watched it at the time, and while I wouldn't say Clinton has much in common with Russell, the parallels betweeen Obama and Santos and McCain and Vinick are pretty clear. The West Wing (for obvious dramatic reasons) always tends to favour the candidates with the best oratory - it'll be interesting to see how it plays out in the real world.
And I still think it would be funny if Martin Sheen ran for president :)
What about John Edwards? Nobody seems to be talking about him at all. But isn't it possible that, if this Tuesday leads to nothing conclusive (e.g., Clinton wins Ohio, and loses in Texas even while winning the popular vote), then Edwards would jump onto the Obama bus? Wouldn't that be enough to halt the prospect of a long and devastating primary? I know if I were Howard Dean, it's Edwards I'd be putting the pressure on--not on Hillary, who seems to be in this for the long haul.
Why does everyone say that Clinton won big on Tuesday March 04. The final result is not yet in for Texas and Obama has a great chance of takin the state. He will almost certainly end up with more dlegates than Clinton.
If this is Clinton winning Texas I am confused.
If this is Clinton winning big I am dumfounded.
If this is Clinton winning, then I have lost the plot.
If Obama ends up with most delegates then that means that Obama wins Texas and Obama wins in the Lone star state where the odds against him winning was BIG BIG BIG.
Yes if Obama takes the nmost delegates from Texas he wins Texas BIG!