April 24, 2008
Politics and the killer instinct
The contrasting characters (this is not just a matter of “style”) of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been prominently on display since the Pennsylvania results came in. Her killer instinct is so much to the fore that it often seems to be her only instinct. It is both her greatest strength (she never quits) and her greatest weakness (she targets, rather than wishing to talk to, those she disagrees with). With Obama, the opposite seems true: his killer instinct seems not just suppressed but entirely absent. Again, this is both a strength (his appealing consensus-seeking temperament) and a weakness (he prefers to roll with the punches rather than striking back).
Today Hillary was telling an audience in Indiana that she now leads in the popular vote for the Democratic nomination. This is true only if you include both Florida and Michigan–where Obama was not even on the ballot. Her comments made no concession to this fact. She is ahead on the least plausible measure of the popular vote, and behind on the others. No problem: that will serve. And here is another instance glimpsed today. She attacked Obama for allowing that John McCain would at least be a better president than George Bush. No, she insisted. McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years: he is every bit as bad as Bush. Never give the enemy an inch, is her creed. In that single comment she attacked both Obama and McCain–unfairly, in both cases, but effectively.
Meanwhile, what was Obama saying? He was telling an audience in Indiana what a good race Hillary had fought in Pennsylvania, what a strong candidate she was, and how he had no doubt that the Democratic party would rally round whoever was nominated. This was beyond gracious: these were sentences from a concession speech. It required the New York Times, in its oddly splenetic editorial, to attack Hillary for fighting a negative campaign. (When they endorsed her, were they expecting the Clintons to take the high road?) Her actual opponent was far kinder.
If Hillary could give Obama some of her taste for the jugular–she has so much to spare–they would both be better candidates.
Clive–well, at last we agree on something–Hillary is a fighter–exactly the type of person we need to lead the United States during this extremely difficult period. Hillary takes it just as well as she dishes it out, which cannot be said for Obama, who positively wilts under pressure. Not a good trait for a potential President of the United States.
As to your other comments, I would note that Hillary does not enjoy the advantage of having the mainstream media and 99% of the liberal blogosphere do her dirty work as Obama does. Obama has not had to go negative because the MSM and blogs are doing it for him, including the New York Times and the FT.
Finally, politicians are often unfairly criticized and labelled–it goes with the territory. Obama has done his share of it, as have Hillary and McCain. So, let’s not pretend that Obama and McCain are innocent victims here–they are not. They are politicians, plain and simple–just like Hillary.
Posted by: Ann H | April 24th, 2008 at 4:40 am | Report this commentAnn H,
Excellent comments, especially your previous post which took issue with the latest FT editorial.
The FT editorials have been relentless in their unconvincing support for Obama (’the better candidate’ - why?; ‘leads the popular vote’ - by what count?; ‘carries dynastic baggage’ - irrelevant for a rational choice). Hillary is fit to become President. She is strong, determined and intelligent — and far from carrying dynastic baggage, she fights tooth and claw for everything she achieves.
Posted by: RCS | April 24th, 2008 at 6:53 am | Report this commentTo recap, RCS is a big supporter of “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” McCain. Likewise, “obliterate Iran” Hillary.
Rather than spooning us disingenuous tosh like “America is a robust democracy and the people of Pennsylvania have spoken.” why not declare the nature of your interest in the US presidential election? Without that context your oddly intense interest in the matter is difficult to fathom.
Posted by: wlh | April 24th, 2008 at 7:43 am | Report this commentwlh: “your oddly intense interest in the [American presidential contest] is difficult to fathom.”
Yes, well, only a small country of 250m, only a — what is it — quarter of world GDP? Only the sole hyperpower in the world. You’re right, I should concentrate my odd interests on something more important. Equatorial Guinea perhaps? Better still Andorra.
But I have a love for small exotic places: they have in America a small movie-producing centre called Hollywood. Has anyone seen their films? And they drink a peculiar concoction called Coca-Cola –its a favourite with the locals. This small country is an anthropologist’s delight — and that is why I am interested in their elections. Odd, to be sure, but pardonable.
Posted by: RCS | April 24th, 2008 at 8:10 am | Report this commentAnn writes: “…–Hillary is a fighter–exactly the type of person we need to lead the United States during this extremely difficult period.”
Since 11 September 2001 I have noted that the mentality of the US has changed–from one of a large, diverse nation aware not only of its girth and weight in the world, but also of its unique powers to reconcile (even if not always rendered so), into one of a small, encircled nation of victims. It is as if Americans have taken the tragedies of that early autumn morning to be an extension of the horror of the Holocaust. In so doing, the optimism and magnanimity that had defined the American character for nearly three centuries has been replaced by fear and bitterness, which are not easily justified or helpful even in the case of a truly endangered country.
Thus, Ann’s conclusion that the US needs a “fighter” in its White House, rather than a leader. This is a historic mistake.
Posted by: WCM | April 24th, 2008 at 9:10 am | Report this commentHello
So what was the point of your last comment.”If Hillary could give Obama some of her taste for the jugular–she has so much to spare–they would both be better candidates.” So if the world was bigger we would have more space.
What America needs and what the rest of us in this troubled world really really needs is a strong leader, who wakes up each morning with the will to get it right and hits the sack at night, after considering what needs to be done next.
To me a fighter is that person, strong willed with a clear sense of purpose.
Thank you for your time
Posted by: Duncan MacPherson | April 24th, 2008 at 9:38 am | Report this commentFull marks to Obama for recognising the difference between McCain and Bush (has Hillary slept through the debates on the treatment of detainees?). Unlike Clinton, Obama has however not suggested that McCain would be a better president than the other Democrat in the race - though I think he clearly would be. Obama has my vote if the Democrat’s make him their candidate, if Clinton is nominated, I would definitely vote for McCain - not least because the man does not constantly have to prove that he’s tough!
Posted by: Andrew, 34, male, lawyer | April 24th, 2008 at 11:18 am | Report this commentwlh,
My choice of interests is none of your business.
Readers can judge for themselves.
Posted by: RCS | April 24th, 2008 at 12:23 pm | Report this commentI was initially a John Edwards supporter. I initially found Obama’s speeches vapid. However, I came to appreciate his approach as he was trying to gently touch on the issues. However, with this campaign, and with the negative ‘killer instinct’ of Clinton, we have again returned to issues of personalities. I would vote for Clinton over McCain except for this recent comment on Iran - scary. I might even vote for McCain than Clinton, although I would probably vote for Nader. What about the issues? Gas is 4 bucks a gallon out here in California. Lake Mead near Las Vegas keeps on drying up (major water resource). Alas, America cannot deal with real issues, so it seems.
