January 9, 2008
The tears of New Hampshire
As I was saying, Hillary Clinton is doomed - or possibly Barack Obama is. After Hillary’s victory in last night’s primary in New Hampshire, I think I may give up making predictions about American politics for 24 hours.
To be fair to the pundits and the pollsters, it wasn’t just journalists who were confidently predicting an Obama victory. Even people in the Hillary camp were talking about trying to keep the margin of their defeat in New Hampshire down to below double digits. When, on Monday, Hillary broke down and cried - or rather "choked up", it looked like she had accepted that defeat was inevitable.
New Hampshire lore is also that crying in public is very bad news for a candidate. It is what is deemed to have finished off Edmund Muskie in 1972. However, one of the Obama people did, presciently, say to me - "Hillary crying is bad news for us. It humanises her. It’s easier to run against a robot." Today’s conventional wisdom is that Hillary’s display of emotion did indeed help her, particularly among women voters.
A nasty thought also occurs to me. Did race come into it? I had an odd conversation at Boston airport with a woman, who was clearly both rich (she was checking into business class) and a Democrat. She said to me that the thing she didn’t like about Obama is "all that civil rights stuff". What civil rights stuff, I thought? Obama quotes Martin Luther King in his stump speech, but he can hardly be accused of playing the race card. The fact that Iowa - an overwhelmingly white state - could vote for Obama seemed to have put the race question to bed. But the Iowa caucuses take place in public. New Hampshire voters, cast their ballots in private.
Meanwhile, what of the Republicans? Well, the polls were right about McCain winning in New Hampshire. The pundits have now decided that Mitt Romney - who finished second - is finished. That suggests to me that he is now the clear favourite.
Actually, there is a serious case to be made for him. There have now been three Republican contests, and Romney is the only candidate to have placed first or second in all of them. (He won in Wyoming.) The next contest is in Michigan, where he has some strength because his father was governor there. Republican voters do not like McCain’s relatively liberal views on immigration, which Romney will definitely demonise. The Republican establishment does not like McCain because he is too much of a maverick. And Romney has loads of money behind him.
As Hillary Clinton has just shown, you write off the establisment candidate at your peril.
Dear Mr. Rachman,
Your commentary is beginning to have the look and feel of a report on the form of racehorses (much nobler creatures than the average politician).
As you seem to indicate, predicting the outcome at this stage is interesting but fairly futile but, as you are the geopolitical guru, why don’t write a few lines on the likely geopolitical impact of each of the serious candidates? Or, are they peas in a pod and simply manipulated by the vested interests so there no differences of substance, anyway? (I recall the speech given by John Edwards at Herzliya which could have been given by any republican hawk).
Of particular interest is to know the ones who are possibly hiding a sinister agenda under fine words (as Dubya hid his aggressive NeoCon-ism under the slogans about compassionate conservatism).
(Personally, I find all Republicans are dangerous to our world and I think Ms. Clinton’s entire absence of principles and her thirst for power, for the sake of power, is a recipe for another disastrous American administration trampling the people of the Third World and wreaking havoc.)
Best wishes,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | January 9th, 2008 at 10:29 am | Report this commentAfter spending the evening at a rather civilised cultural event here in Paris, I returned home to learn that Hillary was ahead with 14 percent of the vote counted. I knew the outcome, as I was amongst those who cautioned on the value of her “tears”. In fact, when I watched the full Youtube clip of her wet-eyed, phoney I’m-doing-this-for-you Sunday-night whining in NH, before heading off to listen to 21st-century chamber music, I recognised a winning context–as Gideon suggested, for women (not only).
At 05:30 this morning, my bedside N-95 beeped: a political friend in NY, a woman a decade shy of Hillary’s age–a could-be Sex-in-the-City cast member. Her unforgiveable, gloating text message confirmed the outcome. My stomach turned; for me, my interest in the US election of 2008 ended.
These annoying Clintons and the media/ocracy that is the US–the current, deadening global political order–will continue. But it is an order unquestionably in decline. Humanity seems not to be benefiting in terms of either enlightenment or enrichment (Marxist analysis is not quite irrelevant, as Samuel Brittan’s piece this week may suggest).
