Yes and No
Sorry we have been out of service for a few hours - I am told we are back now in much improved fashion. At least technically speaking.
The ABC debate was not a disaster for Mrs Clinton but the polling figures released just before it are grim for her - and the key answer she gave on the question of the electability of Barack Obama in November further adds to the sense of strategic miscalculation.
Her people suggest consistently that Obama will not win, or at least that he is highly vunerable. Yet when pressed on the question - her answer was Yes. In fact it was: "Yes, yes, yes."
The frustration of being caught in this bind was showing perhaps. Anyway, the Clinton message is now a mess - Yes, yes, yes and No, no, no on the vital question of Barack's power to win.
Wonder what Gordon Brown made of it. He was watching, I am told, on the ambassador's TV, in the residence at the British Embassy in DC.
They had newly re-paved the road outside in his honour.
Actually, that was for the Pope, who is based just a few doors away. There are special relationships and Special Relationships...
Hello, I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~58~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
More explanation of the "much improved fashion" here.
Complain about this comment
All the comments have been wiped? Strange.
Anyway, a lot of the fallout for this one has gone to the feet of ABC, who many feel were decidedly unfair against Obama. I've not seen any footage of the debate yet but from what I've read it sounds like a disaster. By all means question a candidate about the gaffes, but for 45 minutes? Which have already be generously covered by other media? Come on, and just the token question to Clinton about Bosnia? What about Mark Penn and Colombia, I've not heard Clinton address that directly herself yet (only her minons), why get her to explain that one?
Complain about this comment
This is typical of 'that woman'. She vacillates on issues, opinions, the truth, strategies, etc. It is obvious that she is saying that because she has been told by the 'big dems' to show some sort of united front to the republicans. The sooner the clintons are out of the picture, the better. The USA needs hope, change, inspiration. Only Obama is capable of bringing that to this great country. The democrats HAVE to get united to do this. clinton is a divisive, negative force. She needs to exit, stage left.
Complain about this comment
The pretence that Obama was unelectable could only be kept up so long - like the Bosnia sniper tale. But good to hear that the amby has a tv; is it a plasma, though? Please find out for us!
Complain about this comment
Webb, are you being purposely dense? Her point is that, yes, he could win...but he might not because of his ever-increasing vulnerabilities. It's a nuanced answer to a delicate situation. Stop trying to act like she's flip-flopping. Trust me, at this point, many democrats are beginning to agree with her.
Complain about this comment
Justin,
CNN reports that, in terms of superdelegates, Clinton led Obama by 92 (223 to 131) just after super Tuesday. Her lead is now down to 22 (248-226).
If Obama should overtake Clinton in superdelegates do you think the party grandees would pressure her to call it a day?
Complain about this comment
Obama made several strong points in his own defense. Once accused of being elitist herself by saying she was not a stay at home baking cookies type, he pointed out she learned the wrong lesson in using the tactics herself. On his pastor not being patriotic, he countered he was a Marine. Serving with a former Weatherman on a board, he pointed out she had the same vulnerability because of her husband's administration's pardoning of two Weathermen. Michelle Obama was great on The Colbert Report
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_ngPdABhxA
(resubmitting because disappeared from earlier on)
Complain about this comment
Justin,
You work for the BBC and it seems you are pro Obama.
I'd hoped that working for the BBC that you wouldn't have bias.. that's what the BBC stands for right?
Perhaps you shouldn't be working for the BBC.
It's disappointing that I came to this site for some fair and balanced news and I get your biased opinion.
So the debate.. what about Obama's gaffe? He always says that he never attacks Clinton then last night he said the same about some issue.. "I've never attacked Clinton!" then the moderator said "But your campaign has" and then Obama knew he'd been caught out and replied with "yes"!
Obama's a liar and a fake and has been using his skin color as an advantage the entire time.
An affirmitive action president isn't what we need.
