June 7, 2008
A post just for Obamistas and Clintonistas
“The first casualty of war is truth,” said US Senator Hiram Johnson. Truth is also the first victim of political partisanship. Not surprising, really, as the true believers in any political cause view their campaigns as wars. The second and third victims of political partisanship are, respectively, one’s sense of humour and the ability to write in proper English.
Those who doubt the truth of these propositions are invited to take a look at some of the self-righteous nonsense, often expressed in bad English, that poured in in response to my blogs on Senators Obama (here & here)and Clinton (here).
In the latest kerfuffle, it was supporters of Senator Clinton who got their knickers twisted. The statement of mine that caused such apoplexy among the Clintonistas was the following: “Senator Clinton has lost. She deserved to lose. She ran an ugly campaign. Just one vignette. When asked (again) on the CBS show 60 Minutes whether she believes Obama is a Muslim (a ludicrous rumour spread by right-wing bloggers and media in the US), she replies: “No, no why would I - there’s nothing to base that on - as far as I know”. She said this with a strong emphasis on the last ‘I’.”
I won’t revisit the case for or against my interpretation of Senator Clinton’s statements in the interview broadcast on 60 Minutes. You can make up your own mind by viewing the YouTube video clip of a short segment of the interview .
The transcript of the relevant part of the interview follows (the last question and answer are not in the video clip).
KROFT: You don’t believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?
CLINTON: Of course not. I mean, that’s–you know, there is not basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn’t any reason to doubt that.
KROFT: And you said you’d take Senator Obama at his word that he’s not a Muslim.
CLINTON: Right. Right.
KROFT: You don’t believe that he’s a Muslim or implying? Right.
CLINTON: No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.
KROFT: It’s just scurrilous –
CLINTON: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time.
There is a transcript of another interview doing the rounds which may be of interest.
INTERVIEWER: “You don’t believe that Senator Clinton is insinuating that Obama’s a Muslim?”
BUITER: Of course not. I mean, that,’s — you know, there is no basis for that. I take her on the basis of what she says. And, you know, there isn’t any reason to doubt that.
INTERVIEWER: You said you’d take Senator Clinton at her word that she believes that Senator Obama ’s not a Muslim.
BUITER: Right. Right.
INTERVIEWER: You don’t believe or implying that Senator Clinton believes that Senator Obama’s a Muslim? Right.
BUITER: No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.
INTERVIEWER: It’s just scurrilous –
BUITER: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time.
I know it is possible that Senator Clinton was tired, indeed physically and mentally exhausted, during the CBS interviews and did no more than slip on a banana skin carefully put in position by her interviewer. Possible but not likely. This is the Senator Clinton who recalled evading sniper fire when visiting Bosnia-Herzegovina as first lady in 1996. Clearly, here is someone to whom either lying comes naturally or who does not know the difference between dreams and reality. This is the Senator Clinton who today endorsed Senator Obama for the Democratic nomination but only suspended her campaign, rather than withdrawing her candidacy and terminating her campaign full stop, without qualifications and without dreams of a possible resurrection at some later date. She just cannot let go. There is something both sad and worrying, indeed scary, about that: persistence is admirable, obsession is destructive.
Does it matter if a candidate for the US Presidency is dishonest, unscrupulous or nasty?
One of the flaws in the US constitution is that it combines the head of government and head of state in a single office/person: the US Presidency/President. We can live with, indeed expect, heads of government who turn out to be without significant redeeming moral virtues. As long as they keep the nation prosperous and safe from internal and external threats, they can be lustful, gluttonous, greedy, slothful, wrathful, envious and proud, not to mention dishonest, conniving, cowardly, unscrupulous, selfish, unreliable, deceitful and untrustworthy. The head of state is expected to be different, and is held to a different standard. He or she represents the nation to the rest of the world. He or she also holds up a mirror to the nation itself, in which the people expect to see not what they are, but what they know they ought to be: decent, honest, trustworthy, caring, unselfish, brave, industrious, fair and even-handed.