Posted by: Bill G. | April 24th, 2008 at 1:59 pm | Report this commentSo, Hillary Clinton is tough? I haven’t seen any of it in this campaign. Nasty seems a better characterisation of what has been on display. In any case, good judgement is a superior leadership attribute than “tough”. After all, no-one will deny that George Bush is “tough” or has killer instincts in abundance. And, of what value is HC’s much flaunted experience when she cannot even run a solvent campaign? Is that how she’d run the country, if elected into office? The earlier the superdelegates wrap this up, the better for the Democratic party.
Posted by: Kasim | April 24th, 2008 at 2:29 pm | Report this commentWow, I am always amazed at these comments asking, ‘why won’t Obama sink to the low levels of Clinton?’ He is choosing to run an above board campaign, and guess what it seems to be working for him. Last time I checked, he is still the leading candidate. In fact a little reported fact, in the last 60 days, he has secured 81 superdelegate, and she has only obtained 5 in this same period.
Posted by: meljomur | April 24th, 2008 at 2:33 pm | Report this commentI suspect after he wins in Indiana and a big win in North Carolina, perhaps this ugly campaign which Hillary has decided to wage will finally be over.
I used to have a tremendous amount of respect for Hillary Rodham Clinton, but now I find her a rather pathetic, tragic, destructive figure, who personally I don’t want anywhere near the White House
Ann H., yes, “Hillary is a fighter”, but, if anyone can remember that far back, one who won New Hampshire by being “warm” “soft”, “human” and shedding a few tears, something that, of course, Obama has never done and that would have eliminated him from the race faster than one can say “Muskie” if he ever had. This is just one example of how, as the recent FT editorial backing Obama pointed out, Hillary manages to reinvent herself in a way that appears to be the most expedient for every occasion. This is something that Al Gore also did so frequently in 2000 that he almost managed to lose the election (which, as we all know, was ultimately stolen from him anyway).
Let us look again at Hillary’s main argument (of the moment) against Obama, i.e. he can’t take the heat, i.e, he is a wimp. This has the smell of exactly the kind of tactics that Karl Rove and the Republican smear machine used against Kerry in 2004, first Swift-Boating him with a barrage of despicable lies about his war record and then blaming him for being “weak” and “elitist” when he had the decency not to respond in kind (even though he had a real response he could have used, namely Bush’s cushy National Guard service in the US during the Vietnam War, something that was downplayed by the media to the point that mentioning it, albeit with some inconsequential misstatements that he promptly apologized for, quickly ended Dan Rather’s long and distinguished career at CBS).
How, exactly should Obama be expected to respond to the vicious smears to the effect that he allegedly hates America, hates whites, hates the flag, is a Muslim, supports Black power, attended a madrasa in Indonesia, likes to wear the tribal garb of the Somalis, who did you know what to American soldiers; that he hangs out with slumlords and who knows, maybe drug dealers, while being connected with you know whom in Iraq and you know whom else on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border?
Should Obama have tried to prove his “toughness” and “fitness” to be commander in chief by falsely accusing Hillary of having murdered Vince Foster, by speading slime about her supposed sexual orientation, rehashing the very real Lewinsky scandal and impeachment, the accusations of renting out the Lincoln bedroom, the Mark Rich pardon, etc., etc., etc? Would that make him more qualified to be president of the United States?
Hillary argues that the Republican attack machine would do even worse than she has done to Obama in the fall if he wins the nomination. No doubt it will. And are we to suppose that it will remain silent about Hillary’s above alleged “baggage” if she becomes the Democratic candidate? I would bet that the 527 organization anti-Hillary ads are already in preparation, just in case, and that they are far worse than anything that my limited imagination can come up with, since I am not a professional political hit man. But is that a reason for Obama to “go negative”, as Hillary has shown no scruples in doing against him, even if it means that she is colluding with the Republican smear artists and character assassins?
The reason that Obama is still ahead in delegates, as well as in the popular vote in the states with fairly run primaries, is not because the voters want him to be better at smear and innuendo than Hillary (a contest that no Democrat could possibly win but in which the Republicans can and will do equally well or better than her). It is because the voters believe Obama to be precisely the opposite type of candidate, someone who will bring tolerance, respect, decency and inclusiveness back to the White House. This, I firmly believe, is what will ultimately win the nomination and the presidency for Obama and make him one of the greatest presidents (and, yes, commanders in chief) in our history).
I sometimes disagree with RCS, but I entirely agree with his recent post about the Democratic superdelegates, or would “uberdelegates” be a better term? That system is “no way to run a railroad”, as the saying goes, but it is an excellent way to railroad in a candidate whom a majority of the voters (in fair primaries, not the travesties in Michigan or Florida, also a monument to the idiocy of the self-destructive DNC rules) clearly do not want. It is an even better way to make sure that John McCain becomes our next president.
Posted by: algasema | April 24th, 2008 at 2:34 pm | Report this commentIn Pennsylvania, the woman has proved herself the ethical equivalent of Richard Nixon, indeed virtually indistinguishable.
The vicious personal quality of her attacks reminds me very much of some of Nixon’s early campaigns, suggesting a decent Congresswoman was “soft on communism.”
The rancid quality of her manufactured memories of early life in Pennsylvania had precisely the quality of Milhouse talking about Pat’s cloth coat.
She is precisely what America does not need. After Pennsylvania, I don’t see how she represents the least improvement over the ethical swamp of George Bush.
It does appear that America’s political institutions just will not accommodate a thoughtful and decent person to become president.
The irony is, while she is so busy showing how ruthless and ugly she can be, is that she represents a gigantic target for McCain. Her background is packed with scandals, lies, and embarrassments.
I truly believe that Obama could have reduced her to tears had he chosen to do so.
McCain is not going to show the same restraint.
And then there’s her sleazy life-long partner, always just over her shoulder.
Who wants Bill back, hanging around the White House and in the headlines again?
The barf-inducing potential of that is beyond calculation. Like a never-ending cheesy soap-opera.
How does America make any progress with a political system like this? It cannot.
The harshest, most strident, most ethically-flexible seem bound to succeed.
The country has had at most a couple of large spirits, really decent men as president since WWII.
