May 5, 2008
Column: Hillary Clinton would be the bigger gamble
The hole the US Democratic party is digging for itself just keeps getting deeper. In the past few days, after the grisly reappearance of Jeremiah Wright – the former friend who came not to praise Barack Obama but to bury him – Hillary Clinton’s standing in the polls has improved again. In Tuesday’s primaries, she is hoping for a comfortable win in Indiana and a close result in North Carolina, a dramatic change from just a month ago.
Meanwhile, Mr Obama continues to attract support from the unelected “super-delegates” who will almost certainly settle this thing. To understand why this is happening – why the super-delegates are choosing Mr Obama even as the wavering rank-and-file is having doubts – one must heed their growing alarm at the emerging prospect.
Despite Mrs Clinton’s recovery, Mr Obama will almost certainly end up with a majority of elected delegates and, unless the wheels come off completely, a majority of the popular vote (on most of the ways the Democratic party has provided for arriving at that figure).
The remainder of this column can be read here. Please post your comments below.
The huge problem here is the love-fest the media had with Obama from the beginning. As we saw in the parodies on Saturday Night Live, they were in the tank for Obama to begin with.
Had the media done their jobs…actually investigated such things as the Obama/Wright connection earlier, there is little doubt that it would be Clinton…not Obama…with the insurmountable delegate lead.
What the process has led to is a situation of affirmative action. Obama is clearly NOT the strongest candidate and to continue on to give him the nomination is simply to say that quality is less important than keeping the lock-step loyalty of the blacks who support the democratic party.
Unfortunately for the dems, the country as a whole DOES NOT support affirmative action, and nominating the weaker candidate will cost them dearly..
Posted by: George Hanshaw | May 5th, 2008 at 4:45 pm | Report this commentConcerning Rev. Wright, my take is that his public histrionics will be of long-term benefit to Senator Obama - assuming he can deal with the short-term fallout.
As things stood, the Republicans would have been endlessly showing YouTube video clips of Wright’s absurd commentary. Now that Wright has gone public and Obama has categorically denounced the man, it puts a degree of closure on the case. It becomes old news.
Posted by: Norbert | May 5th, 2008 at 5:41 pm | Report this commentHonestly, I ask myself, with the insurmountable delegate lead against Hillary, the superdelegates siding with Obama en masse, and the overall impression that no matter what Clinton does in remaining contests, Obama is the Democratic nominee, why is Hillary Clinton still in this race?
Posted by: Wanakee Hill | May 5th, 2008 at 6:11 pm | Report this commentYes, she does have a right to stay in. Yes, all states, territories and pundits should have their say. No, she should not tear her opponent down and pretend she has a “fighting” chance of beating him if voters succumb to hear kitchen sink strategy.
So, if there is no real chance of Hillary winning the nomination and it’s clear this race continuing on, is doing great harm to the Democratic party, its chances of winning in November, and the pscyhe of voters, why, pray tell, does Clinton stay in this race?
Many have thought the US media has done its job brilliantly, as in the beginning it was noted by many that media ownership is closely aligned with AIPAC and other special interests that have been sceptical that Obama would work for them. By building Obama up, and then setting the stage for the moment when he would be felled by one of his own in a moment of delusion, they have achieved the impossible: made Hillary look like a guardian of Washington’s institutions.
The US was ready for Obama; they are not ready for black president. Wright did the Clinton’s work. He made Obama an updated Jesse Jackson. The responsibility falls on Obama, however. As the article noted today, he is struggling for photo ops with whites. Absurd. From this side of the Atlantic, we hope some there search their souls hard to comprehend what is not right with your system.
Posted by: WCM | May 5th, 2008 at 6:18 pm | Report this commentMore than doing the Clintons’ work, WCM, I am afraid that Wright has done the work of the Republicans, by threatening to deprive the Democrats of their strongest candidate. The right wing media may be pretending to love Hillary now, but as Clive Crook rightly points out, they will dump all over her if she is nominated. Instead of seeing endless clips of a raving preacher on Fox News, we will be seeing “Special Report” after “Special Report” on Bill’s girl friends and the death of Vincent Foster.
However, let it never be said that one cannot change one’s opinion. In many of my posts, I have compared the right-wing attacks on Obama with the Swift Boating of John Kerry in 2004. However, after seing even more of the media obsession with Wright, going back, incredibly, to the 1980’s when he allegedly supported the Sandanistas in Nicaragua, something that Obama did not have the slightest connection with, and after seeing the despicable attempts by Fox’s Sean Hannity to connect Obama with Weathermen bombings that took place when he was 6 years old, I now believe that Swift Boat is not the most appropriate comparison.
Instead, what we are seeing now is a repeat of the vile, openly racist, Republican “Willie Horton” ads that helped to elect Bush Sr. in 1988, beginning the Bush presidential dynasty that has done such harm to America and the world. Not only Wright, but Obama himself is now turning into Willie Horton.
Roger Algase
Posted by: algasema | May 5th, 2008 at 7:48 pm | Report this commentRoger,
Scrutinizing a candidate is not a right-wing attack, nor is it racist. It is the job of an active media, which is not the one we had for the first year or so of the campaign.