Countries with a German-style constitution, in which real power lies with the head of government (the Chancellor), but where the Head of State has an important representative and symbolic function, and has his own legitimacy, because (s)he is elected independently of the head of government are in the enviable position of being able to ring-fence the nasty business of practical politics from the lofty business of representing the nation. Constitutional monarchies approach this desirable constitutional configuration in some respects, although the anachronism of the hereditary principle deprives the monarch of the necessary legitimacy. I have never forgiven the French for imposing a monarchy on the Dutch Republic, which had managed to survive from 1581 till 1795. Even worse, when given the chance to restore the Republic after the fall of Napoleon, the Dutch themselves decided to create their own monarchy in 1815. Countries like France and Russia, which have separate heads of state and heads of government but where the head of government is subordinate to the head of state (often nominated or appointed by the head of state), are closer to the flawed US model.
So a US President is really set an impossible task, needing to combine the the skills required by a head of government with those required of a head of state. Bill Clinton was a pretty good head of government; as an uninhibited and unabashed liar he made a dreadful head of state. Jimmy Carter made a great head of state, but a lousy head of government.
The President of the United states need not just be an effective leader of the Executive branch of government - or head of government. He or she needs to be someone whose personal characteristics are respected. The President as head of state must be honest, trustworthy, a person of integrity and high moral standards. To find someone with these qualities is very difficult. To find someone who bundles these personal qualities with the qualifications for being an effective head of government is almost impossible. Which is why the US constitutional arrangements are flawed.
Let me illustrate with a highly unscientifically sample of examples that show how personal integrity and morality matter.
In 1998, during the Monica Lewinski era, my son David, then 7 years old, was watching the news on television. Suddenly he called out “Look daddy: the man that lies”. I looked up and watched a film clip of the President of the United States, Bill Clinton.
In the UK, ‘being economical with the truth’, an 18th century euphemism for lying, was brought into the contemporary language by the UK Cabinet Secretary, Sir Robert Armstrong, who used the phrase during the Australian ‘Spycatcher’ trial in 1986. He appeared to have no moral qualms about it whatsoever.
More recently, I was one of those who believed the assertions of Prime Minister Blair, Secretary of State Colin Powell, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney that there was incontrovertible evidence that Saddam Hussain had weapons of mass destruction and that his regime was intimately tied to Al Qaeda well before 9/11. It’s hard enough as a parent trying to teach your children the difference between right and wrong, and the importance of telling the truth, without this kind of help from the White House and from Number 10 Downing Street.
The importance of truthfulness and trustworthiness are not ‘just’ a matter of personal morality - although that should be sufficient reason. Trust is a highly productive form of social capital. Trust among citizens and trust of the citizens in their leaders greatly enhance efficiency and the quality of life. Societies in which trust erodes, become less productive as well as more unpleasant places to be.
I am well aware that there are circumstances where the greater good may require our leaders to lie, and even to lie to us. After all, the traditional definition of a diplomat is “an honest person sent abroad to lie for his country”. Still, I would maintain that there have been far too many occasions where lying by elected or appointed officials was the first option rather than a last resort. I want the next President of the United States of America to be someone for whom telling the truth rather than telling a lie is not just a tactical or even a strategic option, but something highly valued for its own sake - because it is the right thing to do.
During the years that I have observed, as a member of the public, the actions and statements of Senator Clinton, I have never seen substantive evidence that she attached more than instrumental value to truth telling. That is fundamentally why I consider her unfit for the Presidency and why I am pleased she appears to be out of the race. With Senator McCain, I have sensed a greater attachment to truth telling as having intrinsic value. The same holds for Senator Obama.
Admittedly, with Senator Obama, I have had less opportunity to become disenchanted, as Senator Obama is 14 years younger than Senator Clinton, 25 years younger than Senator McCain, and has been in the US Senate only since 2005 (he did not appear much on my radar screen while he was a member of the Illinois State Senate between 1997 and 2004).
