I like Obama from what I've seen most recently, but I'm not emotionally invested because all politicians are mortal and the system in Washington is intractably entrenched with respect to self, and special interests. Every candidate that I've seen the last 40 years, has run on the campaign pillars of "hope, change, and unity". Clinton was "the Man from Hope", Bush was "a uniter not of divider", and both created the most politically polarizing administrations we've ever had.
All things being equal policy wise, I'd like a fresh start with Obama. The Clintons have demonstrated that when in office they will work for the common people to improve their lives. They are Machievellian to be sure, but on the side of the people. They had to fight dirty in Washington even to do good things for the country. Bush/Cheney are Machievellian on the side of corporations and cronys. But with Hillary you get Bill again, and I'm not a fan of his from the Monica bullshit. But I don't think Hillary should drop out now. The Clinton's are tough and tenacious. That's their hallmark, and I don't expect them to change now. Republicans had been easily kicking the Democrats asses before they put a stop to it. If Obama beats their political machine with his welcome positive approach, he'll be ready for the Republicans. He'll have beaten Bill, who is obviously helping plan Hillary's strategy. And Bill Clinton is a very tough man to beat at this game.
The World is Watching and Wants More: Clinton-Obama Race Should Go All the Way
Buzz this article up.
Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton struggling against each other for every superdelegate, every pending state primary, every vote is the best thing America has had going for it in some time on the "global public diplomacy" front.
John McCain's subtle flirtation with vice presidential possibilities ranging from his former rival Mitt Romney to Mike Huckabee to Michael Bloomberg to Condoleezza Rice -- among others -- has caught the attention of people in Mumbai, Jakarta, Rio, Riyadh, Beijing, Damascus, and far more.
The world is seeing Americans struggle about who U.S. citizens want in the White House. There is no stacked deck, no automatic succession, no heir apparent -- and this political experience of dramatic uncertainty and the pairing of an elder pro-Iraq War POW torture-victim turned leading Senator vs. either the first African-American or female candidate has the feel of a presidential election of a life-time -- the kind that won't be forgotten for a century.
Anyone remember Mondale-Reagan? I didn't think so. . .
Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama can win the Democratic primary through pledged delegates. Now, superdelegates and the candidate's nuanced strengths and weaknesses in the eyes of party elders could show those around the world another dimension of America's electoral system that few -- even in America -- get to see.
The race should go all the way to the Convention.
Dem leaders like Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Howard Dean should stop trying to end the process. Let it go to its conclusion -- and let's turn the process into something really magnificent to see in its fullest. . . kind of like a total solar eclipse. Totality.
Do the entire thing.
The world is watching, learning. And American popularity in the eyes of global citizens watching us is surging because of the excitement and uncertainty of this fascinating election.
-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
HRC's campaign should continue because the world is watching and learning? Isn't this the same logic that sold us the Iraq War? Remember? A little bit of shock and awe, and then the world would see a peaceful and democratic Iraq? How's that going?
No. Just that: NO.
The campaign should go through the last primary / caucus. Every state should have the opportunity to vote, even though we are now more or less reconciled that the superdelegates will decide the nominee. The voters' will (and any other relevant criteria) will be just as clear at the end of June as it will be in August. I see nothing to be gained by waiting, and much to be lost. We must engage McCain with a single voice, the sooner the better.
When is Obama's book about how he and his supporters have acted during this election going to be released?
It is entitled "The Audacity of Audacity"
I think you confused it with Hillary's "The Audacity of Hopelessness: Hillary's Pact With the Devil, Karl Rove"
Genius title!
Brilliant!
More conventional wisdom from the professionals who should learn a real trade like shining shoes. These people are members of the same crowd who brought us Iraqi Freedom.
Quit already with this endless coverage. The real news goes unreported and the Republicans are basking in their glorious, new found abandonment by the media.