Given that most of the Swift Boat claims about Kerry turned out to be true, does it really say much for Sen. Obama to defend him by comparing him to Sen. Kerry?
Sen. Obama has very radical supporters, and is a very left wing candidate. The media buried this long enough. Unfortunately, it makes something like heroes of the bizarre Rev. Wright and bizarrer Bill Ayers, since the media has chosen them as the leverage the media to uncover Sen. Obama’s very public views. Those two certainly need no sympathy from even the left wing of the Democratic party for their vile views.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | May 5th, 2008 at 8:24 pm | Report this commentClearly, Mr Hanshaw has not read my posts critical of the political system in France. The Bush Treasury and the Fed are putting the bill for Iraq and other adventures on Europe, as well as the people in the Gulf, Saudi Arabia, and east Asia. I will pray we do not have to return the favour of sending our sons there to sort out his widely shared denial.
Bottonline: AIPAC, Likudites, and the Big Corporates are not willing to take a chance on Obama’s change agenda. I agree with Algasema that they are just warming up for what they will do with Hillary. That story is not yet told, however. McCain has never really been one of theirs, and Hillary and Bill are without conscience/principle/policy for a price and Narcissistic strokes.
Posted by: WCM | May 5th, 2008 at 8:47 pm | Report this commentNobody planned it this way. She can’t catch him but he can’t put her away. It’s Apollo Creed and Rocky. It will trail them all the way to Denver until the superdelegates choose the winner. Who do you choose? Those poor judges.
Posted by: Daedalus | May 5th, 2008 at 9:00 pm | Report this commentSure, JBP, and I also agree that Dukakis should never have let Willie Horton out of jail. Speaking of McCain, WCM, why is he getting a free pass on accepting the endorsement of a lunatic white preacher who is just as bad as Wright, and more importantly, the fact that he has changed his position on almost every issue imaginable (except the Iraq war, where he has been dead wrong from the start)?
And why is it that there has been almost no mention of what is probably the most important (and truest) statement by any candidate so far, namely McCain’s admission during a recent speech that America soldiers are fighting in Iraq for the oil?
Posted by: algasema | May 5th, 2008 at 9:09 pm | Report this commentalgasemo:
I would gladly fill my MINI (to drive my children to classes) with North American oil products but the liberaloonies in my great nation have blocked source development (abundantly stored beneath our shores) AND the refining of it, for decades.
Eventually, hydrogen/fuel cell products will rule and we will sing “piss off” to the hydrocarb and its cronies that threaten to cripple our transpo. They can go back to their goats and tents and we will press on into the 21ST Century.
Meanwhile thank G** for John McCain protecting our transpotation fuels we are BlOCKED, poliitcally, from developing within the Western Hem.
Clarification: It was not an admission but a pledge we sane people gladly accept and will gladly defend at the peril of our enemies.
And if you don’t know the difference between an endorsement and being an acolyte for 20 years, well, shame on you and your simplicity.
Or perhaps you did not go to Public School…
Posted by: GlennO | May 5th, 2008 at 9:40 pm | Report this commentOne further comment, JBP. The notion that Obama agrees with Wright, or ever has, with respect to his most controversial statements, is a plain and simple lie. Not even Sean Hannity has been able to find a single instance where Obama has ever made a statement agreeing with Wright’s rantings about AIDS, 9/11, curses against America, alleged support of Sandanistas, or whatever else has surfaced.
To the contrary, Obama has consistently denounced all of these positions (except for the war in Nicaragua, where Obama, politely, has never even mentioned Reagan’s breaking the law in the Iran/Contra scandal). And was Obama throwing around bombs when he was six years old? If one watches Fox News long enough, one might begin to believe so.
Posted by: algasema | May 5th, 2008 at 9:46 pm | Report this comment>>algasema. I think why Obama’s relationship with Wright is different than others’ connections with fiery pastors or weirdos (a risk in political life) has been well detailed in recent threads.
In short, it is because 1) Obama and his wife have had a 20+ year relationship with this pastor who merited citations in his books, and 2) because of this pastor’s open and long relationship with Louis Farrakhan, whose Nation of Islam movement is nothing less than a black Fascist organisation.
I believe you have already questioned me on the use of the term Fascism in this context. Europeans understand this term in a very different context than Americans, who’ve come to see it largely as related to anti-Semitism. The FT today used it as I do in their article about “Fascists and Jews united…” in the election of a right-wing mayor in Rome.
As I noted the other day, I believe that Obama’s wife is the real close link to Wright, but the words of praise and gratitude have been those of Obama.
Posted by: WCM | May 5th, 2008 at 9:57 pm | Report this commentA scary thought as I ready for bed: What would I be thinking this evening if I was Hillary? (Shoot me if you like, but please spare me any comments on this troubling moment.)
Now that it seems she could actually win the nomination if she kicks and screams strategically enough, and frees up Michigan and Florida and perhaps enjoys a boost amongst SuperDs when a prominent Obama supporter defects to her side, one must ask if it will be a “win”.
Maybe not. She likes a fight and she will give McCain a mean one. However, there is little reason to think she can win the national vote if Obama’s demise is as ugly as seems likely now and leaves a demoralised and divided Democratic Party. McCain will certainly, as Clive and others are suggesting, open up some nasty dossiers if not introduce some new ones. (No doubt, I don’t think we know this man’s character is all that it is made out to be, either.)