I consider that both Senator Obama and Senator McCain, but not Senator Clinton, are qualified to be head of state for the USA. Now I will have to figure out which one of Obama and McCain is better qualified to be head of government, so I can determine who to vote for. So far the liberal economics of McCain are more appealing than the protectionist and at times populist economic message of Obama. On Iraq, they are probably both wrong. They both have offered the by now quasi-automatic, unconditional and unqualified guarantee of Israel’s security that has been the norm for US Presidential candidates since 1967. I fear that this guarantee will, once again, no matter who wins the US Presidency, cover not only the security of the nation of Israel and its population, but also the policies of the Israeli government, no matter how misguided and destructive of opportunities for a peaceful settlement between Israelis and Palestinians.
On the environment, there is not, so far, much to choose between them. As regards the reform of healthcare and social security and as regards tax reform, neither candidate makes a lot of sense, although only Obama seems aware of just how scandalous the manifest failure of the US healthcare system is, and how wasteful.
So I will follow with interest the plans and policies that may emerge between now and the election in November. If both serious candidates fail to deliver, I can always vote Libertarian.
“After all, the traditional definition of a diplomat is “an honest person sent abroad to lie for his country”.” No it isn’t; it’s a subtle joke, not a rude remark. Thus:-
Posted by: dearieme | June 8th, 2008 at 12:08 am | Report this comment“an honest person sent to lie abroad for his country”.
“I am well aware that there are circumstances where the greater good may require our leaders to lie, and even to lie to us”.
Posted by: Carlos Ampuero | June 8th, 2008 at 12:44 am | Report this commentI disagree. There is no such greater good.
1. You focus on stated policies. Even assuming that the candidates will follow-through with their promises once elected (recall GHW Bush: “read my lips”) you fail to address the crucial question of implementation. This too needs to be scrutinised, i.e. who is the best technocrat. (BTW, Helmut Kohl was a great technocrat, and he was also a far-sighted presidential-like figure.)
2. You exaggerate the dichotomy between what is expected from a head-of-government and what is expected from a head-of-state:
“As long as they keep the nation prosperous and safe from internal and external threats, they can be lustful, gluttonous, greedy, slothful, wrathful, envious and proud, not to mention dishonest, conniving, cowardly, unscrupulous, selfish, unreliable, deceitful and untrustworthy.”
I don’t think many citizens would agree to such a concession, which comes close to accepting corrupt and fraudulent heads of government as long as they are effective administrators. That would be a sure recipe for the erosion of democracy and the rule of law.
Posted by: Ron Cohen-Seban | June 8th, 2008 at 1:06 am | Report this commentWillem, a rather ironic post being that economists(and CB’s in particular) are the breeding ground for dishonesty, deception and fraud.
“Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”
When govts stop financially abusing their citizens, society will produce far more honest citizens who will be ready and able to lead their countries in honest, productive ways.
Posted by: Keynes | June 8th, 2008 at 2:45 pm | Report this commentProfessor Buiter, thank you for a fascinating column, by far one of the most interesting and incisive ones I have read about the presidential election anywhere. It is a wonderful mixture of being right, unerringly on point, and of missing the point entirely. I will need to read it quite a few times before I feel I can say all that needs to be said, so I apologize in advance if I wind up making too many posts on this article.
To begin with what I believe is right about it, I think you have honed in on the real problem with Hillary Clinton. She is able to project almost every emotion convincingly - passion, strength, intelligence, courage, determination, committment - except one: trustworthiness.
This is not so much because of her actions. For example, I don’t think it makes a great deal of difference which euphemism she used about ending her campaign. When you endorse your opponent, as she did unequivocally, the campaign is over.
We can say that someone is dead, deceased, passed away, gone, no longer with us, or whatever. Whichever word we use, the person in question is not suddenly going to rise from his grave, put on a suit and join us for dinner. Nor is Hillary Clinton’s campaign going to be revived, absent only extraordinary and tragic circumstances that none of us would even want to think about.