Why had I attempted to get my head around what was going on in the US this year? I have long argued that the global-governance role ASSUMED by the US (and even stated as such in Brezinski’s article today in terms of “US legitimacy”) is a destructive thing. Yet I began to follow every word of this campaign.
A French context made me look for Diana, Elektra or Clytemnestra in Hillary; she has not a morsel of either the character or femininity attributed to such characters. Nor is Obama Orestes (some think Apollo, and that should concern serious observers). McCain is nothing more than a tired legionnaire. Romney, plastic. Huckabee, the Arkansas muckraker who made the Clinton’s look good.
So, it is likely the Clintons. Again. This time the “wife” who made a gigolo into a well-spoken president takes the lead.
As for racism, there can be little doubt that it still runs deep in the US and, as Gideon well put it, reveals itself behind curtains. Such is life in a politically corrected society. Not much progress; perhaps the reverse, as the computer/internet makes the worlds behind curtains much more interesting and safe.
I’m not sure what we are achieving here, so I will take a break. Thanks!
Posted by: WCM | January 9th, 2008 at 10:55 am | Report this commentWhile conscious action is difficult to predict because it depends on individual’s knowledge and priorities, unconscious is pretty straight forward. It’s a reflex. This goes for reaction to tears, perfume or repeated frustration facing. One cannot control it because one does not understand what one does.
Posted by: Dusan | January 9th, 2008 at 1:19 pm | Report this commentWhen this is repeated on a large number of average human beings, response becomes a matter of statistics, rather than free choice. I might be wrong, but I’m guessing that these elections are more about social issues and order rather than anything else, and Obama is not even struggling to articulate that. Just like Gideon’s rich-democrat-female co-traveler explained, although she had no idea what she was talking about.
The situation is quite similar to a situation that number of similar and similarly unconscious societies faced before, and it is only a matter of time before things take statistically most probable path.
As for tears, my bet is that in a long run Hillary has only caused even more harm to her calculated image. Even a mentally challenged person will need less than a month to figure out that even this ‘outburst’ was carefully staged. Nothing short of a suicide may provoke emotional response next time, which brings us back to Gideon’s yesterday’s article.
What is wrong with the world? Is this what democracy has become? A candidate cries on television and suddenly people change their minds? It is not Hilary’s emotion that worries me, but that of the electorate.
Posted by: Red | January 9th, 2008 at 1:31 pm | Report this comment“What civil rights stuff, I thought?”
I can cut and paste 5 articles from the Financial Times from the last week stating that although Obama has an African American father, he downplays race a campaign tool
I fail to to see how in repeating the same campaign slogan over and over the FT (and Obama’s PR department, which also “refuses” to play the civil rights card) is somehow “downplaying” race.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | January 9th, 2008 at 1:49 pm | Report this commentI believe the New Hampshire primary result has shown a spotlight on the naïveté of mass amounts of people, in and outside of the U.S. As an African-American 27 year-old female living in Washington, D.C., I believe it laughable that there has been so much attention surrounding Barack Obama as a serious contender for the White House in 2008. Indeed he may appear to be “inspirational” to many across a nation so divided, weary from the last 7 years of American politics. But what the media has failed so striking to present is the actual reality of race relations in this country, particularly across different regions. What continues to amaze me is the lack of the media to ask hard-hitting questions to any of the most serious candidates.
My roommate, an “idealistic” blond-hair, blue-eyed female who lived in Chicago and volunteered for Mr. Obama’s campaign has tried to convince me since late 2006 that Obama could “go all the way” to the White House. I was amazed by how convinced she was of this, and bemused by how unrealistic this view-point represented. I would respond with various examples of how real racial perceptions may be in various parts of the U.S., from a perspective my roommate told me she had not heard. For example, I asked her “Do you honestly believe that a society which (repeatedly) mistakenly asks an African-American female shopping at Neiman Marcus (or at Target) if they can bring them a dress in their size?” or “Do you know that my brother has been stopped by police as he drives through our parent’s (affluent) neighborhood in the Mid-west, worrying my mother who decided to make a complaint?”