Anyone who actually believes that Hillary Clinton is continuing this campaign because she loves democracy is clearly delusional. Her entire campaign is driven by ego & hunger for power. She is the worst kind of demagogue whose political ruthlessness belie her claim to speak for the common good. Of course she is entitled to continue her campaign, but I have no doubt that as she falls further & further behind, her attacks will get more & more vicious, will only increase the divisiveness of the party & will damage Barack Obama's chances in the general election. But since she won't bow out graciously, we might as well let it play out until the last primary in June. At that point, it will be up to the superdelegates to renounce her kind of scorched earth, ego-driven candidacy & end it by endorsing Obama. Letting it drag on to the convention in August would just be an act of masochism & self-destruction for the party.
Thank you. I feel sometimes I'm the only person left who LOVES the ideas behind our democratic process. I am appalled by the voice of the Independents who wish to disenfranchise voters, bully people out, applaud the maneuvers of the marketing strategists. Hillary has, in my opinion, reintroduced America to DEMOCRACY. I LOVED it when the polls were wrong in NH. Didn't we all get a kick out of that one? I LOVED it when those idiots on TV made fools of themselves talking about how CA was neck-and-neck, and then she won every county but 3 in CA. Didn't you all really enjoy watching those idiots backpeddle? I LOVED that speech in Ohio. ISn't that the essence of American Democracy? The power-brokers in Washington keep trying to close the deal. The voters keep saying, "No, WE are the people."
What's ironic is that HIllary, not Obama, is leading the populist ground-swell. Now, only in America would this turn out to be the case. The guy who talks it, can't do it. The woman who everyone paints as corporate America is, in fact, representing the little guy and gal.
This is too rich to stop.
You sound like Bush telling us everything is going as planned in Iraq.
The Democrats have nothing to gain and everything to lose from continuing this contest.
If you think HRC should stay in, tinker with Slate's delegate counter. It proves pretty effectively that she can't win.
http://www.slate.com/id/2187679/
If there weren't a cost to HRC staying in the race, I'd say, sure, why not? But there are costs:
1) Every week, the Dems negatives go up while McCain's positives go up.
2) The tens of millions of dollars being spent on the primary could go to the general election. I know I don't have unlimited funds, and I'll bet there are lots of people who will feel tapped out by the time the primaries wrap up.
3) The intra-party divide increases each week; the tension is real and the bad blood won't entirely go away. The more time to heal, the better.
There are numerous precedents for wrapping up the nomination before all the states have voted. There's no precedent for the superdelegates to overturn the votes of the voters.
The great thing aboout letting this play itself out is that Hillary will sink to the love level in America of Our current dictator, Bush.
She should stay in so th4e hatre of her can drive her and all of her and Bills' opinions into the national archives never to be heard or catred about again.
Thank you Hillary for making the world remember how the two of you were such horrible people, in sheeps clothing.
thanks for bringing sense to a great situation---the world is watching--it sees candidates with strength and current lawmakers as stupid and weak--all the bias is out in the open and a titanic battle of woman or black man for the nomination is historical--yes,lets take it to the end!!!
If you call yourselves Democrats perhaps you should get your heads out of your collective A___s and come to the realization that the race "going all the way", which sounds like a stupid jock analogy if ever there was one, would hand McSame the election. If that is your goal then kindly switch sides and stop posting here - Red State would love to have you!
The World is not who's voting in the election. It's American voters.
STYLE IS IN.
SUBSTANCE IS OUT.
SOUND BITES ARE IN.
CONTENT IS OUT.
MEDIA IS IN.
JOURNALISM IS OUT.
These are the tools of Republican MEDIA. They will use these to push McCain on American voters.
Meanwhile, Dems are busily burying each other in hogwash instead of fighting to win the election.
If Obama defeats McCain in the general, that will be a victory for Style over Substance.
What is bogus patriotism? Substance?
What is real patriotism? Style?
OBAMA LIES IN PENNSYLVANIA AD
From NBC/NJ"s Aswini Anburajan
GREENBURG, Pa. -- The Clinton campaign today accused the Obama campaign of "false advertising," claiming that a recent ad Obama released in Pennsylvania was disngenous because Obama has been the recipient of more than $200,000 from the oil and gas industry.
In the ad, Obama says, "I'm Barack Obama, and I don't take money from oil companies or lobbyists, and I won't let them block change any more."
Obama has taken $213,884 from the oil and gas industry as of Feb. 29th, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Sen. Hillary Clinton has taken $306,813 in that same period.