Hillary Clinton’s lack of trustworthiness conveys itself, not so much in the printed texts of her words, but, as you suggest, in the inflexions of her voice and the expressions in her face.
To me, her wooden, if not steely, expression Saturday while she was ostensibly urging her supporters to vote for Senator Obama spoke volumes about what was going on in her mind, even more than her obsession with listing her own accomplishments during the campaign and her utterly phoney, self-congratulatory recitation of everything she supposedly did for women’s rights.
So much for the part of your article that I agree with. I will mention a couple of my main disagreements in a separate post. I am afraid that it may be quite a bit longer than this one.
Posted by: algasema | June 8th, 2008 at 8:25 pm | Report this commentProfessor Buiter, would you consider doing a column about Mr. McCain’s economic policy proposals, especially his suggestions about fiscal policy such as making the Bush tax cuts for the rich permanent and his plans for balancing the US federal budget? I would be very interested in your views.
Posted by: Carlomagno | June 8th, 2008 at 9:17 pm | Report this commentTo be brief, Senator McCain’s willingness to abandon his “core principles” on taxes and immigration raises serious questions about whether he is any more trustworthy than Hillary Clinton who, has in fact been much more consistent in her positions concerning matters of policy. The same can be said for McCain’s inconsistent positions on lobbyists.
Above all, why would Senator McCain seek and accept the endorsement of President Bush, whose usurpation of power through an absurd, pseudo-legal theory of a “Unitary Executive”, use of torture and trashing of civil liberties and the separation of powers on which our democracy depends, conflicts with everything that John McCain claimed to stand for as a Senator?
What does this say about Senator McCain’s character and fitness for the nation’s highest office? Details to follow in my next post.
Posted by: algasema | June 8th, 2008 at 9:25 pm | Report this commentSorry, I got carried away. I meant “conflict with everything”.
Posted by: algasema | June 8th, 2008 at 9:28 pm | Report this commentI have to make one more brief comment and save the rest for later. With all due respect, Professor Buiter’s elaborate digression on the distinction between head of the government and head of state in some European countries is utterly irrelevant to a discusson of US politics.
The only valid distinction in this country is between the three separate and, supposedly, co-equal branches of government, namely the legislative, the executive and the judicial, which Bush/Cheney have done so much to undermine.
If Senator McCain is elected, will he try to resore this essential feature of our democracy? I would not bet my bottom dollar on it, let alone hard currency.
Posted by: algasema | June 8th, 2008 at 9:37 pm | Report this commentI know John McCain has a reputation for integrity, but I don’t think it stands up to close scrutiny. One of the things that made him a maverick was his principled stand against torture (very unpopular among Republicans). Then in February he flipflopped on the issue and voted like the White House wanted him to vote. Because of that intelligence agencies can use torture methods prohibited in the military. McCain also had a Bosnia sniper moment when he claimed Americans could walk without worry through parts of Baghdad and never mind the infantry company as security detail (To borrow your words about Hillary: “Clearly, here is someone to whom either lying comes naturally or who does not know the difference between dreams and reality”). There have also been cringeworthy “Look me in the eye”-moments where it turns out he fibbed. And his tax policies make no sense whatsoever because he outright lies about how he can cover huge tax cuts through slashing earmarks.
Posted by: Dallion Guard | June 9th, 2008 at 6:18 am | Report this commentAs Dallion Guard suggests, Senator John McCain has shown nothing but expediency on tax policy, voting against the Bush tax cuts before running as a candidate in this election, but now supporting them to curry favor with the Bush/Cheney Republican establishment.
However, as I have also mentioned briefly above, one of McCain’s worst sellouts has been on immigration. Initially, he took a bold stand against the anti-Latino demagoguery of TV pundit Lou Dobbs, former right-wing fringe presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan (now turned TV commentator) Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo, and Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington, which has convinced millions of Americans in both parties that Spanish-speaking waiters, farm workers and meat packers are a greater danger to the survival of America than Al Qaeda.