If Obama takes the nomination and fails miserably afterwards, Hillary can return to a very powerful seat in the Senate intact. The Party, too, knows the gameplan as they’ve picked up the pieces after McGovern and, yes, Kerry.
I doubt she will think the same tonight, but it will be my dream, as another Clinton Admin stirs familiar nightmares, despite their popularity amongst the media markets.
Posted by: WCM | May 5th, 2008 at 10:22 pm | Report this commentWCM, I read the same FT article about the election in Rome. I note that a Jewish community leader said that the new Fascist (or former Fascist) mayor might behave more “responsibly”, once in power. Putting aside the question of how any member of Rome’s Jewish community could ever support an avowed Fascist, give the the terrible history of that same community under the Nazis, the notion that giving power to a Fascist may make him behave more responsibly is not new. This argument was also made when a certain far right wing Chancellor took power in 1933 in a country to the north of Italy.
Posted by: algasema | May 5th, 2008 at 10:26 pm | Report this commentSorry, I meant to say: “given the terrible”, not “give the terrible”.
Posted by: algasema | May 5th, 2008 at 10:29 pm | Report this commentWell, Clive, here’s a great quote about Obama, almost as good as the one about crack.
“Right about now, his much-heralded tutorial on race relations is looking more like Richard Nixon’s “Checkers” speech than the Gettysburg Address. Because, after last Tuesday’s formal renunciation of his ties to Wright — and presumably also his white grandmother and all blacks — Obama looks not only tardy but thoroughly hypocritical.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rodriguez5-2008may05,0,6531897.column
Posted by: Ann H | May 5th, 2008 at 10:45 pm | Report this commentI guess you forgot that Republicans are not going to want a “liberal” black president. Sorry - they are totally energized over him. They are already running ads in the South forcing congressional dems to distance themselves from Obama. Also, Obama’s youth are not nearly a majority of the electorate. Instead, older folks are. And you truly forgot about women and Reagan Demoncrats who won’t vote for Obama. And even a few of us angry blacks who think he’s a sham. Nominate him and lose. Serves the Dems right - with all of their hypocrisy.
Posted by: tony | May 6th, 2008 at 12:49 am | Report this commenttony, if Obama somehow does become president, it will serve the Republicans right, with all their Willie Hortons. Ann H., I would be willing to bet that you are far too young to have actually seen Richard Nixon’s “Checkers” speech at the time he gave it on television. I did watch the speech.
Comparing that miserable excuse for a speech by a man who was not called “Tricky Dick” for nothing to Barack Obama’s moving, magnificent and utterly true speech on race is like comparing George W. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech to Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech.
There is nothing wrong with being partisan in the general election. But when Democrats throw mud at each other, as Hillary, for all of her strong points that I have never tried to deny, has been doing far too often with Obama, this only helps McCain.
And, as Clive Crook accurately points out, Hillary is hardly immune from smear attacks from the very right wing Republicans who are pretending to be having such a love fest with her now. If she wins the nomination, she will be hit with smears and lies from the Republicans that will make the Swift Boating, Jeremiah Writing and Willie Hortoning of Obama look like a sixth-grade civics class by comparison.
She will then cry foul, as she should, and will need us Obama supporters to back her up. If this time ever comes, we would do so far more willingly if she would speak out now against those who use the sewer politics of slime, lies, character assassination and guilt by association against Obama, rather than trying try to profit from it in her “blind ambition” to win the presidency at all costs, even that of wrecking her party.
Posted by: algasema | May 6th, 2008 at 1:37 am | Report this commentAlgaesema–four points:
1. Either Obama’s race speech is a hoax or his disavowal of Wright is a hoax–the two positions spouted by Obama are inconsistent. So, which is it?
2. Obama and his campaign have smeared Clinton from here to kingdom come, providing Republican talking points every step of the way.
3. Apparently unbeknownst to Clive and you, Obama has already tried to bring up past Clinton scandals (including Monica Lewinsky and the blue dress). The public isn’t buying it–it’s just so 1990s.
However, Wright features very prominently in current Republican attack ads, and he is very big news, rightly or wrongly. Wright is more than enough to sink Democratic prospects this fall.
4. It is Obama who is destroying the Democratic Party, a man whose arrogance is exceeded only by his ambition and grandiosity.
Posted by: Ann H | May 6th, 2008 at 4:46 am | Report this comment1) The Willie Horton campaign was in the Primary. It was Democrat vs. Democrat, and much more unpleasant than the pillow fight the Democrats are having now.
2) I tend to agree that the opinions of a random supporter (Hagee, Farrakhan etc) are not very big issues. However, the opinions of someone that you follow for 20 years, donate money to, and write books about certainly do matter. Sen. Obama followed his spritual leader Rev. Wright, for 20 years.
3) After a year of campaigning The Media just noticed yesterday that Sen. Obama is part of the Chicago Machine (see Fred Seigel in the Australian). The Machine is an brazen corrupt institution, that has near singlehandedly delivered Sen. Obama his lead in popular vote (accounting for 60% of his lead). Good luck (to either Democrat) in the general election keeping the Machine out of the press!