Two of Obama's campaign bundlers are also CEOs for oil and gas companies, per a list released on his campaign Web site.
Robert Cavnar, listed as a bundler who has raised between $50,000 to $100,000 for the campaign, is the chairman and CEO of Mission Resources Corp., a Houston-based firm. George Kaiser, also listed in the same $50,000 to $100,000 category, is the CEO of Tulsa-based Kaiser-Francis Oil Company.
"It's unfortunate that Senator Obama is using false advertising to explain why he can be trusted to do something about energy prices," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said. "Senator Obama says he doesn't take campaign contributions from oil companies but the reality is that Exxon, Shell, and others are among his donors."
http://tinyurl.com/2on6dr
hinnis: (a) your posted comment has nothing to do with what the above piece was about, and (b) since when should we believe something because Hillary's campaign says it? Experience tells me to doubt them more often than not.
The facts of this article are from the Center for Responsive Politics. And, it is relevant to the article because Hillary must keep fighting to expose Obama for what he is: a deceptive and fraudulent charlatan.
Right . . . . Obama is deceptive, and Clinton really did face snipers in Bosnia.
Clinton was also responsible for opening borders, SCHIP, and the internet - oh, wait, that was Al Gore.
My point is this: of the two, Clinton has been more deceptive. She is the one who has consistently tried to change the way the race is measured. When she was ahead it was all based on the delegates, then it was that she has won the big states (two of which, California and New York will go Dem who the nominee is), and now it is who has won more 'electoral' states.
Seriously, she sounds like Bush did when he kept changing the reasons we were going to war in Iraq.
The Presidential election season is becoming a neverending circus, where most of the Presidential candidates act like clowns in order to get the attention of a bored, apathetic and oblivious electorate which can easily get excited over who to vote for on "American Idol" or "Dancing With The Stars", but who don't seem to care much about the future of the nation or of mankind, while those few Presidential candidates who want to discuss ideas are shut out, marginalized and ignored by the corporate-controlled media. The Clintons aren't going to "go away", primarily because of the tantalizing prospect of officially instituting a "dynastic Presidency", and they're not about to squander that particular opportunity in the name of "party unity". They're going to fight it out until the bitter end, and that "bitter end" will be in Denver during the Democratic National Convention.
The world is watching and learning allright! And they will learn more (yet through "different" means) if the warmonger McCain won!
Uniting the party and saving lives is more important than this alleged entertainment/educational show.
Let it go all the way to the Convention. Hilary Clinton will still loseand her lost will be even more pathetic
Carol
The world is watching us alright, and noticing that the Democratic party is F'd up.
LOL :)
In 1992, the first Bush left an economic mess, that Clinton cleaned up. When Clinton left office, Bush took over a cashed up, prosperous economy, with good relations with its allies.. Eight years later Bush the 2nd has left an even greater economic mess than the first Bush, and our allies view us with disdain. I'm an independent who was open-minded after Bush 2nd took office, and the objectively different results of eights years of Democratic policies, and eight years of Republican policies stand in stark contrast to each other. We are de-evolving as a nation right before our eyes. How come everybody can't see that? What am I missing?
If the Clinton and Obama supporters are seriously considering voting for McCain if their choice is not nominated, I'd have to seriously question their interest in the well-being of this nation. To let the Republican "tax cut" holy grail, greed, cronyism, fiscal irresponsibiility, and disregard for American citizens, values and civil liberties continue past election day 2008 out of spite, would simply be unconscionable. For anyone who has ever wondered what it was like to live during the Harding or Hoover adminstrations, now you know.
Look a little further. You'll see that many of Clinton's economic plans happened with Republicans. He didn't do this on his own. For a true accounting of who Clinton really is, look at Justice Ginsberg. A President does not set policies, those are decisions made by a lot of people.
The interest in the well-being of this nation is not served by voting for Clinton (who failed at the things she was trying to do) or Obama (who is clueless and has never done it before). Look at their very own policies, and compare them to reality.
As for tax cuts, I'll say the same thing I always say that no one ever responds to: If you don't chip in for breakfast, don't expect to eat. Poor people don't foot taxes, they get it back through programs and refunds. Rich people are the ones footing their bill. It's no wonder the Democrats say Republicans don't care about the lower class. Who wants a class of people that basically amount to leeches.
As for values, the Democrats are far worse about things like that. They believe in unequal treatment and preferences for women and minorities that are undeserved. True equality comes when people ignore that crap and do things on merit. True responsibility comes when people blame themselves, and not society, or patriarchy, or whatever the buzzword is these days, for their failures, and do better by them.
RepublicanBrain: Now there's an oxymoron. The GOP have basically mugged America and left her for dead in the ditch. Which reminds me - contrary to some of my earlier postings, I WILL vote for HRC if she gets the nomination. We cannot afford another Republican in the WH.
Can you do anything besides mock my name? There's a reason specifically why I picked it. Bonus points if you can guess what it is.
Republican Brain said: "You'll see that many of Clinton's economic plans happened with Republicans."
He also said, "True responsibility comes when people blame themselves, and not society, or patriarchy, or whatever the buzzword is these days, for their failures, and do better by them."
So, following your reason, should Republicans who controlled all three houses of government until 2006 take true responsibility and blames themselves for the economic, spiritual, and global mess our nation is in? Or is this the result of Democratic policies in your view? How does the policies of the Bush administration compare to the reality that we find ourselves in?
Since you are a Bush supporter I would like you or any other Republican on this board to please tell me exactly why you think that George Bush has been a good president for our nation these eight years. I'm an independent voter equally dissatisfied for many years with both parties, so I ask in a true interest of understanding your viewpoint. Have the Republicans earned another chance at government after these eight years on merit? List all the positives that you legitimately believe support returning the neo-con Republican philosophy to the White House for another term of government.
Global mess? You're going to have to be a little more specific. Do you mean reputation? This can be adequately lobbed at Bush, but what exactly does it mean? America doesn't like terrorists? America is willing to go to war to take out a dictator? What, exactly, is bad about that? Please don't say the whining of the people, that isn't much of anything.
In conclusion, it really isn't the Bush administration's fault for this "mess." Neither is it the liberals, if you think about it. The fault comes down to the everyday person. They are in charge of the market, they are in charge of elections, and they don't want to accept responsibility. The liberals' fault was encouraging the people to blame Bush and leading the charge to gain votes and power. It's a cycle that has swung the other way before (Clinton's impeachment) and will do so again in the future if these methods continue.
If you want a view on Bush, why don't you look at the beginning of his first term in office. But folk seem to forget that so quickly.
Have the Republicans earned another chance? The question is a misomer. A Republican or Democrat always inhabit the White House. There will be no Bull Moose. The question comes to look at the candidates and their policies. Hillary and Obama are failures, McCain is not. Knowingly electing a failure is a bad move.
Should they accept responsibility for the "economic, spiritual, and global mess our nation is in?" For the parts they committed, certainly. However, they didn't create the whole thing, and placing the burden upon their shoulders is wrong. After all, we don't see George W. Bush with an intern in the Oval Office.
The "mess" we are in is a result of many things. First, let's look at the economy: Why anyone blames this on Bush is beyond me. The economy's driving force is supply and demand, spending power. Ultimately, it comes down to business and consumer. When causes recession isn't government, it's purchasing power. And that, ultimately, lies in the hands of the consumers.
Spiritual mess? This is Bush's fault how? Spirituality is the concern of organized religion and the individual. Freedom of religion and separation of church and state and all prevent me from lobbying this at Bush
I don't think Bill or Newt are responsible for the affluence of the 90's.
First the Internet brought amazing effectiveness to projects. Embedded projects that I worked on in the 80s typically took 12 - 18 months. By the end of the 90s that went to under 6 months, even with new chip development.
Second, gridlock and the ML affair stopped any but the most middle of the road spending bills from getting through. The less government does the better. We've seen both Democrat and Republican majorities and neither work well.
I think the biggest thing we could do to help our economy is constitute term limits. It's been a real boon to California where politicians are no longer able to kindom build.
Posted March 30, 2008 | 09:32 AM (EST)