While I have many friends of all different races and nationalities, I have learned that I am often times the “first and only Black friend” for many friends. My roommate was quite unaware of instances like I mentioned above. I finished with a few dismal statistics about Black males in jail and unemployment, and it is usually enough to leave her thinking. But I always encourage her to keep dreaming and keep positive about opening dialogue with your neighbors to breakdown the stereotypes and the prejudices. She now dates a Black male…
Sadly, this also reminds me that there is a huge disconnect between the races. How many people in America even know what it is like to be Black in America? I have also learned that many do not know, instead thinking that we may or may not fall into the Oprah, Obama, Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Michael Jackson or LeBran James category (entertainer, successful politician/inspirational leader, athlete, entertainer, athlete). Most of us do not fit into these categories. We are just normal people.
The “media” may claim up and down that Mrs. Clinton’s tears helped her in New Hampshire. What may be closer to the actual reality is that Mr. Obama never stood a chance in New Hampshire. This will become oh so evident as the primary dates approach the rest of the country, especially in the deep South. Unfortunately, the media is guilty of projecting around the world this false idea that America could actually elect a Black man into the White House in 2008. It does a disservice to the entire world, as it couldn’t be further from the truth. Either the media is more naïve then I believed, or it is something worse. Either way, the media is failing the American public by failing to draw attention to the particular dynamics of this “race”.
Posted by: coe | January 9th, 2008 at 2:07 pm | Report this commentAfter the brouhaha of the primaries, during which the American electorate (or at least whatever portion of them are allowed to vote in this pre-election election – who knows what’s going on?!) demonstrates an inordinate propensity for sensationalism and group-hugging, we’ll focus on the real election. Assuming Obama doesn’t win the Democrat ticket (because there’s no way America will vote for a black man to be within an asses roar of the presidency), you’ll be left with Hillary versus a 250-year-old soldier who is talking about following one, single individual (America’s nemesis – cue dramatic Hollywood evil bad guy music) “to the gates of hell”.
The female will not win for the same reason the black guy won’t even make the final lap, the same reason a guitar playing preacher who attributes his recent success in the polls to his make-believe friend: ultra conservatism, likely fueled by bible bashing. Americans are a conservative, down the line, think inside the box, believe whatever the President tells you, do it for the flag bunch when it comes to elections. There’s simply not a hope they’d have the initiative to vote for a black man or a woman.
So we’ll get another Bush, only this time one who actually has been to war. Doesn’t matter that he’s a generation or ten older than Bush, even more aggressive or whether they claim he’s a “liberal” (the definition on a republican, neo-con American ‘liberal’ would scare you). This man believes that America should be even stronger militarily and should concentrate even more on whipping the rest of planet into line. America will vote for him because he’ll tell the oh-so conservative electorate that he’ll pray hard every day and will export democracy and the bible to every corner of the globe.
So maybe we should all just sit back and enjoy the drama, because that’s the only enjoyment you’ll get from the election. In November and beyond, it will be a very depressing return to Bush III, albeit it with a different name. Nothing will change. We all let hope kid us 4 years ago, that the American electorate would see the light that was so painfully obvious to the rest of the world (mainly because it was the light off a rain of bombs) – that their President was destroying the world. They did see it, but not until after they’d defied all hope for the world by re-electing him. It will be the same sorry story this time, no doubt about it.
Posted by: Colin | January 9th, 2008 at 2:18 pm | Report this commentGood thing Obama has been put back in his box: no one should be allowed to win elections simply by spraying slogans. Now back to disliking Hillary, a distinctly dislikeable personality. What’s more, has no inkling of what leadership is, thinking it enough to formulate a series of meticulously planned policy proposals for various issues. A president isn’t Chief Technocrat, a president should guide and inspire. Either you’ve got it or you don’t.
McCAIN FOR PRESIDENT
Posted by: RCS | January 9th, 2008 at 2:20 pm | Report this commentDear WCM,
From where I am sitting this thing is simply the best soap opera on the planet. It is a testament to the strength of American democracy and I am sure something that we in the old world can learn from. When was the last time there was such high participation in any election in France, the UK, Germany or any other major western European country? And I’m not sure that the views of one randomly encountered woman in an airport lounge counts for much. Statistically it is less than insignificant. Seems to me like it speaks to your own prejudice to build it up so much. Undoubtedly there are racists in the US, as there are everywhere (not least in France), but to condemn the whole country smacks of prejudice on your part. The plain fact of the matter is that a black man is able to stand for the highest public office and have a realistic chance of winning. When was the last time that happened in France? Far as I remember a fascist was very nearly elected to the highest office in YOUR country not so long ago. Just because you don’t like the result, no need to throw your rattle out of the pram.
Dear P, give it a rest with the tired line about the rape of the third world by the imperialist Yankees led by the massed hordes of neo-cons and “Zionists”. “Sinister agenda…all Republicans are dangerous…trampling the people of the third world…”. You read like a copy of the Socialist Worker from the 1970s. Just because their agenda doesn’t fit with yours / Iran’s, doesn’t mean they are evil, controlled by “vested interests” or that they will “wreak havoc”.
Posted by: AYC | January 9th, 2008 at 2:26 pm | Report this commentI agree with JBP.
Also, Martin Luther King (MLK) made a speech about hopes/dreams to motivate people to do something about segregation in schools and in public areas. It is not clear what Obama’s charming/hopeful speech is really about except that it’s about change in american politics and as to what that really means, he leaves US voters to fill in the rest. That said, Obama is not MLK and he is indeed making that appeal.
Posted by: Windi | January 9th, 2008 at 2:31 pm | Report this commentAYC,
Re your comment: “When was the last time there was such high participation in any election in France…”
French participation rates are much higher than American and anyway NH is the *primary*! It’s different from the general election. Voter participation rates in the US general election are the lowest in the developed (democratic) world, although the UK is catching up–or maybe racing down, or I guess falling down.
coe:
What a bleak picture you paint. But I think there’s less in NH than meets the eye. It’s not racism. The exit polls show that Clinton won with traditional Dem constituencies–married women, older people. Obama scored with white men and independents.
White men and independents tend to be the swing voters Dems. need to win a general election, in fact men more than women “swing” (in the electoral sense.) I simply don’t see married and older white women as secretly racist, do you? but I could be wrong.
If the above is true then the selection of Hillary Clinton is bad news for the Dems. With her high negative rating and lack of appeal to independent and white men, she could well lose the Dems the general election. Just look at election history from 1932 onwards–the Dems. need an optimistic, sometimes charismatic “young Lochinvar” type figure: FDR exuded class and optimism, Truman was nothing if not jaunty, JFK–well much already said but take a look at Robert as well–, even the much maligned Carter was elected on a born-again “I will never lie to you” platform, Clinton as well. OTOH when the party nominated experienced politicos it went down to defeat. Stevenson, no charisma, LBJ a pol like Hillary elected only because of JFK;s death one term served, Humphrey, down to defeat, Mondale and Dukakis–painful defeats, Gore should have won and was gored!
So the Dems *need* someone like Obama to win the general election, they need the excitement, the youthful following and the swing voters he delivers. They need his smile, style and charisma, his young family and his soaring oratory. I hope they get him. So, I bet, do you.
Posted by: MaryCunningham | January 9th, 2008 at 3:45 pm | Report this commentPS..Forgot John Kerry. Freudian forget, eh? Anyway proves my point. A pedestrian pol. with no flair at all. And that cheesy salute at the Dem. convention.
Posted by: MaryCunningham | January 9th, 2008 at 3:52 pm | Report this commentIf you watch the ENTIRE “Cry Scene” SHE GOES OFF ON YET ANOTHER ATTACK ON OBAMA …LIKE SHE HAS TO SAVE US FROM SOME MISTAKE WE ARE MAKING!!She is so arrogant, sorry she leaves me cold…in any event, this is not a loss in the real sense for Obama…it was very close race…and it was a reality check for both him and his campaign to not get off track with all the polls and media hype…He is the best candidate to lead US in very troubled times post Bush-Cheney years. I hope he prevails. I would hate to Clinton years resurrected and an Albright clone/pick (who was a very mediocre Sec of State) dominating Foreign Policy again
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | January 9th, 2008 at 3:56 pm | Report this commentWith regards to the pundits being wrong it appears that they failed to account for a surge for Hilary.