To my mind, that is a shameful record for such a vast and rich land.
But the media and institutions and prejudices are all tuned to producing imperial leaders, the same kind of people who brought us Vietnam, Cambodia, Chile, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and other lesser nasty colonial wars.
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | April 24th, 2008 at 2:41 pm | Report this commentI agree with Kasim.
Nasty rather than tough for HC.
If anything Obama has shown his toughness by putting up with her shananagans with out having any major ourburts.
Posted by: Sade | April 24th, 2008 at 2:52 pm | Report this commentHillary has shown weakness with her emotional conniption fits.
I honestly cant see Hillary conceding, somebodys going to have to do it for her when the time comes.
If its Obama and McCain Obama gets my vote.
If its Clinton and McCain, I’ll be one of those last minute deciders.
Never hit a girl
Posted by: Sade | April 24th, 2008 at 3:08 pm | Report this commentDo these rules apply to politics?
Would it cause every woman in america to dislike obama?
If Obama wins the nomination, Black America will be out on the streets partying day and night. It’ll be like the first few minutes of “The Blues Brothers” (original version 1980) -the scene in the church with pastor James Brown and the whole congregation jiving around. Obama knows how to jive, doesn’t he? He’d be just great!
Posted by: J.J. | April 24th, 2008 at 3:09 pm | Report this commentSurely we’re getting to the point where the argument about whether Obama or Clinton is a better candidate is becoming increasingly problematic?
The longer this race goes on, the more it will damage the electoral prospects of the eventual winner when it comes to the REAL prize - the Presidency.
And that would be sad - because if the Democrats rip each other apart allowing McCain into the White House, it would leave the eventual winner of the Obama-Clinton duel with a truly phyrric victory.
Posted by: M | April 24th, 2008 at 3:56 pm | Report this comment“tough” means able to stand up to attacks, not fighting dirty - Rocky Marciano or Hank Armstrong rather than Mike Tyson.
Posted by: John | April 24th, 2008 at 4:19 pm | Report this commentIf you want someone tough, choose McCain. If you want someone who can make peace, choose Obama. If you have taken Economics 101 (Economics ‘O’ level if you’re British) and support NAFTA, choose McCain. If you want to reconcile different groups/races within America, choose Obama. If you want someone who can sell, choose Clinton - there is a brilliant website on Netscape that pretends to analyse your preferences and to recommend which candidate deserves your vote and it told me I should vote for Clinton although I cannot think offhand of a single issue on which her views are closer to mine than her rivals.
John Crickman’s Nixon analogy is very much on point. The California Congresswoman whom he successfully attacked in the 1950’s was Helen Gahagan Douglas, whom Nixon called a “Pink Lady”, “Pink” being a synonym for “Communist sympathizers” back in those days. (Together with some fellow American friends, I once had the pleasure of taking a stroll around Rome with Mrs. Douglas and her daughter almost fifty years ago; Nixon was not discussed, but only the size of the Eternal City’s huge stray cat population at the time).
It is also noteworthy that two of Nixon’s other “innovations” are still playing a role in this year’s presidential campaign. One is the flag pin, which I believe that Nixon first used as the badge of far right wing ideology that it still is today, and the other is the use of the word “Democrat” as an adjective, which was originally meant to imply that the Democrats were weak on Communism and is now used to imply that they are weak in the “War on Terror”.
Of course, the Bush/Cheney assault on our freedom and basic civil liberties today goes far beyond Nixon’s worst Watergate abuses; John Dean, who as Nixon’s White House counsel participated in the Watergate coverup and went to jail for his efforts, has recently written some excellent books on this subject. Both Hillary and Obama should be talking much, much, more about this threat to our democracy, but only Obama has mentioned it at all, and even that only occasionally, as far as I have been able to tell.
It should in fact be the central issue of this campaign.
Posted by: algasema | April 24th, 2008 at 4:28 pm | Report this commentDon’t know if anyone has read the Dick Morris piece but CC’s observations tie in nicely. Obama is going to win on points, it’s done really. PA was Hill’s last chance to score big and she’s netted–what?–11 delegates which he’ll take back in NC and Indiana.
So Hill can only win by scoring a knockout, so there she is flailing away, not really landing anything,just making herself look *really* ugly and stupid. Show a little grace Hill, you’re going to lose anyway so take advice from Ali…what was the old rhyme?
Float like a butterfly
Posted by: MaryCunningham | April 24th, 2008 at 5:01 pm | Report this commentSting like a bee.
The decoupling of Clinton and Obama may create a big problem for the Democratic party. In fact, Clinton and Obama have to do something to unite the Americans around common shared political values and ideals to be able to face McCain’s resistance during the Presidential election campaign next fall in 2008.
Posted by: Viktor O. Ledenyov | April 24th, 2008 at 5:07 pm | Report this commentCorrection: I am sure that it was Senator Joseph McCarthy, not Nixon, who began using the adjective “Democrat” instead of “Democratic” to imply that the Democrats were all “traitors” (McCarthy’s term, not mine - I still remember the obscene grin on his face when he used it, as he did frequently). I don’t remember if Nixon ever used this particular smear term at all, and I don’t think he did, but George W. Bush, Karl Rove and many other Republican hitmen use it quite often (though not all of the time).
I must also say that I am always distressed when some well meaning FT columnist or other inadvertently uses this loaded term as well, evidently without realizing its negative history and connotations. If the FT editors manage to eliminate this egregious misuse of terminaology forever, this will certainly increase confidence among American FT readers that British commentators are indeed capable of understanding what is going on in our country (as indeed so many FT writers already do better than the ones in even our supposedly “best” papers over here).
Posted by: algasema | April 24th, 2008 at 5:18 pm | Report this commentAnother correction: “terminology”.
Posted by: algasema | April 24th, 2008 at 5:19 pm | Report this commentalgasema,
The way you describe Obama makes him seem like the perfect candidate. And I ask: is he really like that or are you deluding yourself?
The Obama you describe is also “good”, meaning naive. Can this Obama successfully juggle international affairs without dropping the ball? Iran, North Korea, Israel/Palestine; I feel the Iranians especially will teach him a geopolitical trick or two. I see a tragic figure in the White House, a second Jimmy Carter.
Posted by: RCS | April 24th, 2008 at 5:48 pm | Report this commentObama has conducted a dignified and cool campaign while Clinton has conducted a desperate and somewhat undignified campaign. After he wins, there is probably nothing more the republicans can throw at him.
I agree with the comments about leadership. I too was an Edwards supporter based on his policies. This campaign is no longer about the issues since both seem to have similar possitions. Either way, they have to concede with Congress whatever they propose.
The campaign is about leadership. Obama has engaged people who are likely to hold him accountable. Change will come from the bottom. I don’t see this in the Clinton campaign.
Lastly, Clinton claims she has the experience to run the country better. What a waste of experience if she was tricked by the Bush government into voting for the war.
Posted by: P | April 24th, 2008 at 6:06 pm | Report this commentPacifist is right on point. As for RCS’s comments, the Iranians (among at least a dozen other important countries, many of which Bush has paid little or no attention to) are going to teach the next president, whoever he or she may be, quite a few tricks anyway. So is the international banking system, among many other thorny issues that may or may not come as a surprise to any president, as well as the rest of us.
I don’t think anyone in his right mind wants McCain’s hand on the nuclear trigger. Patrick Buchanan, hardly a liberal “softy”, said recently that McCain, if elected, would make Cheney look like Gandhi by comparison. So much for McCain’s “experience”. True, Obama is a neophyte in foreign affairs, but he was right about Iraq, and will certainly appoint qualified people to advise him, if elected. He could be another Carter, but he might also turn out to be a bold president, just as he has run a bold, but not mean, campaign.
As for Hillary, with the Clinton’s record of triangulation and expediency on almost everything, how much different would she really be from Bush on foreign policy? Perhaps not as much as we might think, except perhaps for being a little more cautious about starting wars (which would certainly be the case with Obama as well).
Posted by: algasema | April 24th, 2008 at 6:32 pm | Report this comment“Obama has conducted a dignified and cool campaign” exemplified by insulting small town voters and spending $10 Million to get trounced in Pennsylvania.
Obama can pretend that he is not “going for the jugular” but he is spending a ridiculous amount of money to try and gain voters.
Perhaps voters are just not as willing as the FT to believe that a very partisan left-wing junior Senator sponsored by the Chicago Machine is somehow any different than any other politician.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | April 24th, 2008 at 6:48 pm | Report this commentalgasema,
I assume the person who posted above under the moniker ‘P’ is not the same person as the commenter ‘Pacifist’ on Gideon Rachman’s blog. That P would not have been an Edwards supporter, indeed would not have supported any American candidate –but he can correct me here if I’m wrong.
Posted by: RCS | April 24th, 2008 at 6:57 pm | Report this commentI no longer understand the admiration for Hillary the fighter, since she can now only win the nomination by destroying her party. That is not admirable. It is manically selfish. The same is not true for Obama, who is, I understand from Clive, nigh on certain to win both the votes and the delegates in the primaries. If the superdelegates overturned that outcome at the Convention, as would be necessary if Hillary Clinton were to win, the party would surely tear itself to pieces, so handing the election to John McCain.
The overriding objective for Democrats must be to win the presidency, not indulge in another suicidal internecine struggle. I remember the Chicago convention in 1968. Do Democrats posting on this blog want to risk a repetition of that calamity? If not, they must wish Hillary to concede, even if they think she is the better candidate, as some legitimately do. Surely a time must come when the interest of one’s party is more important than that of any individual candidate. If not now, when?
Posted by: Martin Wolf | April 24th, 2008 at 6:59 pm | Report this comment“rather than wishing to talk to, those she disagrees with”
Posted by: Cord | April 24th, 2008 at 7:36 pm | Report this commentWait isn’t that what Clinton is known for? She actually been willing to talk to people she disagrees with more often then Obama. She’s talked to many of her republicans foes and to the Netroots who despise her. Her greatest weakness is that she sometimes fights too hard.
Well Martin,
Why doesn’t everyone concede and just let the press pick out who our president is?
What good is democracy anyway if we can’t stand to disagree with each other?
If disagreeing with Obama destroys a party, then surely that party needed to be destroyed.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | April 24th, 2008 at 8:07 pm | Report this commentcheck your facts, clive. obama was on the ballot in florida, but neither of them campaigned there. she was on ballot in michigan, but not obama…where neither of them campaigned either.
Posted by: John in CA | April 24th, 2008 at 9:07 pm | Report this commentMan this is not an assessment or analysis but just an apologists or appeaser’s essay. I dont expect FT to be naive like this…..
Posted by: Brian Soe | April 24th, 2008 at 9:07 pm | Report this commentJohn in CA - please read things more carefully before you detract from the integrity attached to our name - Clive said that Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan, not Florida.
Posted by: John | April 24th, 2008 at 10:22 pm | Report this commentAlso, it appeared that a lot of Clinton supporters campaigned in Florida.
What algasema carefully avoids mentioning is that Nixon was merely quoting the unsuccessful candidate for the Democrat party ticket in that election.
Posted by: John | April 24th, 2008 at 10:48 pm | Report this commentWhile totally disapproving of the Republican party’s spying on their opponents and Nixon’s cover-up I fail to see how it was a major attack on freedoms and basic civil liberties; particularly when compared to Johnson’s conscription of young men to fight in an undeclared, and hence illegal, war.
once again clive, the obamahead, does his biased, eurocentric reporting without a semblance of fairness. let’s ignore obama’s fatal flaws as a candidate, his arrogance, his elitism, his tawdry associations, he is half black so he is entitled to the presidency. bosh! if we want to see john mccain as president next january, choose obama as the nominee this summer and watch the electroal train wreck unfold. like many hillary supporters, we see mccain as a very plausible alternative in november. obama, gracious? please!
Posted by: Greg | April 24th, 2008 at 11:38 pm | Report this commentTo wlh,
Hilary Clinton considers obliterating Iran and John McCain is actively misleading us with a link between Al Quaeda and Iran thus preparing the ground for bombing Iran as he happily sang along. This is enough for the likes of RCS to consider that they are both solid, competent and well reasoned candidates while of course Barack Obama is weak and has no substance.
Posted by: jackie | April 25th, 2008 at 1:33 am | Report this commentJBP, You must learn to read the words in front of you and possibly even think for a second about them. It can be an enlightening experience. Nothing I wrote had anything to do with whether people should or should not disagree with one another. Disagreement is normal and healthy. Nor did I suggest the Press should pick the president. The voters are doing the choosing. The question I raised is whether Hillary should continue to pursue what can now only be a Pyrrhic victory. I take it for granted you know what this adjective means. If, of course, Hillary would prefer John McCain to Obama, as some of those posting here do, she would be quite right to continue her fight. But that would discredit her in the eye’s of her party and even of most of her supporters.
Posted by: Martin Wolf | April 25th, 2008 at 9:36 am | Report this commentI am amongsdt a minority here who believe the Clintons–through lawyers and political pressure (largely through playing any Israeli card that fits the moment in co-ordination with their friend Joe Lieberman in the other camp)–will prevail. US elections have rarely been fairly played (at least not since 1972, perhaps). Nonetheless, I still hope my discouragement-cum-cynicism is proved terribly misguided.
If this is to be the case, then I still believe one has reason to expect Obama to raise the bar. The Pennsylvania demographics speak to the success of the Clintons’ strategy: make him Black, “Hussein”, Harvard and Next Generation. This campaign seems no longer to be about change.
Hillary says she is “vetted”. How is the Media allowing her to think this? Their post-2001 surge in reported net worth merits questions. Appreciation to Philip Stephens for the last line in his article today.
Posted by: WCM | April 25th, 2008 at 11:23 am | Report this commentLo, I bow before ye, O’ Exalted Wolf, please, beseech me the grace of the enlightening experience of you massive wisdom, and be charitable of my despicable knowledge, for I have not thy grace nor learning.
In a democratic system, outside of the rarefied world of FT columnists, it is perfectly normal to express disagreement at the ballot box, rather than relying solely on the proclamations of journalists to decide for the electorate.
Given that neither candidate has much of a mandate here, the expressed purpose of a convention would then be to choose a candidate, much like it was for 190 years or so in US Politics.
If, as you declare, Clinton should drop out for the good of the party, then the hell with campaigns, we should just wait for your proclamations every four years, and save the hundreds of millions in campaign expense.
Democracy is working pretty well in these primaries, despite the Lordly denunciation of the process by our Pundits.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | April 25th, 2008 at 1:51 pm | Report this commentWith regard to Martin Wolf’s comments, I believe that most, if not all, Democrats, including those who are posting on this blog, desperately want our parrty to win in November. The stakes are simply too high, for America and the world, to risk four (or eight) more years of Republicans controlling the White House. Not only are our basic democratic freedoms under unprecedented assault from Bush/Cheney and their Republican supporters, but as Mr. Wolf has consistently pointed out in his columns with such great clarity, we are facing momentous decisions about whether, and, if so, how, to devise a regulatory scheme that will keep our financial system, and that of the rest of the world, from collapsing.
It is simply unthinkable to put these decisions into the hands of a president who, like McCain, not only admits that he knows nothing about economics (and doesn’t seem to care), but would be likely to side with the same business and financial interests that did so much to create the mess that we are now in. I do not mean to imply that Hillary and Obama are great financial geniuses either (nor can I, who am only a blog poster, claim any expertise in this field myself), but at least they would (one hopes) be more independent of the interests which have the most to benefit from the current laisser faire policy of business as usual, a/k/a unregulated greed.
With regard to letting McCain have his hand on the nuclear trigger, I refer to my above post repeating Patrick Buchanan’s comment that McCain, if elected, would make Cheney look like Gandhi. For all of these reasons, and many others, such as the battle for survival of this planet in the face of global warming, Democrats want to and need to win in November. However, does this mean that Hillary should simply pull out now in order to avoid a 1968 - style debacle, as Mr. Wolf suggests? At one time, I thought so myself. Now, even though I am still a strong Obama supporter, I am not so sure, based on recent developments, including the Pennsylvania primary.
It is no longer enough, if it ever was, simply to count up delegates and popular votes, note that Obama is still ahead and likely to remain so, and say, OK, that is it. For one thing, in both delegates and popular votes, Obama and Hillary are very close. Whichever side loses will still represent a crucial part of the Democratic coalition. Second, as Clive Crook and Ann H. mentioned at the beginning of this thread, there is the Florida/Michigan disaster. How can the Democrats win this election if they antagonize anough of their own voters to lose both these states?
Second, there have been some big changes since the early primaries and caucuses in which Obama did so well among white voters. Now that the genie of Jeremiah Wright has been led out of the bottle, it will not be easy to put it back in, especially, since beyond the personality of Wright himself (whom, as I was recently reminded by someone who happens to support Hillary, was actually among the ministers invited by Bill Clinton to the White House for spiritual “counseling” sessions in the wake of the Lewinsky scandal - making Wright definitely a two edged sword), Wright has become a symbol of the fact that America is finally realizing that Obama is black, and that we might actiually have a black president.
Therefore, if either Obama or Hillary is to have any real chance of becoming president, Democrats must collectively make a clear determination that we will finally put America’s sorry history of bigotry and discrimination behind us, and that we will vigorously oppose any attempts by anyone to smear Obama as an unpatriotic Muslim terorist sympathising elitist Chicago South Side wimp, all of which are, at bottom, merely the latest fashionable code words for saying that he is black.
If Hillary can overcome her own ego and desire to win the presidency at all costs, fire James Carville and others of her advisors who glorify slash and burn politics even if it means a McCain presidency, and join with McCain in a dignified debate about the real issues, then the voters in the remaining primaries and the delegates to the convention, including both pledged and superdelegates, will have an easier time making an intelligent choice about who is really best qualified to lead the party in its crucial battle against the Republicans in the fall. Who knows? If it turned out that Hillary was the one chosen after a fair campaign and by a unified party, I might even vote for her myself.
Posted by: algasema | April 25th, 2008 at 2:27 pm | Report this commentA big correction: I meant to say “join with Obama”, not “join with McCain”.
Roger Algase
Posted by: algasema | April 25th, 2008 at 2:31 pm | Report this commentOne thing everyone seems to be forgetting about is VP candidates.
Posted by: Sade | April 25th, 2008 at 2:38 pm | Report this commentDepending on who Obama picks as a VP candidate could bring some of you loyal-clintonys back on the democratic side of things.
I also meant to say “who, as I was recently reminded”, not “whom”. Apologies.
Posted by: algasema | April 25th, 2008 at 2:40 pm | Report this commentI disagree with Sade. No matter who is picked as VP, it will not do very much to heal a fragmented and bitterly (if it is still acceptable to use that word) divided party (a word that I also managed to misspell in the first sentence of my long-winded comment above).
Roger Algase
Posted by: algasema | April 25th, 2008 at 2:52 pm | Report this commentTo JPB,
It would do you no harm to try to address the arguments I placed in front of you. But I realise that this is not going to happen. So be it.
Posted by: Martin Wolf | April 25th, 2008 at 3:20 pm | Report this commentRoger
I would agree that the VP selection means little now. Some key Obama support, however, has stayed in the closet, despite an impressive display recently from some names like Paul Volcker and Bill Bradley.
Your last post, however, confirms my fear that Barack may have already become the phenomenon of the year. On a personal basis, he must feel tremendous weight from the many expectations that are now upon him, and from the countless contradictions he has been forced to commit to.
Furthermore, as he gets closer to some realities vis-à-vis US commitments, for example the oilcos in Iraq or tangled games with China, he must be a bit overwhelmed in seeing where he can really push through policy changes. Hillary doesn’t think that much; she plans only to turn up for work, placate some whiners, antagonise others, and put a spin on each day.
Thus, it is time for those who want change in the US’ approaches to the world and to its society to stand with Obama and depersonalise this campaign that makes many wonder if public office is really the leading venue for governance of such a vast society.
Invisible (corporate and special interest) hands there are less and less invisible, no? How old is Jim Baker now?
p.s., I think the attacks on Martin Wolf from one of Hillary’s supporters are more than unjust. Bad form, but what else should one expect.
Posted by: WCM | April 25th, 2008 at 3:28 pm | Report this commentAnd Martin,
Perhaps an ounce of politeness would assist you in addressing more rational arguments rather than your snippy “read the words in front of you” demand.
Democracy is working, whether you like it or not. If a political party cannot withstand democracy, it should not stand at all.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | April 25th, 2008 at 3:29 pm | Report this commentJBP
More thoughts on just how exemplary you think the democratic process is in the US, please?
I will acknowledge pleasure at reports of the high participation in the primary process. Nonetheless, I will suggest that 1) if your candidate stands against McCain in November, turnout will return to the levels observed in 1992 (rather low, as I recall); and 2) if Obama fails to reverse his slide into a metrosexual version of Hillary, one should expect the groups that have jumped to his early calls to sit it out in November.
Here in Europe, France has shown that our democratic processes are no less vulnerable to media steer than the US. Sarkozy came to power with the same PR firms and Neocon gurus have worked for the Clintons and Bush, including Richard Perle.
Then we have the Belgians. Not sure why.
Please tell us to what extent Hillary expects to be the voice of the people.
Posted by: WCM | April 25th, 2008 at 4:06 pm | Report this commentJPB, I agree with you that democracy should be allowed to take its course, but is the Jeremiah Wright, Black Panther, Nation of Islam, Weatherman, Hussein/Osama smear campaign against Obama, in which Hillary can justly be accused of being complicit (though the Republicans, as usual, are doing a good job of taking the lead), really an expression of democracy, or is it a perversion of it?
This also goes to the larger question, which is bigger than just this campaign, as to how much democracy we really have, when the media are obsessed with sensationalism and celebrities instead of issues (when they are not simply consumed by the far right wing hate propaganda of the Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin and Lou Dobbs variety) when so much of the workings of our government are “national security” secrets, and when dissenters from the prevailing ideology of big business friendly tax and economic policies, US military power and imperial wars are pilloried as “America - hating” and “soft on terror”, and when all of us are subject to unlimited surveillance and the possibility of suddenly being declared “enemy combatants” and packed off to a secret prison by a “unitary executive” that recognizes no Constitutional limits on its power.
Yes, let democracy take its course by all means. But first we must make sure that we still have a democracy. This, more than any other reason, is why it is crucial for the Democrats to win in November. If that means that Hillary has to reign in her ego, and her supporters, in favor of party unity, it is well worth the effort.
Does anyone remember that there was actually serious talk of postponing the 2004 election, which many Republicans expected to lose, based on a supposed “terrorist threat” to some financial center builings in New York and New Jersey, that turned out to be totally illusory? This is an example of why Democratic unity, not rough and tumble, slash and burn, take no prisoners politics as usual is essential in 2008, if we really want to be sure that there will be elections in 2012 and beyond.
Roger Algase
Posted by: algasema | April 25th, 2008 at 4:15 pm | Report this commentWith regard to WCM’s post, I was unaware that US Neo-cons were involved in Sarkozy’s campaign. But I am not surprised.
Posted by: algasema | April 25th, 2008 at 4:22 pm | Report this commentYes Roger, publishing Obama’s background is part of the Democratic process. Hiding it for the first year of the campaign was a despicable performance by the press, but effective strategy of Axelrod.
Lou Dobbs is left-wing btw.
I will leave it to the voters to decide if electing a Democrat or Republican is crucial to Democracy. I am mildly troubled by the amount of money spent on this election, but note that the press is getting better in publicizing the astounding figure Sen. Obama’s “grassroots” campaign has had to spend to get as far as he has.
At some point people realize that there is a PR campaign going on within politics, and vote like they don’t want to be fooled.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | April 25th, 2008 at 4:27 pm | Report this commentEvidently, Mr Powers is incapable of reading the words in from of him. So I will endeavour to explain: how would a nomination decided by superdelegates, which overturned the result of a lengthy primary process, be democratic?
Posted by: Martin Wolf | April 25th, 2008 at 4:48 pm | Report this commentOur only choice is to put Gore at the top of the ticket.
Posted by: Sade | April 25th, 2008 at 5:36 pm | Report this commentAlso evident, mr. Wolf cannot post without juvenile sniping. Conventions have been around a long time and have represented democracy fairly well. What makes this time so different than 1952 for example? Was democracy failed by nominating Adlai stevenson?
Posted by: John powers | April 25th, 2008 at 5:41 pm | Report this commentJPB, Lou Dobbs may be “left wing” on some issues. He is certainly as protectionist as they come. I happen to admire and applaud the focus he has given to the subprime foreclosure crisis. It is refreshing for someone to be approching this issue from the standpoint of the millions of homeowners and numerous blighted communities threatened, if not devastated, by predatory lending, and not only from the point of view of the lenders, investment bankers and hedge funds.
However, Dobbs has become America’s leading apostle of hatred toward immigrants, long a province of the most extreme segment of the far right. David Duke, the notorious American Nazi party leader, not to mention former presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan, who has long called for a moratorium on immigration because he believes (as he states in his most recent book) that it is harder for non-whites to assimilate to American “culture”, were warning about the supposed danger of America being “taken over” by Mexico long before Dobbs caught onto tho idea of using “Broken Borders” as his ticket to fame and fortune.
Immigrant bashing (against legal as well as illegal ones, and against not only Latinos, but Asians as well) is certainly not a Democratic or left wing issue, but belongs to the right wing of the Republican party. On this issue, which I would venture to predict will turn out to be more important in the fall election than 50 Jeremiah Wrights (even if Obama is nominated) Dobbs is firmly in the camp, not only of the most intolerant voices on the far right fringe in America, but of right wing minority immigrant haters throughout the world - Le Pen in France, Haider in Austria, Zhirinovsky in Russia, Hanson in Australia - I could go on and on.
Posted by: algasema | April 25th, 2008 at 5:44 pm | Report this commentI left out Pym Fortune in Holland in my list of international right wing immigrant haters.
Posted by: algasema | April 25th, 2008 at 5:50 pm | Report this commentMartin–it is clear that you do not understand the purpose of superdelegates. Superd’s were created following the brawl at the 1980 Democratic convention to ensure that the the Democrats field a nominee who is the most electable against the Republican candidate. It has absolutely nothing to do with pledged delegates (which, by the way, can be changed at any time prior to the convention at the end of August, just as can superdelegate votes), popular votes, and all the other metrics put forth. The sole criteria the superdelegates are to consider is electability–period.
Based upon this, it is clear the Hillary is the only candidate the Dems can field in the GE if they want to win this November. This is because Hillary is the only one that can possibly win over the Reagan Democrats, a group vital to securing the Presidency this fall. It is clear that Obama has not won the support of this group, as he has failed to do so repeatedly and consistently as demonstrated by his losses in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Ohio, Texas, California, and New Jersey.
Now, if the purpose of the Democratic convention is simply to make Obama the nominee, then fine, let’s do it.
If, however, the purpose is to win an election, then Hillary is the only choice. She is more electable.
Posted by: Ann H | April 25th, 2008 at 6:28 pm | Report this commentAnn- You overuse “only”, no? Also, your argument for SuperDs ought to be reworded to avoid being shot down by the absolutists on the every-vote-counts side. While not realistic, words will serve their moral outrage better.
It has been much discussed that a handful of centrist Republicans were prepared to join Obama. Two Senate names had surfaced several weeks ago in rumours for his VP. Obama’s core platform is of more than passing interest to a number of fiscal Republicans, just as it is to many European leaders. More of the same is not an option, and Hillary is perhaps even more of the same than McCain.
Posted by: WCM | April 25th, 2008 at 8:00 pm | Report this commentAnn H., I agree with you (and even with JBP, though I deplore the tone of his comments toward Martin Wolf, who deserves far greater respect whether one agrees with him or not), that the primary results are not meant to be followed blindly, and that the superdelegates should have some role, even though there are clearly far too many of them.
The reason that the actual primary results should not be written in stone is that they are not always a reliable expression of the real will of the voters. Let us not even talk about Michigan and Florida. There were probably more representative elections than those in at least some parts of Zimbabwe (though, alas, we will probably never find out the results of those).
In many other primaries, Republicans were allowed to cross over, either though an “open primary” system, or by registering as Democrats at the last moment. At least some of these, in Texas and other states, may well have been following the advice of people like Rush Limbaugh to vote for Hillary in order to make the results as contentious and confusing as possible. It is also, of course, entirely possible that some Republicans may have voted for Obama thinking that being black, he would be the weaker candidate. (By any chance, could Karl Rove possibly have had a similar motive in mind when he wrote his FT op-ed “memo” to Obama urging him to be more aggressive in attacking Hillary?)
But what should give all Democrats the greatest cause for concern is the distortion of the democratic (and Democratic) process brought about by many voters being misled into thinking that Obama is a Muslim, hates America, supports terrorists, is anti-white, etc., etc. Hillary may think that she can gain some short-term advantage from not speaking out more vigorously against this smear and fear campaign, but any victory gained through such tactics will indeed turn out to be one for John McCain. not for any Democrat.
Posted by: algasema | April 25th, 2008 at 8:10 pm | Report this commentRoger and Ann– Why not just stick with CNN polls? I’m not naïve, but these comments certainly should not go down well with a public that is already feeling manipulated. From here, I can only ask why such a selective system has rendered so many candidates plagued by questions about essential competencies and decency right up until election day. Electoral systems are driven too much on superficial “media” qualities, but the US system seems to have gone too far.
All this careful consideration, and yet the process cut down to a final three nearly a year before they would assume office. A Consitutional debate is overdue there, no?
Posted by: WCM | April 25th, 2008 at 8:25 pm | Report this commentRoger,
Odd team the Left Wing has assembled for a more sensible immigration policy, George Bush, John McCain, The Vatican, The Wall Street Journal, The Economist and the Cato Instistute are somehow “Left”?
Neither Obama nor Clinton has worked 1/10th as hard as Sen. McCain (nor Presidenet Bush) on immigration reform. The default story that the media tells drives pro-reform voter to the Democrats much like the media default that somehow the Democrats were in favor of Civil Rights, despite the actual voting records of the Democratic legislators.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | April 25th, 2008 at 8:39 pm | Report this commentOf course, JBP, I respect and support the courage and dedication that John McCain shown in his work on behalf of the failed Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill last year, as well as his speaking out against anti-Latino bigots, whom he justly compared with the 19th Century anti-Irish Know-Nothings in one of the early presidential debates.
His principled position on immigration is in strong contrast to the shoddy pandering to the anti-immigrant lobby by Giuliani, Huckabee and Romney, all of whom had realistic and sensible approaches to illegal immigration in office, and then outdid themselves to try to outdo Lou Dobbs on the campaign trail.
There is only one small catch: McCain has now backtracked on everything he stood for in the immigration debate, in order to curry favor with the anti-immigrant right wing of his party. Specifically, he has bought into the fiction that the two pillars of immigration reform, namely a carefully structured legalization program for (some) illegal immigrants, and a raise in visa limits for the skilled, educated foreign workers whom our country should be trying hardest to attract, but who, disgusted with our hostile immigration policies, are increasingly going to other countries to develop their careers, can be postponed until the Mexican border is “secured”, something that, almost by definition, will never happen. (Maybe it will happen when McCain’s successors bring the troops home from Iraq 100 years from now, but none of us readers of this blog will be commenting at that time, it is safe to say.) In short, McCain has sold out his principles on immigration. Put down one less right wing “conservative” among the very few who do support sensible immigration reform, as opposed to draconian, police state (Hillary Clinton’s very apt phrase, by the way) “enforcement only” policies.
Posted by: algasema | April 25th, 2008 at 11:02 pm | Report this commentSorry, I meant “showed”, not “shown”, in my first sentence.
Posted by: algasema | April 25th, 2008 at 11:05 pm | Report this commentRoger,
Yes, but that is the Left Wing of the party, not the right wing. Typically, the Right Wing is pro-business, pro-individual. Typically, the Left Wing is anti-business, pro-collective…such as your favorite Democratic Senators, who have done basically nothing to assist in forming a more sensible immigration policy, except bark at each other over issuing drivers licenses to immigrants, rather than formulating progressive policy and crafting legislation, such as McCain and Bush have done.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | April 26th, 2008 at 1:56 am | Report this commentKarl Rove’s remarks on Obama today are prima facie evidence of who it actually is that Republicans regard as the greater threat.
His sticking his chubby mug into Democratic affairs can realistically be interpreted no other way.
Hillary would be boiled alive by a ruthless opponent. Her entire adult life is nothing but a set of contradictions, prevarications, and ethically questionable behavior.
Obama truly has tried to take the high road, but Hillary keeps dragging things back down into the mud. She’s not a fighter as in the sense of hero, she’s a thug.
But the Republicans have a storehouse of material to use on her, including reminding everyone of her sleazy husband (remember, straight-arrow Al Gore blamed Clinton for his 2000 defeat).
When the Republicans were through with her, she’d be in tears, for real this time.
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | April 26th, 2008 at 2:55 pm | Report this commentJBP, what a distortion of reality. Clearly, there is a split in the Republican party on immigration (and I will not get into a pointless dispute as to which side is “left” and which is “right”), but no one could reasonably argue that the defeat of of McCain/Kennedy Comprehensive Immigration Reform (”CIR”) bill last June was because of opposition from Senate Democrats (or at least most of them). Reform was defeated by the ani-immigrant wing of the Republican party, under the slogan “No Amnesty for Illegals!” (which sounds so much like the “No Irish need apply” 19th century Know-Nothing slogan).
Every piece of recent anti-immigrant legislation, whether it was the draconian “enforcement-only” bill passed by the House in 2006 that could have (under a reasonable interpretation) made it a felony for a US citizen or lawful permanent resident wife to fail to turn her illegal husband in to the authorities for deportation (and vice versa) among many other police state provisions, was entirely a Republican creation. Democrats, if I remember correctly, were not even allowed to participate in committee hearings on the bill, at least not in any meaningful way.
When the House changed hands to the Democrats in the 2006 election, this pernicious bill died and has, under Democratic control, never been revived. Other harsh “enforcement” measures, aimed at making live (and business) intolerable in Latino communities, whether in states such as Arizona and Oklahoma, or in localities such as Prince William County, Virginia, were entirely Republican initiatives, though it is true that the Arizona bill was signed by a Democratic governor. Playing to white racism on immigration is, unfortunately, a Republican trademark, just as its anti-black “Southern Strategy” (which still continues) was in the 1970’s.
You claim that the Democrats have done nothing on immigration reform. Last time I heard, Senator Kennedy was still a Democrat. If you count the votes on the CIR bill, you will see that he had far more support in his party than his co-sponsor, Senator McCain did in his, despite the certainly welcome White House support. I will not even get into the question of whether CIR was really as pro-immigrant as everybody thinks, as this is a very complex issue by itself.
It is fine to express opinions on immigration and other important issues which will undoubtedly play a big role in this election, but one has to show at least some minimal respect for the facts, if one expects an opinion to be taken seriously.
Roger Algase
Posted by: algasema | April 26th, 2008 at 3:19 pm | Report this commentAttorney at Law
Another correction: “meant at making life”, not “live”.
Posted by: algasema | April 26th, 2008 at 3:22 pm | Report this commentI am sorry for making such frequent and lengthy comments, but it might be helpful if I mention one or two other points about immigration, since this looks to be such an important issue in the general election, if not the primaries. To begin with, even though I felt that John Powers’ last post was unfairly partisan in suggesting that the Republicans were doing more about immigration reform than the Democrats, I agree with him that meaningful immigration reform is necessary.
It is also true that both Bush and McCain came out squarely on the side of reform and against immigrant-bashing during the CIR battle, and showed considerable courage in doing so. However, unlike Kennedy and other Democrats who also worked hard in favor of reform, McCain and Bush both took tremendous flak from their own party, and both were ultimately forced to retreat.
I described in a previous post how McCain has flip-flopped over to the anti-immigrant side, and the same is true of the Bush administration, which has not only stepped up its foolish and self-defeating workplace raids and other initiatives, such as the Social Security “no match letter” policy that, while it has been blocked by the courts for the moment, could eventually lead to mass firings of not only illegal, but legal, immigrant and US citizen Latino and other minority workers.
The Bush administration has also issued regulations in the past year making certain types of green cards and other legal visas harder to obtain. In addition, even the forward looking CIR bill was watered down by numerous Republican amendments which would have greatly restricted access to legal visas for all except the most highly educated elite (and even many of those) in the future.
Mr. Powers also mentions the driver’s license imbroglio as evidence of Democratic impotence on immigration reform. Here, he has some justification. Beginning with Hillary’s fumbling and waffling with regard to former New York Governor Spitzer’s proposal to allow illegal immigrants to apply for licenses, for sensible humanitarian and road safety reasons, the response of Democrats on this issue has, for the most part been a deafening and terrified silence. If I am not mistaken, Obama is one of the few who have courageously defended this proposal, even though this could eventually cost him more dearly than even the vicious and never-ending Jeremiah Wright/Fox News “Swift Boat” smear campaign against him.
Posted by: algasema | April 27th, 2008 at 7:04 pm | Report this commentRoger,
In 500 words or less, what did Sen’s Obama and Clinton do to assist immigration reform? Obama lobbied for special favors for the Teamsters; Clinton fiddled with driver’s licenses.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | April 28th, 2008 at 3:10 pm | Report this comment[…] he has a killer instinct after all–or at least some limit to his forbearance. Obama’s response yesterday to […]
Posted by: FT.com | Clive Crook’s blog | A new, tougher Obama? | April 30th, 2008 at 8:40 pm | Report this comment