Complain about this comment
Given the circumstances, I felt Clinton did quite well. She seemed more affirmative, more humorous, and overall rather more comfortable than Obama, who clearly was not having a good day.
Having said that, this certainly was the worst debate I've seen so far. And yes, the moderators were largely responsible for that.
I'd agree with your view on the Clinton campaign on the whole. In fact, I'd say it's been pretty much a shambles from Iowa onwards.
Complain about this comment
Sorry Justin, but I also thought that in a few comments you do come across as pro-Obama.
In another comment you said that none of the candidates were strong. What do you mean?
Complain about this comment
"There are special relationships and Special Relationships..."
I must say, Justin, that was low, very low indeed! Just because a major religious figure just happens to be visiting the same time as the UK prime minister and needs some sort of recognition and accomadation, as I'm sure you can understand, doesn't mean that things are in the slightest bit different with respect of the UK, and to jump to conclusions and assume so is, I think, very immature indeed!!
I don't understand!! Whenever the UK welcomes heads of state from other countries, religious leaders, what have you, then the press there is almost always gitty with excitement and optimistic about the attempts being made at improveing relations between the UK and those countries or the institutions that a religious leader represents. Yet when those same heads of state visit the US, (some!) of the UK press (such as the BBC), overreact and jump to conclusions and assume things that aren't the case, or don't exist '"O there's a new special relationship between France and the US!" etc!! Why? Why can't they be happy for us like they are and were for them? Did we do or say anything to justify these reactions? Because if we did, then that's completely understandable!! But as far as I know, we haven't, and so long as that's the case, then I think those reactions don't do anything but surve to offend people and hinder efforts being made.
The paveing of the road, if it was just done "for the pope" as that article suggests, was yes, in my opinion, unnecessary and not needed as well! I think our roads the way they are would've done just fine for the pope-they've done so for every other head of state in the past!! May be the Vaticon insisted on it in order for them to come-I simply don't know. But regardless, to imply that it would've been done for the UK-which I can't remember, or know of a time, when we've aultered our infrastucture for any other head of state and the same goes for the UK for that matter, and then to be offended to learn of it having been done for the pope, as if we are delibritly snub athe UK through the accomidations which ust be made for the pope and his anterage, well that's just a little extreem! If the pope were visiting the UK, wouldn't they make the same accomadations? I thought so.
There are other factors which go into makeing a decision like this-not just '"we like this guy more, so we're going to build a road for him and not the other". I would urge you to look at the whold story before you go assuming completely untrue things!! also, just know, that should the pope have decide against coming, as we are 25% Catholic, several people would've been very upset indeed, and that went into these decisions I'm sure as well-particularly in an election year!!
Complain about this comment
The Pope and Gordon Brown virtually neighbours eh? Two major world leaders for the price of one.
One not democratically elected, but predetermined through some mysterious agreement, the details of which we are not privy to.
And the other is the head of the Catholic Church.
Complain about this comment
Dear Mr Webb,
Thank you for the timeout [almost], from politics with the Thunderbirds and favourite TV oldies comments. May I go off on a slight tangent to your present piece, and stand on a few toes a la Professor Higgins. "Why can't a woman be like a man" or from another tack, why must a woman be like a man? These elections are showing the sexist nature of politics. Feminine and feminist clashes. On the why can''t a woman side:-
Michelle Obama and her "ashamed of my country"quote- dissected and regurgitated into many different assumptions of what she meant. Red faced, she attempts to explain. [Beautiful lady]
The Ms Sam Power / Ms Gerri Peeve - reporter from the Scotsman- Monster saga. Could it have been that Ms power made a comment on the others clothing e.g. "I know someone who has a pantsuit just like yours" and before you know it the confidentiality status / off the record / not for publishing relationship goes up in smoke. We will never know what goes on in newsmedia minds to decide to tell or not. The reporter must then undergo a third degree inquisition as to why she reported the story. Ms Power undergoes her own questioning and must then step down. For a triviality. But why Sam and Gerri? Are their professions so biased that using their feminine names Samantha and Geraldine? puts them at a disadvantage?