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/how_wrong_were_the_polls.php
Crying? Older voters? Women? Until super Tuesday we have nothing close to a representative sample of voters to truly predict the convention delegate chosen.
Posted by: JBA | January 9th, 2008 at 4:37 pm | Report this commentWith regards to the pundits being wrong it appears that they failed to account for a surge for Hilary.
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/how_wrong_were_the_polls.php
Crying? Older voters? Women? Until super Tuesday we have nothing close to a representative sample of voters to truly predict the convention delegate chosen.
Posted by: JBA | January 9th, 2008 at 4:38 pm | Report this comment“Ice Queen” Melts in New Hampshire and Wins | Facial Analysis
Expected to melt at the polls in the face of Obama’s surge, Hillary Clinton (a.k.a. the ‘comeback kid’), managed to turn the tables in New Hampshire. Certainly part of the explanation could be the ‘magic vs. muscle’ storyline, which ascribes to Clinton’s organizational prowess. However, the equal or even greater reality is that Hillary Clinton found some magic of her own.
The rap on Clinton has always been that she’s cold and calculating. But what body language expert and emotions brand strategist, Dan Hill, President of Sensory Logic Inc., had seen over the past week is actually the ‘ice queen’ managing to establish herself as a human being.
It’s notable that the second word in Clinton’s victory speech last night was the word ‘heart’ (my heart is full). Clinton’s ability to show emotional warmth, even vulnerability and certainly passion, was instrumental to her victory in New Hampshire.
Evolution of Hillary’s Emotional Presentation - Facial Changes
More specifically, Hill observed the following ways in which Clinton has shown voters a new emotional look in chronological order
1. Hill deducted that Clinton would lose in IA based on her Today’s show interview the morning before the caucuses. Until that date, Hillary Clinton’s social smile was often what Hill describes as a ‘guillotine smile’.
By that he means when she was done flashing a willful, conscious, social smile that shows around the mouth only, it would drop off her face precipitously and unnaturally. In the Today show interview, she instead suddenly pasted on a weak, social smile that she left linger and linger to try to cover her surprise and disappointment at the pending outcome.
2. The next step in Clinton’s changing emotional make-up came with her concession speech in Des Moines. For the past year, Hill has detected from Clinton’s debate performances and stump speeches he’s observed, either in person or on television, that she engaged in ‘emotional triangulation.’
In other words, Clinton predominantly showed three emotions: social smiles, anger when her lips would purse together, and contempt when the corner of her mouth would turn upward but also inward in a smirk. The Iowa concession speech was notable for the lack of contempt on Clinton’s face.
3. During last Saturday’s ABC televised debate, Clinton showed several new looks. Most notably, was her look when she said, ‘it hurts my feelings not to be liked.’ At that moment, she rather adroitly showed a sadness response as the corner of her mouth turned down and she raised her chin in an expression that appeared to be at once both genuine and somewhat willful.
Meanwhile, at other points in the debate, she looked bitter. The corners of her mouth would turn down, and she would press her lips together hard while raising her chin in a look that was, in this case, more a matter of disgust, anger and sadness than sadness alone. Finally, equally important in that debate, was when she briefly showed the strongest form of anger with a parted but tense mouth when she was excluded from Edwards’ list of change-agents in the race.
Misting Gently, A Key Emotional Make-Over
4. While Hill was not present at the campaign stop in Portsmith, NH, where Clinton eyes seemingly misted with near tears, he observed the candidate in person and up close at her next campaign stop in Dover, NH. What he saw was, again, a remarkable new look from the candidate that was in keeping with the changes that started just before her defeat in Des Moines. In this case, not only did Clinton slow down the delivery speed of her speech by nearly half, especially in attacking rival candidates, but she also managed to keep the look of contempt off her face and amplify the amount of smiling. The emotional significance of slowing her delivery allows the audience to emotionally absorb and connect with her more fully.
A Transfomational Performance
Overall, what Clinton managed to do in the course of five days was transform herself into a candidate that voters could empathize with and root for. Instead of the smirking pride that has been her campaign’s emotional hallmark, she has now shown caring, while also slightly co-opting Obama’s hope theme. Additionally Clinton is seeking to generate some fear of what an Obama Presidency would mean for Americans. This potent combination of emotions and her willingness to show some heart is, by Clinton’s own admission, the key to her comeback in New Hampshire.
About
Dan Hill has studied the reactions of consumers to advertising and other forms of communication for the Fortune 500 clientele for the past ten years. Using the
Facial Coding Action System (FACS), begun by Charles Darwin and refined by Paul Ekman, Hill’s company, Sensory Logic, Inc. has, since 1998, established itself as the leading business practitioner of the facing coding analysis highlighted by Malcolm Gladwell in his bestseller ‘Blink’. Hills’ clients have included Target, Toyota. Allstate, Capitol One, General Mills, Kellogg, among many other household names.
In regard to Presidential politics, Hill began to apply facial coding on behalf of the New York Times in 2004. Other coverage has included the LA Times, San Diego Union Tribune, and the Houston Chronicle and the American Observer, as well as t.v. appearances on CNN and FOX nationally.
Posted by: Dan Hill | January 9th, 2008 at 4:52 pm | Report this commentMaryCunningham, Thanks for the *explanation*. The point still stands - the primaries are to all intents and purposes part of the electoral process.
Re: French participation rates, on any reading they have been in decline for at least the past 20 years, going from more than 80% for Presidential elections at the start of the 80s to slightly above 70% in 2002. The legislative elections have latterly seen turnouts of around 60%, and in the European elections, less than 50% of voters bothered to turn out. The last Presidential election in France, last year, did see rates rise to 84%, but this was a particularly divisive election - remember the riots that broke out after the announcement Sarko had won; only around 400 cars torched on the night.
One final point: it’s true the Dems do need all the thing you mentioned in your final paragraph. They also need experience, gravitas and depth of character. On that basis, I’m hoping for McCain.
Posted by: AYC | January 9th, 2008 at 5:30 pm | Report this commentUp until two months ago, I was 100% for Hillary. I am a black female from Philadelphia, and an educated professional. Hillary made sense as the sure fire candidate for us democrates because no one else was available to sleigh that Bush(republican) dragon.
Posted by: Joan | January 9th, 2008 at 8:04 pm | Report this commentThen, along comes Obama, serious competition for Hillary. In fact, Obama shows the flaws in Hillary.
She definitely played the “boo-hoo” card too early in the election. Come on, Hillary is the definitive “ice princess.” A virtual “never let them see you sweat” type individual. She continuously talks about her 30+ years of experience. If nothing else, those 30 years have taught her not to show feminine emotions.
The more I see Hillary, the more I’m turned off.
As I mentioned previously, prior to Obama entering the race, I was voting for Hillary, hands down. If Obama doesn’t go “all the way” I’m going to be hard pressed to vote for Hillary.
.
To coe ,
I was travelling in the U.S. ,retracing the music trail and civil war battle sites ,
Reagan had just died ,Katrina had not yet changed New Orleans
Stopping at Nachez to soak the evanescence of the past .
while in a pub fighting the louisiana sun with a beer or two I had an idle chat with the man behind the bar ,
He informed me some election had taken place , in this staunch dixie town the contest was between a republican white woman and a democrat black man .
When I querried the outcome , with a shin grin ,he told me the good folks had chosen the lesser of two evil and elected the black man
.
Posted by: jeannick | January 9th, 2008 at 9:23 pm | Report this comment“‘EMPTY CALORIES POLITICS’ NO REPLACEMENT FOR ‘BALANCED DIET’ OF SPECIFICALLY DELINEATED POLICIES, VISION AND EXPERIENCE”
Not being one to promote ‘cannibalism’ in the authentic definition, it’s hard to not use the analogy of politicians’ representing ‘food’ and voters/potential voters as consumers of this ‘food’.
Barack Obama, however sincere, emotionally resonating-to-many and well-meaning in his speeches, is, objectively-viewed, ominously vague, vacuous and too much like the ‘empty calories’ of soda pop or Kool Aid…
To use the food analogy, Mr Obama projects the ‘promise’ of a ’soft drink’, or ‘God forbid’ a few puffs of a marijuana cigarette at a rock concert.