Together with Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy (who, more than forty years earlier, had distinguished himself by sponsoring the grounbreaking immigration reform of 1965 that abolished racially based immigration quotas), Senator McCain sponsored a bill that would have offered a chance at earned legalization to many (but by no means all) of the estimated 10-12 million people in this country illegally, instead of attempting to round up and deport them in what would be a large scale act of ethnic cleansing entirely inconsistent with everything that America stands for.
The bill would also have reduced some of the unconscionable visa backlogs that have resulted in long waiting periods for millions of legal immigrants, while at the same time reducing future access to visas for many people and containing enhanced penalties and restricted access to the courts for many non-US citizen criminal and immigration violators.
This imperfect but reasonable attempt at balancing openness and enforcement was submerged in a tsunami of anti-immigrant hatred whipped up by bigots and white supremacists of every stripe under the banner “No amnesty for illegals!”.
Courageously, Senator McCain stood to his guns (at first). In one of the early presidential debates, when it seemed that his candidacy had little chance of succeeding, he accurately denounced the current wave of anti-immigrant prejudice as equivalent to the anti-Irish “Know Nothing” movement in the mid - 19th century.
However, once it became clear that he would win the nomination, McCain reversed ground and abandoned his support in favor of the “enforcement only” approach favored by the same people who had defeated his immigration compromise bill. Specifically, he announced that he favored postponing any measures to grant relief to illegal immigrants or to reduce visa backlogs for legal ones until the Mexican border is certified as “secure”. Certified by whom? Lou Dobbs? Certified when? 100 years from now, when McCain would like our troops, finally, to exit from Iraq?
This is the same strategy that McCain’s opponents used to defeat his reform bill last year. No wonder that those who seek to end the current “enforcement only” reign of terror consisting of workplace raids, roundups, incarceration in substandard prisons without access to lawyers, family or, in many cases, urgently needed medical attention, and assembly line deportations, against America’s Latino immigrant underclass no longer trust McCain.
Ironically, neither do many of the anti-immigrant bigots who oppposed his reform bill. They suspect that he still harbors support for “amnesty” deep inside. This might well be true. Perhaps McCain’s heart is still in the right place on immigration and the only thing missing is some courage and adherence to principle on the part of America’s former war hero. If only Professor Buiter were as familiar with Senator McCain’s record of flip-flops, expediency and pandering as he is with the history of the Dutch Republic between 1581 and 1795.
Posted by: algasema | June 9th, 2008 at 10:10 am | Report this commentCorrection: I meant “McCain reversed ground and abandoned his support of immigration reform in favor of the ‘enforcement only’ approach”. In my original post, I left out the words “of immigration reform.
Posted by: algasema | June 9th, 2008 at 10:38 am | Report this commentDear Algasema,
Some solid commentary on your part.
One thing I really hate about modern society is its love of democracy. It is nothing more than a illusion of due process, that tricks la plebe into thinking he has power.
The little guy would be better with a form of constitutional aristocracy, whereby the elite have privileges but also a feeling and duty of care for the little guy.
Godless
Posted by: Godless | June 9th, 2008 at 3:41 pm | Report this commentObama is no more trustworthy than McCain or Billary. Like Lula in Brazil, if elected he will probably change little, despite the fears of large swathes of the electorate.
Posted by: Shevvers | June 9th, 2008 at 4:42 pm | Report this commentI am baffled by your confession that you were: “one of those who believed the assertions of Prime Minister Blair, Secretary of State Colin Powell, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney that there was incontrovertible evidence that Saddam Hussain had weapons of mass destruction and that his regime was intimately tied to Al Qaeda well before 9/11″.
Iraq under Saddam, as we were all too well aware, was run by secularist, beer-drinking, whoring, fast-car driving, playboys who had been in bed with the US government for more than two decades. Their lifestyle and regime was the very antithesis of the ideals espoused by Al Qaeda. In the knowledge of this, were you seriously able to suspend your natural scepticism to such an extent that you actually bought the risible suggestion that Saddam’s regime was “intimately linked” with Al Qaeda? And, if so, why? How? What led to this uncharacteristic suspension of your rational faculties? I ask this in good faith. Not because I wish to criticise you but because I really want to know how so many extraordinarly bright and critical people could have failed to notice a butt naked emperor sitting in their midst.
Posted by: Baffled in the City | June 9th, 2008 at 4:46 pm | Report this commentI agree with Like Cohen-Seban, above, that Professor Buiter exaggerates the difference between the moral requirements of a head of state and a head of government. I believe he does so because he misses one of the main, if not the main, function of the head of state in a parliamentary democracy, in which the government can be ousted by a parliamentary no-confidence vote. (By the way, that is also the case in France.) In such a system, an institution is needed to ensure the continuity of the state. That institution is the head of state, who can also help to form a new government or, if that is impossible, dissolve parliament.
A separate head of state is not required in the United States, because in a presidential system, the head of government, the president, is elected for a fixed term. If he dies or is impeached, he is replaced for the rest of his term by the Vice President. In sum, the existence of a separate head of state stems primarily from a functional requirement of a parliamentary democracy, not from a need to have a special institution to preserve the political morality of the state and nation.
Consequently, I would argue that both the head of state and the head of government should be “someone whose personal characteristics are respected”, to use Professor Buiter’s words. In fact, Buiter seems to admit this, when in giving his example of the Iraq war, he criticises Tony Blair (head of government) and Colin Powell (part of the government) as much as he criticises President Bush and Vice-President Cheney (heads of state).
Another difference I have with Professor Buiter is that I would say that the heads of government and of state SHOULD be people whose morality is respected, not MUST be people whose morality is respected. The state can function properly if people do not respect their current leaders’ morality. But it can’t function properly, if the political system doesn’t allow parliament or the people to vote against leaders they consider immoral or if the judicial system fails to prosecute illegal acts by them. (Due to his or her function (continuity of the state), the judiciary may have to wait until a head of state ends his term of office.)
Consequently, though I agree with Professor Buiter on the importance of trust, I would say that the degree of political trust depends more on institutions and their proper functioning and less on particular individuals, i.e., the qualities of this or that head of government or head of state. It is possible to lose one’s trust in a leader or group of current leaders without losing one’s faith in the system.
As for the greater good and lying, my standard is that I expect political leaders always to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, but not necessarily always the whole truth. I also accept that politicians, like other human beings, can make a mistake in recalling past events.
Posted by: Edward S | June 9th, 2008 at 6:35 pm | Report this commentProfessor Buiter, you displayed you total imperviousness to economic realities when you wrote there was “no excuse for Britain not to join the euro”. Now you are lecturing politicians on truth????????? Hahahahahahaha.
Posted by: elizabeth schumann | June 9th, 2008 at 9:54 pm | Report this commentGodless, I understand that people have been arguing the question you raise since the time of Aristotle, if not long before. So far, no one seems to have come up with a pefect answer.
Does the travesty known as an American presidential campaign mean that we should give up on democracy? Wasn’t it Churchill who said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others?
Posted by: algasema | June 9th, 2008 at 9:56 pm | Report this commentGood column and good comments by reviewers. Senator McCain’s policy positions to the extent coherently enunciated are mostly nonsense, driven most likely by a lack of knowledge or interest in the issues or by the need to pander to the extreme right wing that is all that exists of the Republican Party.
Senator Clinton’s behavior and attitude during her campaign - and continuing as you note with the “suspension” of the campaign - have only reiterated the average voter’s mistrust of her. I include myself in that assessment. Her transformation as a candidate from inevitable nominee to “blue collar working woman” to elicitor of rural and blue collar white discomfort with blacks makes anyone who pays some attention to the campaign recoil in disgust.