Then, before we can take a breath, in comes Ms Geraldine Ferraro- handbag swinging and "racist"comments. Again as the earlier examples she is placed on the rack to explain her remarks. And departs the fray.
Bittergate- and a belated report from Obama supporter / reporter Ms Mayhill Fowler who attended the meeting but was forced to question her own judgement for days on end before deciding she would be avoiding her duty unless she reported the gaffe. I don't think Woodward and Bernstein had to question their duty before submitting copy did they?
Then missing any Republican news in the media, who should be forced / pushed to appear Ms Cindy Mccain with a "borrowed" family recipe. [ If she cooks like me it's a different dish every time because one has the basics in ones head, but usually adds or subtracts various ingredients, to suit the family's taste buds.{ possibly not mentioned}] - the result- crucified.
Ms Hillary Clinton- trouser suit and beer glass, everybody knows her, enough said. Similarily her daughter- pushed into the spotlight. Both suffering from nerves, lies, agression, tears, and more lies to suit every occasion.
All extreme happenings where either reporting a story, participating in an informative discussion and finding themselves in the forefront of politics, causes them to metamorphose into something from another planet, or to be regarded by their own media and public as a doubtful information source. Punished for having the make up of a woman. Piloried for being feminine or feminist. What a sad world with USA women attempting at last to emerge as equals into the status quo, dominated by men in positions of power. The idea that they have to submit a resume for any and all remarks seems harsh, although I do not condone the definite lies, that often appear written on the face.
Maybe it's just this electoral process and the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
On the like a man's side, we have much better examples of how to keep your cool and submit a balanced answer whilst walking the tightrope.
Obama was definitely amazed / disturbed with the "Obama bin Ladin"quote but, a few sips of water, he thinks, a pauze , another drink and then a joking response- No theatrics. Perfect.
Bill Clinton- any observative remark made at him or asked of him confidently answers "I forget"....or I do not remember. Steady on his feet. Marvelous.
John Mccain asked a question. Probably gives the correct facts for the wrong country. Slow but sure.
George Dubya Bush on every question "I don't know" Unfortunately here he usually is telling the truth and does not know much about anything. Honest answer. Honest guy. Useless but honest.
Male TV pundits smile and smile. Waffle on with their brains in neutral but nothing worries them. Who can blame them. They've foxed everybody with their total lack of knowledge.
And not forgetting you and I. You posting -me commenting. Dinosaurs. Basket cases.
All perfect examples of the male persona !?
I ask again- "Why can't a woman be like a man"? Where are they? The Maggie Thatchers of American politics.- Smart, honest, humerous, intelligent, self assured and confident etc etc "This lady is not for turning"types. Yes there is Rice?, and hopefully Power will return. Ms Clinton has lost the plot and prize this time and forever, but then I feel she does not deserve the pinnacle of power to become the first female president.
Before I get too much agression from female readers for what could be considered chauvanistic remarks, I would like to state that I support female presidents, prime ministers etc etc, IF they are suitable for the top job.
Me, I am very happily married to a loving, petite, stimulating, sensitive, super intelligent lady from the medical world , who loves wearing dresses, has the skin colour of Obama , but for me , one major flaw. If America should ever have a feminine Chinese beauty enter the race of presidential politics - look out! They are inscrutable! But that's why we love them eh., the mystery and mistique.
Complain about this comment
Yet again, I wonder if Webb is on the Obama pay roll. Did you actually watch the debate Justin? Obama didn't do that well at all, especially when questioned on his former pastor etc. Yet, you seem to only focus on the one thing that Hillary seemed to be tripped up on. I think it is time that you started reporting the full facts.