He seems to be being seen by many as a quick fix & short term gratification, for the visceral, emotional reaction much of the US electorate has experienced to their country’s and the world geopolitical environment in 2005-2008..
This ’soft drink’ factor ought to be viewed with extreme caution- and carefully calibrated reason- by US voters, and other countries’ politicians/commentators & individuals.
Today’s roiling, conflict-filled and unpredictable US and world political situation warrant the election of politicians who, however ‘boring’, comparatively bland & tedious, represent a balanced political diet: IE those that are the ‘meat, potatoes and vegetables’ of the political landscape.
Persons with experience, principles-grounded vision and reasonably specifically articulated policies are needed for political office, urgently- in both the US and in pivotal world-leading nations like the United Kingdom…
Mr Obama’s time may or may not come.
But today’s world calls for political fuel/food of the type utilized by experienced long distance runners.
A quick political ‘junk food fix’ of emotionally uplifting, well-meaning narratives may indeed be tempting- and may come with the implicit promise of satiation of the ‘runner’s immediate stresses- but as any practiced runner knows: finishing the race requires running on more than ‘empty calories/promises’
Roderick V. Louis,
Posted by: Roderick V. Louis | January 9th, 2008 at 11:19 pm | Report this commentnear Vancouver, BC, Canada
ceo@patientempowermentsociety.com
US in many ways is World, epitome to what is good or bad in the world, depending on your world view.
It is too important an election for positive discrimination. Unfortunately part of the electoral message of Obama & Hillary is based on race or sex respectively.
I feel more comfortable with McCain. Let him clear and unravel the mess in Iraq, he in a way started!
Posted by: Sandeep Chowdhury | January 10th, 2008 at 5:20 am | Report this commentI don’t know how ageism works in the US but McCain, at 71, would be considered way too old in the UK to run for ofice. Menzies Camplbell, the leader of the Liberal Party was only 66 and he was referred to as being too old for the job.
Posted by: Pacifist | January 10th, 2008 at 9:42 am | Report this commentCoe’s comment about race relations in America is one of the best and most eloquent I have seen in a long time. Those who like to pretend that racism no longer exists in America are, inadvertently or otherwise, promoting racism themselves.
No matter who wins the Democratic nomination, race will play a huge role in this election, because of the anti-Latino hysteria stirred up by the immigration issue. The latest example of this is that Obama has just been endorsed by two labor unions in Nevada that Lou Dobbs has lost no time in attacking as “pro-amnesty” for illegal immigrants. Obviously, the demogogues and racists who want to deport millions of olive skinned people whose main “crime” is that they speak Spanish and work at menial and often dangerous jobs that few Americans want will be pressuring Obama, in particular, to adopt an anti-immigrant stance.
Sadly, doing so might even win him some African-American votes because of the fact that white bigots have been trying so hard to stir up animosity between America’s two most discriminated against ethnic groups. It will be an important test of Obama’s character if he can stand up for justice and equality, not only for African-American US citizens, but for Latino (and Asian) immigrants as well.
Posted by: Ithemba | January 10th, 2008 at 10:12 am | Report this commentIf a democrat wins the presidency they will make history: whether a white woman or a black man, they are both northerners and they are both senators - JFK is the only democrat to have overcome those disabilities since the war…
Hillary won among her natural constituency - her crying was not enough to tip it for women (this is just more sexism) but the media’s reaction was. Who would not want to prove them wrong after watching their attacks on Hillary as either weak or manipulative and rushing to crown Obama.
I agree with P: less of the Polls, Pundits and Predictions - let’s have some analysis of the possible impacts of the leading candidates for the rest of us.
Nobody (except maybe W Bush) gets elected president just on platitudes, these are still the (early) primaries - but Obama is wise to try to get as far as he can without getting pinned down on too many specifics - leaves him more room for maneouvre and less exposure to attacks in the real campaign.
We’ve only heard from 2 states, people!
Posted by: Dave | January 10th, 2008 at 12:19 pm | Report this comment