Regarding Senator Obama, who knows. His proposed policies in most if not all areas seem fairly middle-of-the-road and therefore quite superficial. On the other other hand they do not represent the idiocy and consequences thereof that the USA and the world have had to endure under the Bush Administration. He has handled the mud slung at him well from my perspective - a case in point the utterly peripheral issue having to do with the pastor of his church. He has also seemingly maintained a remarkable calmness, articulateness and common sense - not to mention humor - in what has to be an exhausting process.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | June 10th, 2008 at 5:09 am | Report this commentReading Wendell Murray’s excellent comment, with which I wholeheartedly agree, makes me think that Barack Obama, instead of using the mantra of “change” might well use “trust” as his slogan. Clearly, lack of trustworthiness is what did Hillary in, and what, on the part of the Republican base, may also be McCain’s undoing.
Of course, having a candidate that we can trust would also be a change, especially after eight unspeakable years of Bush/Cheney,
Posted by: algasema | June 10th, 2008 at 9:43 am | Report this commentI should have said, of course, “candidate whom we can trust”. When one gets used to reading enough bad English - readily available in almost any US newspaper and on any US TV program, it starts to seep in. At least, that is my excuse du jour. I apologize.
Posted by: algasema | June 10th, 2008 at 8:38 pm | Report this commentThe criticism levied on Hillary Clinton for ’suspending’ her campaign is ludicrous, and patently ahistorical.
‘Suspending’ one’s campaign is nothing new, and is altogether unworthy of the anger it continues to cause. Or perhaps it’s only noteworthy insofar as it highlights, yet again, the almost irrational hatred Mrs Clinton (unfortunately) inspires in the most ardent Obama supporters. (Here’s looking at you, Salon!)
She has done nothing new, or wrong, or sinister in suspending her campaign–and that is a historical fact. Two notable past examples include:
* Mitt Romney in the 2008 GOP primaries:
(http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/07/romney.campaign/index.html)
* Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic primaries:
(http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE7D8143AF931A15757C0A96E948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all)
‘Suspending’ one’s campaign effectively terminates it, though those delegates representing constituencies where Clinton won will still vote for her in the convention.
But that is exactly what she should do, and that is what it is her right to do. For the historically ignorant Al Gore’s words in 1988 should clear things up a bit: he ‘technically’ remained a candidate for the nomination after suspending his 1988 bid, ‘but only to enable my delegates to go to the convention so that they can represent our point of view in our party’s deliberations.’
Why, pray tell, should it be different for her? That is a flagrant double-standard.
I’m rather disappointed in your visceral distaste for Mrs. Clinton. But personal opinion should never trump principle, and Hillary Clinton’s desire to have her delegates come August are more than justified after such a long, and close-run, race.
Posted by: Rene C. Moya | June 11th, 2008 at 5:34 pm | Report this commentUnless I have completely misread the US political situation (which is possible), the question that interests me is not whether McCain can now possibly win, but what the impact of President Obama’s policies on the UK economy will be.
In places where such things are legal, the betting markets are now fairly clear on what the outcome will be.
Posted by: Mark Harrison | June 11th, 2008 at 6:03 pm | Report this commentMark Harrison, unfortunately, from the opposite side of the Atlantic, from where I presume you are writing, it is all too easy to underestimate the influence of racism, fear mongering, distortion and just plain falsehood on the part of a corporate-controlled media establishment in US elections.
No matter what the betting markets say, Obama is likely to be in a very tight race, deserted by millions of Democrats who either cannot bring themselves to vote for a black candidate, or who are misled by an ongoing Jeremiah Wright “Swift Boat” propaganda campaign directed against Obama’s patriotism.
Ironically, one thing that might save Obama is that McCain is loathed by a large portion of his own Republican base for having supported “amnesty” last year for millions of Spanish-speaking, brown-skinned illegal immigrants. Even though McCain, like Galileo before him, has since “recanted” his heresy, many Latino immigrant-hating Republicans may decide to stay home in this election.
Thw sharp sword of racism, so often the determining factor in US politics, can cut both ways.
Posted by: algasema | June 11th, 2008 at 7:53 pm | Report this commentSorry: I meant “The sharp sword”.
Posted by: algasema | June 11th, 2008 at 7:57 pm | Report this comment