Complain about this comment
So Mrs Clinton said "Yes, yes, yes" with regard to Mr Obama's chances - what did you expect her to say - "No, no, no"? She did add a caveat, that she would be better than her opponent, something Justin cares not mention. Since Mr Obama has largely had a free ride from the media, perhaps last night balanced it out somewhat; it would seem that most, if not all the complaints come from his supporters. However, much as I would like to see a Democrat in the White House, it increasingly appears that this may not be, in which case whoever does _not_ win the nomination will be able to say "you chose the wrong candidate." When John McCain announces his running-mate, possibly either a woman or (and?) a person of color, that could possibly seal the result of the election ahead of time.
Complain about this comment
It seems to me that the pattern throughout the Democratic primaries has been pretty consistently that Obama does better than the pollsters are predicting about a month before the vote (when Hillary has her massive entrenched lead still intact) but worse than predicted immediately before the vote (once the hysteria has set in and expectations become unrealistic).
The trend was set at Iowa/New Hampshire, where Obama was considered a no-hoper until shortly before Christmas but was never going to beat Hillary by the margins predicted later on. All the votes at the major stages since then have followed suit, whether on Super Tuesday or Texas/Ohio. On each occasion it always looks like Hillary is making a "come back" but in reality this is just an illusion brought about by the over-reaction of the pollsters just before each vote.
What this disguises is a continual shifting of the goalposts (apologies to American readers for the "soccer" analogy) by the Clinton campaign. Each time we are told weeks beforehand that she is "certain" to win by a huge margin and "has to" do so to stand "any chance" of making up the ground she needs to win. The problem is, of course, that this cannot continue indefinitely. She will in all probability limp home to a single-digit victory in Pennsylvania, but as with Texas/Ohio will no doubt try to sell this as a "triumph" and an excuse to try and steal the nomination at the Convention.
Complain about this comment
Yes, there are "special relationships" and there are "Special Relationships"... and then there are SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS. A kind of ladder of loyalties if you will. Britain figures on the U.S. hit parade and latterly the pope, especially when he provides a nice photo op on the White House lawn and gushes on inexplicably about 'American moral values' (the ultimate oxymoron!) and even invokes his God's special blessing on America's deadly undertakings around the world. But the 'most specialist' of all U.S. relationships is still to be found in the devastated Middle East, where America's junior partner in crime, Israel has been on the lethal rampage again with America's - if not the pope's - full 'blessing'. Dozens of Palestinian civilians mowed down again over the past few days as the Bush/Blair peace process works its magic. Guess it might be impolite for His Holiness to bring that up in such an obsequious atmosphere of feel-goodism in the belly of the beast. No sense spoiling the 'gala dinner party' with the inconvenient truthes of the moral depravity of the world's only rogue superpower. Keep the 'table talk' to more sanitized euphemisms about "collateral damage" if you want to continue to hobnob in the amoral halls of power. Pax Vobiscum.
Complain about this comment
Dear Proles;
Americans do have moral values. If you get your nose out of the BBC site and check out some other media source other than the uber-liberal ones, you might find that out.
We're on a lethal rampage with Israel? That's rich. Why don't you tell that to the thousands of Jewish mothers who have lost children from unprovoked attacks through Hamas rocket launches? yep, they should just lay down and die because jihadists think the only good Jew is a dead Jew. Dozens of Palestinans mowed down? They can stop instigating terrorism at any time, and Israel will not respond.
And any Presidential candidate who is quoted as willing to sit down with the head of a country who has stated that 9/11 was a lie to "negotiate" has no business being the leader of my country. He can go suck eggs.
Complain about this comment
I am not sure either candidate scored a major victory, Obama was on the defensive due to the aggressive line of questioning and Hillary never missed an opportunity to pile it on. When he was given a chance to criticize Clinton on Bosnia, Obama simply changed the subject. In the end, nothing changed and no issues were discussed. In fact, both campaigns have much wiggle room to spin this in their favor.
