April 21, 2008
Column: Clinton’s last chance to stop Obama
Going into Tuesday’s crucial Pennsylvania primary, Hillary Clinton’s task looks not just difficult – as it has for weeks – but nigh on impossible. Overturning Barack Obama’s lead in the contest for the Democratic nomination requires, among other things, convincing victories in all the remaining primaries, of which Pennsylvania is the biggest. The polls offer little encouragement. Mrs Clinton’s once-commanding lead in Pennsylvania has narrowed in recent days, and the picture in Indiana and North Carolina is no better.
The striking thing is that her diminished prospects are not the consequence of a flawlessly conducted campaign by her opponent. Far from it. Mr Obama first had to weather the Jeremiah Wright affair, when video snippets of sermons by his pastor and one-time spiritual adviser revealed that gentleman (even if only in moments “taken out of context”) to be a ranting racist demagogue. No sooner had that subsided than Mr Obama, recorded in private conversation with (as he supposed) loyal supporters, talked about the limits to political sophistication in small-town America.
The remainder of this column can be read here. Please post comments below.
Congratulations, Mr Crook. With your mighty pen you have successfully influenced the FT to endorse Obama. And as you yourself write in your column, an Obama candidacy could conceivably benefit McCain (I think it probably would).
For myself I will to stick to Edward Luce, who brings us revealing snippets from Obama’s campaign trail in Pennsylvania:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/07eabf4c-0f05-11dd-9646-0000779fd2ac.html
Obama tells a packed crowd: “I have been campaigning for 15 months, babies who weren’t even born before I started are now walking and talking.”
Tell me, what is the purpose of such a statement apart from revealing how self-centred that man is?
Now for substance: Obama tours door-to-door in a small town residential neighbourhood in Pennsylvania. “Any questions?” he asks when people open the door. Is that what the presidential candidate has to say? Can he not garner any meaningful words without being prompted? Is he at a loss when not on the stump, without his ready-made speech lines?
Posted by: RCS | April 21st, 2008 at 12:54 pm | Report this commentI speak for myself and myself alone. I know the comments that Obama made that lots of people in small town Pennsylvania are “bitter”; I also know that he is correct. Amazingly, there are people in these small towns who appreciate that his understanding.
Posted by: Kirk, small-town, white male, Pennsylvania | April 21st, 2008 at 1:06 pm | Report this commentThis is an area that fueled the country with our coal and built the country with our steel. These industries are gone. Between environmental concerns and trade realities, they will never return.
Some of us, including me, have moved to the “knowledge economy”, it doesn’t make the “bitter” comments less correct. It also doesn’t make me appreciate commentators and campaigns that explain to me why I should be offended.
As Kirk’s comment implies, it is the media pundits, not Barack Obama, who are looking down on small town voters. Obama, by pointing out the frustrations and anxieties of the average Americans who have been left out of the Bush/Cheney program of prosperity for the rich and job losses for so many others, is simply telling the truth.
Obama is also telling the truth when he points out that our political system is geared to distracting the voters who have the most to lose from skewed Republican economic policies by using the phoney issues of “God, guns and gays”, now supplemented by Latino immigrant-bashing. The smear attacks on Obama’s patriotism because of his membership in a particular black church, while attempting to indentify him with the likes of Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam (not to mention the lie that Obama himself is a Muslim) are, like the anti-immigrant movement, also racist to the core. Willie Horton (or should I say Guillermo Horton?) is alive and well in this election campaign.
Roger Algase
Posted by: algasema | April 21st, 2008 at 1:35 pm | Report this commentEven a sceptic is tempted to pray that Hillary loses.
She’s the ugly pink bunny that just doesn’t stop beating its drum, boring the hell out of you.
Good Lord, I’m tired of hearing her flat, brittle voice telling us what an experienced leader she is. This person who experience consists of sometimes donning an apron to bake cookies in the White House and fending off the brickbats of those who find her obnoxious and defending her ultra-sleazy husband.
One wonders if the poor people of Pennsylvania are really that pathetic that they’ll vote for claims of visiting the state as a kid to go to a cottage with no modern conveniences. She who was raised in a very rich Chicago suburb. It’s enough to make you puke.
Of course, her hollow claims miss the point entirely. People all over the world desperately need a fresh voice in that hellhole called Washington, and she’s about as fresh as Richard Nixon.
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | April 21st, 2008 at 2:40 pm | Report this commentGoing into Tuesday’s crucial Pennsylvania primary, every American citizen should agree that THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HAS TO BE RE-ORIENTED!!! The Philadelphia debate didn’t show the positions of candidates on the economic issues clearly. Obama and Clinton have to understand that the valuations are driven by market place, which is governed by the US Government’s fiscal and monetary policies. Presently, there is an ongoing recession in North American economy as a result of unwise governmental policies introduction and adoption under President George W. Bush. Hence, the US government policies have to be changed to add the logic, transparency and consistency to the valuations and increase the investors confidence in the US economy.
Posted by: Viktor O. Ledenyov | April 21st, 2008 at 2:55 pm | Report this commentIt has been several weeks since ballots were cast between the Clintons and Obama. Tomorrow may indeed be the last day possible to secure a true choice for US voters in November. Yet, sadly, it seems the Clintons’ insistence on reducing to Obama to a charming “populist” may have worked where it counts: the average voter.
Hillary Clinton is a known entity; Obama is the boldest mind to stand for national office in generations. He has stumbled when Hillary could afford to fall and be reaching for the 24/7 “Where-is-Bill-when-I-need-him?” button.
Let us pray a sense of decency will disqualify the Clintons tomorrow. I fear not, and I fear the timing of Jimmy Carter’s feeble–and meaningless–voice rejoining the global debate on Israel is quite unfortunate for Mr Obama. Carter is today a subject of ridicule, and most Americans will see him sitting on Obama’s side of the big American church. Hillary has the Pope and AIPAC on her side. Pennsylvania voters take their votes seriously on the economy, and Clinton, no matter how undeservedly, is their last good memory. On foreign policy, they had a 9/11 jet crash in the centre of their state. They also had the only serious nuclear crisis in US history in 1978. While centrist in spirit, the Clinton’s abusive play on Obama’s middle name has no doubt taken hold in the minds of those many Pennsylvanians who have preserved the white-picket fence better than most parts of the country.
Hillary looked no more stupid than many Pennsylvania middle-aged moms going to drink a beer at a tavern (or whatever they call them there). Beware. She is far from down and even further from quitting. If rational expectations have not held for your consumers, then why should one expect them from voters? Obama is the rational choice, and that is his and our risk.
Posted by: WCM | April 21st, 2008 at 4:07 pm | Report this commentRead the FT editorial carefully, the one that endorses Obama, and it all boils down to one thing: Obama has a genial personality and a cool demeanour. Forget policy (the differences are not meaningful, we are told), forget political orientation (Obama a member of Wright’s church? Don’t bother the FT with trifles), forget intellect and ability. Obama is nice, so vote for Obama.
Posted by: RCS | April 21st, 2008 at 4:11 pm | Report this commentThe endorsement of someone who wants to disregard international trade treaties, by the leading newspaper among those working in international trade is a shambles.
Neither of the two Democratic candidates merit the least bit of endorsement by the Financial Times, nor any organization with a basic understanding of economics.
The thought that Sen. Obama “genuinely seeks consensus”, despite his highly partisan Left Wing voting record is true only in the sense that if everyone agrees with his 1970’s Leftism, then we are in consensus.
Your sister publication, the Economist, likes to say, one can only hope Sen. Obama cannot be serious on economic issues. Perhaps a strong message at the voting box would save us the uncertainty of hoping for a miracle.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | April 21st, 2008 at 5:44 pm | Report this commentAmerican, last chance to deal with the truth:
Http://www.truthforusa.com
Posted by: Truth for USA | April 21st, 2008 at 7:44 pm | Report this commenthttp://bp2.blogger.com/_NtgXlrcvXZA/SAUW2QU2WZI/AAAAAAAAMgE/TZx4QAY9rmQ/s1600-h/CHUCKMAN+-+CLINTON+HILLARY+-+DOES+PENNSYLVANIA.jpg
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | April 21st, 2008 at 7:57 pm | Report this commentShould Obama be the Democratic nominee, come November he would be McGoverned, Mondaled, Dukakised and Swift-Boated into nothingness. He would not stand a chance against McCain.
Wake up Dems! Hillary is our only chance for a Democratic White House.
PENNSYLVANIANS, THE FATE OF THE NATION IS IN YOUR HANDS.
VOTE FOR HILLARY NEXT TUESDAY!
Posted by: Ernie | April 21st, 2008 at 8:19 pm | Report this commentI meant “identify”, not “indentify”, in my above post.
Posted by: algasema | April 21st, 2008 at 8:20 pm | Report this commentErnie, is your idea that Hillary would somehow be immune to being Swift-Boated by McCain based on the fact that she has done such a good job of Swift-Boating Obama?
Posted by: algasema | April 21st, 2008 at 8:39 pm | Report this commentRCS Israel (a previous moniker), is evidently a McCain supporter and ridicules the FT for endorsing Obama as the Democratic candidate. Can we assume from this admittedly small sample that Israelis find Obama as anathema as the Israel lobby does in the US? Why might this be so?
When will this $200 billion GDP (ppp) economy finally cut itself loose from the US?
Posted by: anon | April 21st, 2008 at 8:58 pm | Report this commentanon,
I understand you are too scared of the Israel lobby to come out with your real moniker…
Let me respond to your insinuations: If a London-based British newspaper has the temerity to endorse a candidate in the American presidential elections, than a mere blogger from Israel can, I think, post his opposing views. (BTW, I have not posted anything, ever, on any American website.)
Other than that my interest in this race centres on my concerns as a resident of this planet, America’s geopolitical impact stretching way beyond its borders.
Posted by: RCS | April 21st, 2008 at 10:05 pm | Report this commentIn tomorrow’s crucial Pennsylvania primary 100% of votes will be cast on electronic voting machines that will render every vote unverifiable, un-auditable, and, perhaps, uncounted.
Forget endorsements, flag pins and guilt by association. Why aren’t the American people, both Democratic candidates, and George Stephanopoulos screaming about election integrity from the rooftops?
Posted by: Mary Mancini | April 21st, 2008 at 10:17 pm | Report this commentI wonder why the Pope chose the week just before the Pennsylvania primary to visit the US. While I do not for a moment suggest that he has any preference whatsoever in the Democratic race, there may be a chance that those who might have encouraged him to come here at this crucial time could have been involved in the campaign.
According to CNN, Hillary is far ahead of Obama among Catholic voters, who are very numerous in Pennsylvania, and the non-stop television media publicity given to the Pope’s visit certainly did not hurt Hillary by energizing Catholics, while at the same time detracting from the focus on the campaign in Pennsylvania, where Obama appeared to be narrowing the gap. In Philadelphia, for example, where I happened to be visiting (for reasons that had nothing to do with the presidential campaign, in which I am not involved in any way) at the beginning of the Pope’s US trip, the Pope had taken over the newspaper headlines and the TV news.
How long in advance had the Pope’s visit here been planned? Who invited him? Or is this all just domething in the imagination of a sceptical Obama supporter, who also has great respect for the Pope and his efforts on behalf of peace and human rights?
Posted by: algasema | April 22nd, 2008 at 8:21 am | Report this commentOh Clive! When will you learn that with Clinton’s victory tonight America is saying “No” to Obama? With or without a victory Obama can never be seen as an affirmative action candidate for the Presidency. Each day you say its useless for her to continue but fail to recognize the consequences for him if she quits. He must do it the hard way and win respect for himself from other people outside his supporters. The respect of the “elite” is just not enough for Obama. He needs respect from the Street. You acquire it only one way. You earn it. Without it he falls to defeat and is simply known as the anti-Clinton choice in 2008.
Posted by: Daedalus | April 22nd, 2008 at 3:59 pm | Report this commentObama has his inadequacies, but Hillary’s campaign has been simply woeful. She can’t run a campaign, not sure if she can run a country.
Posted by: Eurytus | April 22nd, 2008 at 7:36 pm | Report this commentThe people of Pennsylvania have spoken–it’s Hillary by a 10-point margin despite being outspent by Obama 3:1. Obama cannot win the general election in November because he cannot win over the Democratic base, which includes Reagan Democrats. It should be clear by now that if the Democrats want to win in November, HILLARY IS THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN CLOSE THE DEAL! Obama should step aside for the good of the Party and the country.
Posted by: Ann H | April 23rd, 2008 at 4:41 am | Report this commentKirk, I also know that to be true…they are bitter for the position the government has abandonded them. Problem is, all the $billions have been going to other countries and left America with less services than 20 yrs ago. The Billions Bill Clinton gave to Columbia in the 90’s, Central America, trade with campaign donation’s attached. He really did sell America…it wasn’t felt until he left office, then 9/11, war….that’ greed and sadistic.
I do have something funny for you…did you read FT article by Jurek Martin. Hillarious…Lady McBeth. I was really down today, the whole clinton thing, opened my emails and this article..priceless. Funny thing is, I also communicate daily with other countries..read their blogs, articles etc., I think it was the London Telegraph calling Hillary Clinton Lady MacBeth, checked other countries…this is as close to royalty Hillary is going to get. So around the world, she is Lady MacBeth…read the article though.
Posted by: niagaragirl | April 24th, 2008 at 12:39 am | Report this commentGreat caricature, expresses everything that is wrong with Hillary. Daedalus and Anne, if Obama should step aside, why bother with a primary at all? He has more votes, doesn’t he? And by the way, if a Democratic presidency means simply mobilising the Democratic base rather than appeal to independents, I’d much rather see McCain in the White House, who is arguably more of a fighter than Hillary but is also able to work with the other side. Obama has my vote if nominated, but I’d vote Republican for the first time in my life if Hillary gets the nomination - even after eight years of Bush!
Posted by: Andrew | April 24th, 2008 at 11:42 am | Report this comment