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | May 6th, 2008 at 12:51 pm | Report this commentAnn H., I will only respond to the point on which I agree with you, namely that Wright is “very big news” and is “more than enough to sink the Democratic prospects in the fall.” Should we not be asking ourselves why this is so, since there is no record of Obama’s ever having endorsed any of Wright’s delusional remarks, or associated himself with anything other the positive programs that Wright’s church undeniably has been carrying on for many years in the Chicago South Side community where Obama used to work.
The answer is clear. If Wright did not exist, the right wing media would have invented him. The Republican smear machine has obviously been looking around for the most unpopular (among whites) black figure they can find to tie Obama to in the public mind. They tried with Farrakhan, but that didn’t get much traction by itself. They tried with the Black Panthers. That didn’t work, either. Nor did “Black Liberation Theology”. They are also, as we can see, desperately trying with the Weathermen and William Ayres, a white former terrorist who threw bombs around when Obama was 6 years old, but who has since rehabilitated himself with a distinguished academic career.
If none of these people were on the scene, the Republicans would probably be trying to link Obama to Mobutu, Mugabe or Idi Amin (Obama’s father, after all, was African, remember?) or to Muslim extremists in Indonesia, where, as we all know, Obama once lived. And don’t forget Obama’s middle name, which we will, without the slightest doubt, be hearing constantly on the airwaves between now and November if Obama wins the nomination, Wright or no Wright.
Wright’s significance in this campaign is not based on the fact that he insists on making insane remarks that no one takes seriously and which have more entertainment value than anything else. His significance is that of a concocted image of ultimate evil and implacable anti-white hatred, the prototype of what all white people should hate, fear and regard as a threat to their very existence,just as was the case in the Willie Horton campaign. This is not reality, it is political marketing, of the same deceptive kind that got us into the Iraq war.
Speaking of the Iraq war, one of the Bush people once said that “you don’t introduce new products in August”. Regardless of whether Hillary or Obama gets the nomination, the Republicans will be promoting a very old product this August, that of the most vicious, despicable kind of political smear, whether it is marketed under the Wright & Ayres brand name or under the Lewinsky & Foster one. Hillary, who has so many strengths as a candidate, and who would, unquestionably be a hundred times better as a president than McCain, could do a great deal to increase her standing and trustworthiness, not only ampng Obama supporters, but among all voters, if she would speak out against the politics of smear and defamation, even if used against her opponent, rather than trying to play along with these same tactics for her own short term political advantage.
And all Democrats, whether Obama or Hillay supporters, should be asking constantly why Republicans always get a free pass when they accept support from the lunatic pastors, talk show hosts and other hatemongers on the right, as McCain is now doing in the case of at least one inflammatory white preacher
Posted by: algasema | May 6th, 2008 at 1:07 pm | Report this commentSorry, I meant to write “Hillary supporters”. I think everyone knows what I was trying to say, anyway.
Posted by: algasema | May 6th, 2008 at 1:13 pm | Report this comment>>algasema. Sorry, but you really are missing the Wright point. It is legitimately relevant. It is a concern why the Democratic leadership is silent now. Denial may help Obama get to the convention, but, as I agree with John Powers, the race going into November will be a brutal with much greater destructive potential.
Obama has known of the links to Farrakhan and the risks inherent. He understood early the nead to stand as a “Class A” candidate (I think that is Carville’s term in today’s article), but now he is a very questionable product of a legendary bed of corruption: black Chicago politics. His “right” words will not cut the big race.
Posted by: WCM | May 6th, 2008 at 1:15 pm | Report this commentGeorge Hanshaw, your first comment is a set of very, very tired clichés.
First, the media never do their jobs, particularly in the United States. Anyone who thinks otherwise just doesn’t know what he/she is talking about. The best papers in America beat the drum for going to Iraq, that utter bloody disaster, rather than doing one speck of serious investigation.
Second, the good publicity over Obama early on was precisely because he is a remarkable and attractive figure. He simply towers over the others running in both parties. Intelligent, educated, sympathetic, graceful, articulate - you name the fine characteristic, this man has it in spades.
Bringing in the Rev Wright is pure political sleaze. First, who wants to be judged by the views of another, one you may have spent an hour a week with in the mere formality of going to church? For most politicians in America, going to church is a mere formality.
There are so many ridiculous religious freaks out there with dashboard Jesus figures and superstitious nonsense filling their heads, no politician can afford not to be seen crossing a church threshold occasionally.
You don’t seriously believe either of the Clintons is genuinely religious, do you? They are both consumingly ambitious and worldly, to say the least. Or that swearing, drinking, skirt-chasing man, McCain, who doesn’t even sleep with his wealthy wife?
You condemn your own judgment in saying that is what should be done. Wright is an ego-maniac, but then so are all of the American televangelists and leaders of super-churches. You name the man - Falwell, Swaggert, Hinn, Roberts, Robertson, Graham, Bakker, Schuller - they are all ego-maniacs and about as genuinely Christian as Wall Street swindlers.
I also think, although I do not like the form it is presented in, that Wright does have some truths buried in his rhetoric. Crazy-sounding stuff like government manufacturing AIDS to attack blacks may be understood as parables and symbolic ways of talking about bitter underlying truths. God knows, America’s blacks have truly suffered inordinate burdens and great injustice for more than two centuries.
Wright’s more extreme expressions rank right up there with Falwell saying the Anti-Christ exists and that “he is in the form of a Jewish male.” Or suggesting that the Clintons had Vince Foster murdered. Or blaming 9/11 on homosexuals. Or any of scores of other vicious, stupid words.
Moron Franklin Graham, right after 9/11, called for America’s enemies to be attacked with nuclear weapons. When this exemplary Christian was younger, one of his favorite fun things to do, other than drinking and driving, was to use a machine gun on trees. His favorite gift to friends on birthdays or other occasions is an automatic pistol.
How about Pat Robertson publicly calling for the assassination of a foreign leader? He wasn’t treated as a terrorist, as he very much should have been under America’s ugly anti-terror laws.
The greatest underlying truth over the ego-maniac Wright is that America’s reaction to him is so extremely unbalanced.
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | May 6th, 2008 at 2:01 pm | Report this commentWCM, Chicago black politics may be a bed of corruption, but what about the corrupt white Chicago politics and stolen votes that gave us JFK in 1960? Of course, this is to be condemned, but would America and the world have been better off with Nixon?
You insist that Wright is relevant. That would be easier to believe if Obama had ever endorsed any of Wright’s offensive statements. There is not the slightest evidence of this. If there were, Fox News and the New York Post would not have lost a single second in making any such endorsements by Obama so well known that school children would now be reciting them by heart. Instead, Obama has consistently denounced Wright’s lunatic views while, at the same time, supporting the good work in the community that Wright’s church, which has both white and black membership, has done. Not even a slime and sleaze master such as Sean Hannity of Fox News can deny that.
Think for a moment what the political campaign scene would be like if Wright had never existed. Everybody would still be focusing on a misinterepreted remark by Michelle Obama, on Ayres, who was active when Obama was six years o;d, on Farrakhan, on the Black Panthers, or on whatever other demonized figure, preferably black, but white if necessary, the right wing smear and lie machine could drag up from the sewer to try to connect with Obama.
Certainly, many Americans think that Obama agreed with Wright. These are the same people who thought, not too long ago, that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 or who still think that Barack Hussein, now under fire for his 20 years in a Christian church, is really a Muslim. The BIB LIE once worked in Germany. It is now working here in America. What a disgrace, what a terrible shame, what a tragedy for this once-great country.
Posted by: algasema | May 6th, 2008 at 2:54 pm | Report this comment>>algasema. Sorry, but we differ here. Wright has been cited by Obama as one of the most influential people in his life–for more than 20 years. the other associations you mention are/have been background noise for other candidates. There is a fine line between an ambitious, calibrated and questionably-backed climb and a rise on sound virtues and strengths.
Even a few days ago, I was willing to accept Obama’s regrets and denunciation of Wright. Then I received a copy of Michelle Obama’s Princeton thesis in my inbox and looked under a few stones. I feel many of Obama’s Class A support base (again referring to Carville’s piece today) share my concerns.
Has Ted Kennedy addressed the Wirght issue yet?
Posted by: WCM | May 6th, 2008 at 3:14 pm | Report this commentI don’t know the answer to your last question, WCM. If Kennedy has ignored the Wright “issue”, it is a sign of his wisdom and good judgment. And which do you think is more difficult to live down - something that Barack’s spouse may have written in college (which, admittedly, I haven’t read - I may treat myself to doing that after his inauguration) or any number of things that Hillary’s spouse has said and done before, during and after his term as President?
Posted by: algasema | May 6th, 2008 at 4:17 pm | Report this commentClive you are wonderful,
Posted by: Idong | May 6th, 2008 at 4:21 pm | Report this commentThis is one of the times i have read something so true i have to accept from a journalist covering the US presidency election. I am not an American, I do not leave in the USA. I leave in the Ukraine. The current USA election has become one of the most popular event and news in the world for today. Even the un-educationed around the whole are equally taking interest in it. This is actually a very big test to the American people and what they stand for. Sometimes it seems the what is happening in the USA between Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama is becoming more important to every other person round the world than to the American people bcos it is going to expose the Americans to the rest of the world and that might define the way some people will start to view the USA.
This election will answer series of question like:
-Are the Americans actually democratic as they often portray?
-Have the American people leave above the prejudice of the past?
Will the some American people (the super-delegates) steal from rob Obama for the Clintin while Obama is leading? What will they explain to the rest of the world who are patiently watching.
>>algasema. Pass on Michelle’s thesis. It is quite poor. Only a salaried and diligent professor would bother to read past the opening paragraph. A few key statements, together with other accounts from her political life before and after her marriage, paint a disappointing profile. A respected American friend’s wife plays the same tune in polite Southern white. The difference is that my friend leaves the room when his wife begins to speak of politics, and he would never sit in her church for anything other than a peformance for one of their children.
Posted by: WCM | May 6th, 2008 at 5:02 pm | Report this comment“Chicago black politics may be a bed of corruption, but what about the corrupt white Chicago politics and stolen votes that gave us JFK in 1960? Of course, this is to be condemned, but would America and the world have been better off with Nixon?”
If that is who the voters chose, then yes. Quite a few people have staked their lives on representative Democracy totally out of synch with the Chicago Machine. Even the election of Nixon would have to be accepted to support Democracy.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | May 6th, 2008 at 6:41 pm | Report this commentAgreed, JBP, but then, how can you explain Bush’s being having been installed in the White House in 2000? And how much democracy will America have this fall as possibly millions of minority, poor, elderly and other “downscale” voters are disenfranchised by unnecessarily restrictive voting laws in some 20 states, that appear to have just been upheld by the same Supreme Court (with a couple of personnel name changes) that put Bush in power?
How much democracy do we have when the voters are misled and manipulated by big lie smear campaigns aimed, at bottom, at attacking the race of one of the major candidates?
Posted by: algasema | May 6th, 2008 at 7:40 pm | Report this commentExplanation: Representative democracy is not always popular vote contest..Fraud should not be permitted within democracy period, regardless of your cheerleading for one politician or another.
Your favorite Sen. Obama is spending $300 Million or so in his own “big lie smear” campaign as you say, condemning those who make more than $92,000 as somehow oppressing the poor..blah blah blah, more leftist snake oil..blah blah blah.
Misleading depends on your viewpoint, but by quantitative measures, your man is the leader of the monied interest in politics.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | May 6th, 2008 at 8:12 pm | Report this commentMaybe or maybe not, JBP, but after his huge win in North Carolina Tuesday, while holding Hillary to a narrow lead in Indiana, which may disappear completely before the night is over, Obama is now unstoppable to be the Democratic candidate, and, if Hillary can put her ego behind her for once to accept the inevitable, the next President of the US, no matter how many more Jeremiah Wrights the Republican smear machine tries to conjure up out of thin air.
They will not give up trying, of course. Even before the swift boat campaign against Kerry in 2004, one Republican operative was puportedly boasting (though, in fairness, this may be apocryphal) that by the time they got through with Kerry, American voters wouldn’t even be sure which side he had fought for in Vietnam.
In the same way, the only way that the lackluster and, we have to be honest, no longer in his intellectual prime John McCain, who promises us a Bush third term (though I think that this is being kind to McCain - he would be even less focused and more belligerent that our current boy president) can hope to beat Barack is by convincing the public that the Senator from the State of Abraham Lincoln, whom he resmbles in every way except his name, was somehow responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
An absurd fantasy? Don’t put anything past Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter and a host of other meisters of the smear and the big lie. They will have their work cut out for them. Will Hillary do the only decent thing possible and rally to Obama? Will her supporters? Over to you, for the sake of America, Ann H.
Posted by: algasema | May 7th, 2008 at 3:19 am | Report this commentCertainly, I overestimated the damage done to Obama during the past two weeks. Nonetheless, he is not the candidate who inspired hope several months ago.
Listening to US pundits for about 30 minutes before going to sleep last night, I was struck by the comedy-hour lines and football-match analysis. The political system there is far from healthy, and the public policy framework, which affects us all, is in sharp decline.
Posted by: WCM | May 7th, 2008 at 7:11 am | Report this commentThe question to understand is: Will Obama, Clinton or even McCain make the same great contribution to the Russian Federation, P. R. China and India economies as President George W. Bush did at the cost of American economy “defending” American national interests globally?
Posted by: Viktor O. Ledenyov | May 7th, 2008 at 10:23 am | Report this commentRight, WCM, our political system over here is very, very far from being healthy. If it were, the Wright story would have lasted for about five minutes, instead of 5 weeks (or, perhaps 5 months to come). This is why we need Obama, who has the honesty and the courage to talk about race openly instead of hypocritically, to speak out against immigrant-bashing, to avoid phoney gimmicks like the gas tax “holiday”, and even to challenge to culture of guns and political use of religion, at great risk to his own popularity.
In the Southern State of North Carolina, where not so many years ago, black men could be lynched for looking too closely at a white woman, Obama won 40% of the white vote. In the conservative state of Indiana, with a comparatively small black population, Obama almost beat Hillary, Wright notwithstanding (plus the crossover Republicans, who were being urged to support Hillary by radio talk show hatemonger Rush Limbaugh, who would make Wright look like Mother Theresa by comparison).
Things are changing in America. There is a feeling of excitement now that I have not seen since Kennedy won in 1960 (the first election in which I was old enough to vote). Perhaps beginning last night, America has slarted to recover. Hillary, however, is pushing ahead to the point of putting her own sanity into question. What on earth is she doing today in West Virginia? What can she possibly accomplish there, even if she should win by 50 points, rather than the projected 20 (which will probably be more like 5-10, if Obama is smart enough to go there himself and campaign as if his nomination depended on it, even though it does not).
The only thing that can stop Obama now from winning the nomination would be for him to underestimate the size of Hillary’s ego, assume that he has things locked up, and become complacent. The only thing that could stop him in the fall would be for Hillary and her supporters to continue her tacit alliance with McCain in order to bring Obama down so Hillary can run against McCain in 2012, assuming that McCain’s health is good enough - of course, every American, including myself, wishes this courageous war hero the best of health - to allow him to finish Bush’s third term.
A final word to Ann H., JBP and other implacable Obama opponents before I finally make good on my earlier promise to sign off.. I would be the first to insist that Obama is by no means perfect. In fact, he has three major “drawbacks” that will prevent millions of people from voting for him, and which both Hillary’s supporters (until she is finally dragged off the stage by the Super-Duper Delegates) and McCain’s supporters will undoubtedly try even harder to exploit.
Let me list Obama’s main disadvantages in the general election: 1) Obama is black. 2) Obama is an African-American. 3) Obama is not white (or at least, only 50% so). With the the greatest respect, appreciation and best wishes to Clive Crook and to all of my fellow posters on this blog, I will close.
Roger Algase
Posted by: algasema | May 7th, 2008 at 2:08 pm | Report this commentOddly enough, I don’t think the country is as obsessed with race as the media and the Democratic intramurals would suggest. If I was limited to 3 negatives about Obama, I would stick with
1) Sen. Obama never has held a private sector job in his life, nor has he or his children ever attended a day of public school.
2) Sen. Obama’s voting record and campaign is far left, leading some of the more unlikeable people (Bill Ayers and Bill Moyers both come to mind) in the country to vocally revive 1960’s era platforms via Sen. Obama.
3) Obama is a wheel in the Chicago Machine, owing his career to some of the most corrupt, mob ridden politicians in American history. Neither Emil Jones nor the Stroger and Duff families play well outside of Chicago (where they are almost folk heroes in their brazen corruption). Obama’s real estate partner, Tony Rezko, is just the tip of the iceberg.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | May 7th, 2008 at 2:53 pm | Report this commentGeorge McGovern, until now inexplicably a Clinton supporter, just announced he’s switching to Obama and publicly called for her to quit.
I think this is very significant, and marks the beginning of the end for her.
Millions are sick of her voice and even sicker of her despicable tactics.
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | May 7th, 2008 at 4:44 pm | Report this commentAlgasema–Did I understand you correctly that the only reason Obama won 90% of the black vote is that 1) Obama is black. 2) Obama is an African-American. 3) Obama is not white (or at least, only 50% so).
Who knew–Obama supporters are racists?
Posted by: Ann H | May 7th, 2008 at 7:54 pm | Report this commentSomething for the superdels to consider.
“Compare Obama’s victory in VA to his victory in NC, with the contests 3 months apart. He did MUCH WORSE, not better.
VA
64% Obama
36% Clinton
Obama got 67% of White Men in VA
Obama got 45% of White Women in VA
Obama got 93% of Black Men in VA
Obama got 85% of Black Women in VA
NC
56% Obama
42% Clinton
Obama got 40% of White Men in NC
Obama got 33% of White Women in NC
Obama got 91% of Black Men in NC
Obama got 91% of Black Women in NC
The ONLY measure by which Obama improved last night was Black Women, he even lost 2% among Black Men. HUGE loss of % for both White Men (-27%) and White Women (-12%).”
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27623
Posted by: Ann H | May 7th, 2008 at 9:09 pm | Report this commentcan we seperate two thoughts please?? one thought is that mr obama should have known better and cut all ties with mr wrong much sooner than he did. elementary school perhaps. the second thought is that because he did not denounce mr wrong quickly enough to suite some that mr obama must share all, even the most theatric and vile expressions of anger vomited (to the media’s delight) from the mouth of mr wrong. the first thought does not validate the second. and lets consider a third thought. white america and its racist institutions created the environment that produced black anger and political radicalism. it is only a natural progression that the agent of change would arise from this dismal environment. mr obama had a choice in how he would channel his personal response and he chose to be an agent for unity and progress. in that mission he is succeeding and leaving the tired message of hatred and bigotry expressed by mr wrong far behind. mr obama has seperated from and evolved beyond the base reaction in response to those who hate and decided to follow the path of forgiveness and unity. in bringing blacks and whites together in opposition to the current fascist power structure he creates the threat that must be addressed. remember dr king was gunned down in memphis while campaigning for workers rights and against another rediculous war.it was in challenging the superiority of capital over labor and war mongers over citizens that he sealed his fate. today war profiteering exists. the press has lost its way. racism is alive and well in america. its time for a dramatic change of direction.only a victim of that racism can help heal its wounds and motivate the rest into behaving as american ideals of equality, truth and justice demand. neither hillary nor mcnasty can lead us where we need to go. it is up to the american public to overcome the fear of change and save this great country further damage. why do some fear a soft spoken black man more than the belicose pronouncements of the neocons?
Posted by: gym-bob | May 8th, 2008 at 5:02 am | Report this commentWhen a people lose confidence in government institutions, then it’s time to change those institutions.But sitting governments won’t want to change them - they have a lot to lose. And election candidates that have come from within the institutional system won’t either (for the same reasons).
One way of forcing change is a revolution - unlikely in a democracy. A second way is simply to ignore those institutions - find ways of dodging taxes, take up crime, form a parallel society, whatever.
A third possibility is to find a candidate, probably from outside the institutional system, who is prepared to attack the institutions, to offer a different way of doing politics. (This candidate would not be, could not be, a saint - no existing or would-be politician is - it’s the nature of the game).
If such a candidate presents him- or her- self, then they would, of course, expect to be villified by all those who work in, already gain from, or expect to gain from the present institutions. Such opponents will come from within the candidate’s own party as much as from the opposing party.
But if the electorate really do want to elect that candidate, then they will be enthusiastic for her/him, in spite of the propoganda, villification, etc.
The question is - are the voters of the USA really ready for institutional change? As Jean-Paul Sartre said - “some people hurt because they don’t hurt enough”. (ie if the pain’s bad enough, you’ll do something about it!
Posted by: derek tunnicliffe | May 9th, 2008 at 5:40 pm | Report this commentActually, Derek, I don’t believe that is true.
I respect Sartre’s view, but it just does not apply to the United States’ political institutions.
There are many reasons for this.
The chief one is that it is nearly impossible to change aspects of America’s 18th century Constitution, aspects of which must be changed to open up politics in America.
Just one tiny example: the Electoral College, a ridiculous, outdated, anti-democratic institution that has produced minority presidents a number of times, including Bush in 2000.
The role of money in American politics is overwhelming, and money works most of the time as advertising and marketing prove.
The corrupting role of money - Senators spend on average two-thirds of their time seeking contributions - is interpreted by America’s Supreme Court as “freedom of speech” bringing us back again, via “strict constructionist” judges -to an outdated Constitution.
The press plays a huge role too, and today all of the influential press in America is owned by a few wealthy and conservative people.
You really do have freedom of the press only if you own one.
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | May 9th, 2008 at 6:26 pm | Report this commentderek is on to the mechanics of social change. it is the hands of the masses not the incumbants or the press.we must arrest the rise of the neocons before the only solution is armed rebellion. for now the american people still have time and the very institutions that make america great on their side. yes there are obstacles. and i am most vocal in my agreement with john on the issues he sites that block change.but sometimes you have to push the rock uphill. we can overcome the obstacles if the people are willing and can tear themselves away from oprah and idol long enough to realize that the house is on fire. hillary is not the answer and mcnasty is the problem. mr obama is the first step in the right direction- the direction of change. america must have the guts and memory to see change/revolution as the cleansing agent of sound governance. jefferson and adams taught us that.
Posted by: gym-bob | May 9th, 2008 at 8:38 pm | Report this commentOne more thought before I go on a blogging holiday in earnest (if I ever do). Underlying all of the myriad imperfections in the primary, campaign, constitutional and electoral systems, along with just about every other aspect of US democracy that one can name, is the basic structure of American society. Though no one seems to be willing to come out and say this openly, we are a class society.
The interests of the big business class are in open and constant conflict with those of the less affluent class, namely everyone else, as can be seen in everything from the inflated drug costs and HMO profits in our broken healthcare system, to the subprime mortgage meltdown, brought on, in large part, by unregulated big business predatory lending, to the Iraq war itself, whose main beneficiaries so far are likely to be Halliburton and the oil companies, as cogently argued, for example in the latest book by Joseph Stiglitz: “The Trillion Dollar War”.
The Republican party, in general, represents the interests of the big business class, while the Democrats, at least in theory, if not in practice, are supposed to represent the interests of the middle and lower classes, which are now becoming harder to distinguish as America moves futher toward third world style income inequality. Obviously, the economic interests of most voters are better represented by the Democrats (yes, even if some people have to pay higher taxes, put up with more regulation, or accept some restrictions on trade in the interests of the general welfare), so the trick is how to persuade these “downscale” voters (to use a Republican coined term - not one invented by the supposed Chicago South Side “elitist”, Barack Obama) to vote against their own economic interests.
The answer is as simple as it has been successful. Divide the voters along racial, religious, gender and age lines. Convince them that blacks, whites, Asians and Latinos all have different “values”, “cultures” and interests, that providing opportunities for younger people will mean a smaller piece of the pie for seniors, that religious differences over abortion, gay rights, the Mormon Church, an unpopular black preacher, or Heaven help us, a candidate with a Muslim name, or racial differences over immigration, mean more than whether voters can feed their families, send their children to college, afford medical care, or protect their sons and daughters, husbands and wives from being killed in a war which even Iraq superhawk John McCain has now admitted is being fought for oil.
Until America acknowledges and confronts its economic class division, and until the huge majority of voters who are not members of the big business ruling elite cease allowing themselves to be manipulated by the politics of divide and conquer, fear and prejudice, our democracy will continue to exist in name only.
Posted by: algasema | May 10th, 2008 at 3:32 pm | Report this commentTo John Chuckman:
Thanks for a thoughtful response. You’re right - it would be a brave (foolhardy?) president that tried to change the Constitution. If one president can change it for the good of the people, then surely another can change it to their disadvantage.
Better by far to change the behaviour of the people who are within the institutions. You mention some of the unacceptable behaviour. In my experience it’s possible to find the right incentives to get people to change (and it’s surprising how, within bureaucracies, there are so many ready, wanting change to happen, and willing to make it work). It isn’t easy - but is slugging it out “as usual”?
To gym-bob. Just get out there and convince as many voters as you can. And that won’t be easy, either!
Posted by: derek tunnicliffe | May 10th, 2008 at 5:08 pm | Report this comment