You can argue that Obama won by not losing, but the real loser was ABC and the American people. This only reaffirms my point that the media wants this primary battle to continue to ratchet up ratings and advertising dollars.
The ABC blog was bombarded with 12K+ emails and their switchboard has been lighting up all day. The fall out continues as most American news sites were highly critical of the ABC anchors.
Do u realize that Stephanopoulos was on a conservative talk show prior to the debate and was basically handfed questions for Obama?
It was appalling.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I agree with "Onlyhere for the food" in that the Clintons have been very close-mouthed about the departure of Mr. Penn. A blog I wrote just after his departure from the Clinton "machine" did not appear in these columns. I noted that although this gentleman "resigned" he will still be offering advice and polling information to the Billary campaign. What say you Justin?
Complain about this comment
Glad to see the comments working?
xx
ed
Complain about this comment
Hillary is the safer choice because most of the dirt that can be found on her has been excavated. Obama is a disastrous choice because he is a fresh idealistic person who has mingled with lots of people and all of the questionable ones will be turned to mud and slung at the Democrats. McCain has already turned his "Hope" slogan into a tax joke. Obama is a wonderful person but the radical pastor (his mentor!) and now the Weather Underground friend (look that up if you don't remember it...super violent and radical) will be used against him in every way possible. Another Republican President is unthinkable. It has to be Hillary.
Complain about this comment
Hillary's "Yes Yes Yes" speaks volumes about her being ethically and temperamentally unfit for this presidential job.
First of all, her exasperation showed, when pressed with a pointed question on what she really thinks of Obama's electability. Why must everyone think I don't mean what I say, she thought, perhaps.
Well, no wonder. Because secondly, once again she proves to be disingenuous - she states opposite answers, depending on what's favorable to her at the moment, to the point of being two-faced. It doesn't take rocket science to see that she constantly lies.
Now extrapolate that hurried answer she gave there to when a call of global predicament rings in at 3 o'clock in the morning at the White House. Half-awake and bothered for a quick response by trigger-happy generals, would you want her to just blurt out an annoyed "Yes Yes Yes" to strike back?
Oh my...
Complain about this comment
Agreed that Obama was having an off night for this debate.
As to bias, I think you are being fairly evenhanded.
Obama seems to be coming through challenges well despite all the attention on each supposed Muslim / Black Christian / inner city / elitist etc. label of the week.
Complain about this comment
Justpam (18),
"We're on a lethal rampage with Israel? That's rich. Why don't you tell that to the thousands of Jewish mothers who have lost children from unprovoked attacks through Hamas rocket launches?"
11 Israeli civilians, including four children, have died since 2004, from the 2,696 Qassam rockets fired by Palestinian armed groups from the Gaza Strip into nearby Israeli towns, particularly Sderot.
In the same period, Israeli forces have killed some 473 Palestinian minors:
http://www.btselem.org/english/statistics/Casualties_Data.asp?Category=13
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed
Complain about this comment
I have long wondered about Justin's political affiliations. The BBC have a strict view on their commentators and some of his recent radio inputs have been very pro-Bush. OK, he is allowed a view....sorry, he isn't. Andrew Marr always runs a mile from political opinion in any form so should Justin who is an excellent reporter, usually. I hope that living in America hasn't clouded his judgement.
Complain about this comment
You should know by now that the BBC are pro Obama after all he will remove the troops from Iraq and leave the country to rot which in the bbc's fabian mind is the correct way forward but what about the aftermarth of such a move carnage but who cares the troops are out.
Complain about this comment
ref rabies story.
Those who were bitten by the infected puppy include a social worker who runs a charity which brings street dogs from Sri Lanka into the UK.
Can anyone think of a reason to import unwanted / stray etc dogs to the uk (especially with the potential for rabies, as we know)? It appears to me totally irresponsible, let alone unnecessary - as we do appear to have plenty of dogs in the uk!!
Complain about this comment
Justin:
That is good term: Yes or No....
--Dennis Junior--
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS