Why Clinton lost
Ten reasons.
1. She was a woman. I don't buy the idea that this was the determining factor but it still counts for something - when it started to go wrong there was an extra edge to the nastiness directed at her. A hard-faced woman - an aggressive woman - is not something America is culturally attuned to liking. Women can be tough and savvy and clever and winning - but can they be brutal, as she arguably was, and be liked?
2. She was Bill's wife. This was, of course, why she was in a place to make the bid in the first place. But having brought her to the party he would not, could not, just leave. They were and are a pair. It made people queasy.
3. Mark Penn (her chief strategist until he was fired) is (allegedly) not the greatest people person.
4. She failed to tip a waitress in Iowa.
5. She failed to speak at all to the BBC.
6. She lacked authenticity in a year when authenticity was in; her story is one of determination and valour and struggle and hard work and achievement, but marrying Bill still looks like one heck of a career move. I heard him rather sweetly suggesting the opposite - that it showed how unambitious she was. But nobody (except Bill) believes this.
7. She has a wooden speaking style (it got better but it's still hectoring rather than magical) and she happened to come up against a natural.
8. She was not shot at in Bosnia. These things matter. This was a terrible gaffe suggesting a loose interest in veracity.
9. No other candidate took on the job of getting rid of Obama. This is often what happens in primaries - someone else deals with a candidate and you can win without having to attack him directly. But the attack was left to her.
10. It is not easy to attack a handsome black guy with sweet kids and a decent resume. You look mean. She looked mean.
Hello, I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~43~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.
Brilliant!
Complain about this comment
And one more thing:
HRC's vote in October 1962 in favor of Authorization for the Use of Military Force.
Her weak excuse "If I knew then what I know now, I would have voted nay" combined with her refusal to say her vote was a mistake gave Obama the opening he needed.
One little vote was the deal breaker for her.
Complain about this comment
She's just given a brave effort at endorsing Obama and it might be enough now to get him elected.
Complain about this comment
I think gender had less to do with it than being mean. Obama inspires us, she does not. It has not been an easy path for him, but he does not make it an issue. He gets on with it in a well reasoned, forgiving sort of way, not with the rock fight that Clinton embraces, winning at any cost for herself, not for others or for the dignity of it all. The speech she made today should have happened Tuesday night. Losing gracefully is as important as winning.
Complain about this comment
"5. She failed to speak at all to the BBC." You're joking of course! What possible difference could the BBC make to voters in America? Zero. Today, on CNN yet, it was stated that she had more votes than her opponent, so the remaining nine reasons are specious. More to the point would have been a critique of her speech suspending her campaign. Her insistence on universal healthcare for *everyone* in the USA indicates a stumbling block since Mr Obama's proposal does not go that far. Possibly this indicates a wish to return to the Senate and fight for it there, putting her in a stronger position come 2012.
Complain about this comment
I think the explanation is much simpler:
She simply run a lousy campaign. It was her to lose, and she did, proving in the end that sh'e not so smart after all.
It remains to be seen if Mr. Obama s going to run a smarter campaign.
But the mere fact that a Republican (any Republican) can have a fighting chance to become a US president in 2008 speaks volumes about Democratic Party and organisational skills of DNC.
Complain about this comment
Clinton didn't lose, Obama won. Obama won because he knew what Madison Avenue learned a century ago, it is human nature to buy packaging and people do buy a book by its cover. Obama was beautifully packaged. Unfortunately to those who have bothered to have a peek inside the box there is nothing of substance that would qualify him now to be President. But the package was sold to enough voters. Hillary Clinton's package is already opened. We know what she is about. Whether you like her or not, what you see is what you get. Many people would rather live with their illusions. But in the nightmare scenario where Barack Obama becomes President of the United States, when the package is finally opened and the American people and the world see what is inside, they will rue the day they voted for him. All of the real facts suggest he would make a terrible president.
Complain about this comment
Far from an exclusive list I'm afraid Justin. Even if she avoided those (well, she couldn't do much about some of those, admittedly) she would've failed. Not planning for after Super Tuesday, dismissing the caucus states, disharmony behind the scenes and her general failure to win around super delegates as the fight wore on.
She relied on doing things the old fashioned way, hey it worked for Bill, but he reluctance and slow start at working out this was the first 21st century race, just gave Obama too many advantages. Still, she learnt a lot quicker than the McCain team has.
Complain about this comment
Seriously, Justin, are you serious, that is the most inane list of topics to describe the Hillary campaign, and I fail to understand how you have been covering the race when this is your final analysis...
She is obviously the more capable politician in the family, and considering her record, was more qualified to be President than a Governor from Arkansas, so she did subjugate her ambition for her husbands...
She never looked mean. Ever. You are a complete novice to suggest that her campaign was, in essence, a bitter one, you don't understand her and her campaign in the slightest...
Finally, I am glad she will be returning to the Senate, and not have to take the media hits, as she will replace Ted Kennedy as the power-broker in that branch of U.S. government, and will with time and as a check to the Obama Presidency become the single most powerful Senator ever...
Complain about this comment
So Mr Webb was there after all, and despite what he predicted a few days ago, Obama visited Clinton even before the event, and she endorsed him strongly. So much for all his psychoanalysis. That she didn't win because "she failed to speak at all to the BBC" i.e. Mr Webb :-) is a joke I presume. Perhaps that was because he himself comes across as unsympathetic to a woman who has fought hard for many years and has come out of that fight looking good - just one more of the male journalist pack following her around who don't like women who can be "tough and savvy and clever".
Complain about this comment
No. 5 is spot on: BBC rules OK!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
All of the op-ed writers are analyzing the question of why Clinton lost. Here is a good piece from Rosa Brooks on the subject:
http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-oe-brooks5-2008jun05,0,4538227.column
Clinton, in her belated concession speech mentioned the "glass ceiling." This is a term coined to describe the phenomenon of males in positions of power conspiring to prevent women from reaching the top echelon. This does not apply here. Women have had the vote for a long time, and women voters outnumber male voters in the U.S. Women hold many important political offices in the U.S. Both of California's senators are women, and a congresswomen from California is Speaker of the House, next in line for the presidency after the Vice-President. Women are well represented on the Democratic National Committee by the rules of the party. She had a legitimate shot at the nomination and lost. To characterize her as victim of a conspiracy to keep women out of the top office is incorrect and immature. Democratics did discriminate: they chose the candidate of their preference, and it was Obama. That is not a "glass ceiling," it is just politics.
Complain about this comment
Justin Webb has been blatantly biased against Clinton and pro Obama from the very beginning even when Obama was the underdog and unlikely to win.
In the end it was virtually a tie. In fact she had 6oo,ooo votes more than Obama and the superdelegates were uncertain until near the end. It could have gone either way until recently although from the reports by the anti US Webb you would think that she had lost by a big margin a long time ago.
Why does our tax money pay the wages for Webb and the BBC to push propaganda (consistant with the BBCs out of touch liberal left agenda which of all the candidates Obama is closest to). I had to go to other sources to find a balanced view of Clintons campaign
People will be watching the impartiality and accuracy of your reports over the presidential campaign
Complain about this comment
It's always interesting see how far out of touch the media are. Brutal? Give me a break. If she had been soft spoken and submissive, how far would she have gotten? This isn't a popularity contest, but it is a contest to win the hearts and minds of American democrats. Obama did that better. End of story.
Complain about this comment
Do you get paid for this? There was a bloke from Cheltenham who slagged off 'over paid BBC reporters' (albeit mostly news readers and weather people). You don't make £500k a year do you? At least make these things worth my time and not make it look like it was conjured up in a bar on the back of a fag packet. My time is valuable . . . he says . . .
Complain about this comment
#5, Cunard. "She failed to speak to the BBC" was a joke, for goodness sake!
Complain about this comment
MAII (#7) predicts that we will rue Obama becoming president, if that happens. The truth is, we never know. We cannot know what the next four years will bring, and we cannot predict how any new president will respond. A lot of Americans today are having "buyers remorse" over the current presidency, for various reasons. Yet we survive, and will survive the term of whichever candidate becomes our next president, because our system of government is stronger than the men and women who serve in it.
Complain about this comment
As a Canadian I can not vote. I thought Hilary Clinton was a strong US presidential candidate until she outright lied about coming under fire in Bosnia. It is not a gaffe - it is not a mistake - it is blatant dishonesty.
Complain about this comment
Her main mistake was not to take Obama seriously until too late. She eas leading in the polls by such a distance that she never contemplated someone beating her with a superior campaign on the ground and, when she realised that she was being beaten, she started to complain about the same rules that she had accepted happily when she had expected the primaries to be a quick coronation.
Complain about this comment
I admire her determination and hard work but she represents what is past, i.e., the Clinton era.
Complain about this comment
Please. A woman and an African American man were running for the same post. If Barack didn't get the nomination, then it would have been said that it was because the US wasn't ready for a black president. I am an Iowan, a woman, a democrat, and am an Obama supporter. Not because Clinton is a woman, but because Obama is clearly the better candidate.
It reminds me of Justin's post from Jan 4th right after the Iowa caucas, hinting that Iowa not yet having a woman governor/congressperson attributed to her loss. What if she won? I don't recall Iowa having a black governor either...
The other points are more valid in your argument, Justin.
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat, you are right on target
with #6. Now let's see who can lose
the election faster, Obama or McCain.
The only problem that I have with
either candidate is that they are
either a Republican or a Democrat.
However, just to ensure my personal
fate, the next time I'm passing
through Iowa, I'll be certain to tip well.
Complain about this comment
Hillary ran an awful campaign which started with such arrogance as to believe this would be over by Feb 5th and that she was destined to be President. She claimed all this experience yet couldn't manage her own campaign, had to loan herself money and we see now how she can neither count the popular vote nor handle fiscal responsibility. Being a woman was never an issue until she lost. Let us remember Hillary is a white woman and didn't find it hard to fall back into the white mentality of her father's and brothers with respect to racism and hard line male tactics of separation when she needed it. Her gender was used to get votes and pretend she was a victim when she couldn't handle what she put forth. All these excuses when the blame belongs to Hillary and her inability to rise her tough talk and show she was qualified when in truth she wouldn't have gotten this far if not married to Bill Clinton.
Complain about this comment
Why I have been against Hillary Clinton:
She voted for the Iraqi war.
She is a party hack.
She voted for the Iraqi war.
She and Bill have a shady past - and present.
She voted for the Iraqi war.
She is ashamed of being a woman (male redneck behavior, androgynous attire)
She voted for the Iraqi war.
She is married to Bill.
She voted for the Iraqi war.
Her husband is involved in questionable foreign dealings.
She voted for the Iraqi war.
The White House would have been used as a power base for influence peddling.
She voted for the Iraqi war.
She claimed her husband's experience as her own.
She voted for the Iraqi war.
She is a liar.
She voted for the Iraqi war.
This is the short list.
Complain about this comment
Justin, I do believe that you are acquiring
an American sense of humour. When
your countrymen expel you from their
shores for this trait, you can be assured
that there will be a job for you as a
writer on SNL.
Complain about this comment
I'm sorry, but I find Justin Webb's comments offensive to women. I'm am sick and tired of successful, powerful women being subjected to the scrutiny of men as being "too aggressive". Are women supposed to always succumb to the idea that they are to be submissive and endearing? Does this apply to men? We're talking about the Presidency of the United States of America, not an application for hospitality services. Gender stereotypes have no place in this election. Shame on him.
Complain about this comment
#17 allmymarbles - Justin had complained in a much earlier post that the BBC wasn't included in Mrs Clinton's circle of reporters, so I don't think it was so much of a joke but rather demonstrated an irritation that he and his colleagues weren't included in various briefings.
I think the time has come to move away from why one campaign succeeded over another and press on to the General Election, but there will always be those will criticise Mrs Clinton whatever she does and wherever she is. Listening to her speech, there was the faintest hint of booing when Mr Obama was mentioned, quite out-of-place; continued adverse remarks about her will be likewise.
Complain about this comment
OB won and now it time to move on to the GE. Let's hope OB proves me wrong. However I have to agree at this point in time with MAII. OB with disappoint many. Gordon Brown is a fine example of this.
I'm reminded of what I say to my wife when she asks me a question that if truthfully answered many offend her. I say " do you want me to tell you the truth or what you want to hear?" I think this sums up OB nicely. He tells you want you want to hear. This will be my last comment on the OB/Clinton affair. As this is now over, Obama won.
Complain about this comment
I agree with everything stated above by Mr. Webb and would add the following mistake when on the eve Obama justly claimed his victory, Hillary was incorrectly manipulating for the VP position by "letting it be known" she would consider it. This, of course, before she gave her speach mostly about herself which should have been a gracious concession speech with unlimited support for Obama. Obama in his creative strategy and wisdom announced a committee was already appointed to do the search for a VP. He then also proceeded to set up the private meeting with Hillary to save her from herself. Obama is a statesman and a class act. Hillary is a politician who sulks when she loses what she felt she was entitled. The difference is very clear between these two candidates.
Complain about this comment
jennieb123
BBC's comments and statements offend a lot of people. They offend me very frequently. Many are blatently anti-American, some blatantly anti-semitic. Even here on this blog, those who attack America or Jews often get a free pass, those who respond in kind often get censored, their postings not published or later removed. The hypocricy of BBC is typical of the hypocricy of Europe itself. It's one of its and Europe's many detestable traits. You either have to learn to live with it or leave. This posting itself may not get published because it offends them.
Complain about this comment
jennieb123, you might be right in what
you say. But, I think that Hillary would
have lost if she were a man.
Her basic problem was that she came across
as arrogantly presenting herself as "the
only choice" early in the campaign, as
an insider. This is a year when the electorate
perceives current leadership as the problem,
and not the solution, to any of our problems.
By the time Hillary and her entourage
figured it out, Obama had enough traction
to win.
McCain seems to be making essentially
the same mistake by not distancing himself
from the Bush administration. Surely
he is the last politician in America not
to do so.
Complain about this comment
When Clinton saw the race going out of her grip towards the end, she cried "sexism" and tried to change rules she had happily accepted earlier.
You cannot use the prejudice card when you are running against an African-American from a poor background!
Clinton came off as condescending and selfish. Did Obama cry "racism" when he lost? He gave eloquent, optimistic speeches, which is what US politics needs right now: and end to using pessimism to gain power.
Clinton relied on insisting she was more experienced, and yet the only example she could use was a down-right lie -- not a "misspoken" line.
I fully support Obama: he is a breath of fresh air in US politics: honest and optimistic. People say he has no susbstance, yet his policies have been backed up by his actions in the Senate (he voted against the war, for example). He wants to end the age of the US being the world's enemies by negotiation rather than alienation. If Obama wins, we could enter a new era of politics. John McCain is more of the same: and things aren't so great at the moment.
Complain about this comment
#25 allmymarbles writes nine times that "She voted for the Iraqi war." In October 2002, she made a speech which would be worth your time to read, since it ends with the words "A vote for (the Resolution) is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort."
#30 SunshinePlus "He then also proceeded to set up the private meeting with Hillary to save her from herself." Wrong - Mrs Clinton initiated the private meeting between the two and asked one of her long-time supporters to provide the setting. Doesn't sound like sulking to me!
Complain about this comment
First, I agree with douglasdooley and hiboutoo; although inexplicably to me, Clinton lost in part because of the very misogyny that Webb delineates here--blatantly, unabashed, and shamelessly--and that was indicative of the media coverage of her. In the democratic campaign, race trumped gender; meaning, Obama could do no wrong, whereas Clinton was doggedly bashed by the press no matter what she did, no matter what she said (and let me say that I read the BBC news because the coverage of the US is, Webb's comments notwithstanding, less a mouthpiece of the US goverment and its imperialist, normative, and highly problematic ideologies than any US news I've ever read/heard). The press' misogyny vis-a-vis Clinton was (and is) not only conspicuous but flagrant and brazen, whereas Obama was not the victim of this country's widespread and insidious racism. Clinton was accused of souding like a "nagging wife," of being too 'manly' (whatever that is), as exemplified in the line that if she gave James Carville "one of
Complain about this comment
I was so disappointed to read this blog entry. Sounds like an aggressive woman is not something that Justin Webb is culturally attuned to liking either! Words fail me. I was however, hugely reassured to read the responses. How wonderful that the commenting public is so discerning. Justin, you should be ashamed.
Complain about this comment
"A hard-faced woman - an aggressive woman - is not something America is culturally attuned to liking."
You are dead wrong. She became more hard-faced and aggressive in the end and started winning states. It has nothing to do with America not being ready for a woman (she would be our nominee now if Obama had never given a speech at the 2004 Democratic convention), and everything to do with the fact that she had a more savvy opponent than herself. She just got beat, plain and simple. She is not a bad politician, or drawn down because she is a woman, Obama just has the unique ability to draw new people into voting.
Complain about this comment
#28, Cunard. I don't see any difference between Clinton voting for the war or voting Bush the authority to go to war. It was a dead cert to everyone that he was going to invade.
Complain about this comment
Clinton's sense of entitlement was palpable, and when it started to look as if she wouldn't be gifted the nomination, she became alternately petulant and whiny ("Hillary's tears", indeed). On top of that, I think people are wise now to her point-at-someone-in-the-crowd-and-grin schtick. It wasn't about policies; Clinton is someone who, like a learner driver, has to think mirror-signal-manoeuvre before doing "people", something never true of her husband and someting not true of Obama. She just exudes "phony". Obama is a natural, America wants to feel good about itself again, to get the rest of the world back on side, and I think we'll see a landslide in November. I'm already cringing to think of how McCain might try to deal with him in the debates.
Complain about this comment
#33. andrewijones: "he voted against the war, for example" - Mr Obama wasn't even a senator at the time and so was unable to cast a vote. A total of eighteen Democratic senators voted for the resolution, but we don't hear the other seventeed vilified in the same way that Mrs Clinton is castigated. And neither did Mr Obama prevail upon his immediate predecessor to vote against the resolution, but in fact he has subsequently voted for continuing funding of US troops in the Middle East.
Complain about this comment
Hillary Clinton hasn't lost. The USA has. McCain will now win.
Complain about this comment
David_Cunard (#34), I believe you have it backwards. DiFei was the initiator in bringing Clinton around.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII - Your comment really annoyed me.
Do you remember Obamas speech about race - the one he made after being called upon to denounce reverend Jeremiah Wright. Hailed as possibly one of the greatest speeches of our time.
He wrote that speech himself.
Not a team of spin doctors, media people, and all the other members of the publicity entourage
He wrote that speech himself.
Do you know you would have to go back 50 years to find an example of a President who has made a speech he wrote himself?
And you casually denounce him as a man with no substance.
This - This is the reason why UA is widely regarded internationally as a War Mongering Cowboy nation.
If your politicians aren't drumming up ideas of world domination and threatening to obliterate anyone who stands in your way, you get this sort ofcomment! Oh they're "Wishy Washy" "Flip Flop" "No Substance".
The USA gets the President it deserves, and the rest of the world looks on in horror!
Complain about this comment
Mrs Clinton had the popular vote...super delegates or delegat shouldnt count it should be the people who vote the pres in. I think obama is a wimp, I,m a democrat , now I think I,ll vote for Mccain. Our Government would rather have a man then a woman period. She would have been a great president. Justin you should be fired!
Complain about this comment
Justin
Your first line explains why, but it misses so many facets that are not approached.
Yes , qua gender she is a woman,and has had to suffer the 2nd rate status that most women have to suffer when pushing for the top jobs. That image has now been visibly shaken and she has become the pathfinder for further women to ascend to POTUS in the future.
BUT, in this campaign she has done everything to remove herself from the gender norm. She moved into feministic mode, which is a great turn off for the average intelligent joe.
Pantssuit style with episodes of shooting, drinking with the boys, knocking back shots. If she had gone any further she would have been spitting on the side walk, chewing tobbaco and telling risque jokes. Bad body language with masculine gestures, in all she tried to become a masculine candidate.
In becoming feministic, she lost her feminine values especially with her dress sense. Whoever was her adviser they got it wrong. Trouser suits, slacks, even jeans with a blouse, interchanged with dresses, skirts and simple tops. Perhaps Hillary has the legs of a billiard table similar to Mrs Blair but there must have been a good clothes designer or cortourier who should have kitted her out properly. Full length, threequarter length, just below the knee with boots or high-heals now and again.
As a mature woman this does not mean that she has to reach the mutton dressed up as lamb heights, showing more cleavage etc etc, but she looked a mess. She hid behind the podium. Make up and hair was good to reasonable - nothing special.
Everybody I think will accept that she is a very intelligent woman with the mind of a bear trap with probably brainpowers that excede many men and this value emitted through the image of a feminine woman would have won the day.
Body language and appearance is very important, almost a subliminal message that overwhelms. Obama was the sleek tiger,fit and athletic. Mccain appears to have just left the wheelchair / oxygen flask, but Hillary- a dowdy older lady, with a chip on her shoulder.
Like Obama the contact lens thing was good. Obama with glasses would have looked like a college kid [ or absent minded professor] and Hillary- the librarian down the road, especially with her her clothes.
Justin I hate to repeat your earlier observation. She looked like many mens first wives. Perhaps with Bills' history it was to be expected.
Complain about this comment
#38 "I don't see any difference between Clinton voting for the war or voting Bush the authority to go to war." She and her Democratic colleagues trusted the President to do the right thing; that their trust was misplaced was not I believe something which they could have foreseen. Of course, the misinformation the British Government provided (by Tony Blair, a generally trusted politician back then) didn't help either. It might be said that she was naive in trusting the President, but many people, in and out of government did.
Complain about this comment
She lost my vote (I'm a dual national) because she voted for the war in Iraq, in what I think many believe was a cynical attempt to preserve her future political viability when everyone thought that the way, however unjustified, would be quick and successful, and those who opposed it politically dead.
It was tough, though. There are more than a few people who lament that Hillary and Barack can't both be the nominee. I'm one of them, and when I had to choose, I went with the candidate who hadn't compromised himself by supporting Bush/Blair/Murdoch's war.
One thing that seems to get lost in all the political commentary is that a vote for one candidate is a vote against the other. I fear that A-Scotsman may be correct, we may indeed wind up with President McCain. But it's too simplistic to say that Hillary lost because she was a woman... I suspect she got as far as she did because she's Hillary, but, perhaps, she also didn't go all the way because she's Hillary.
Complain about this comment
11. Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton at a time when change trumps staying the course.
Complain about this comment
I think that you were very disingenuous with your points and comments about why Hillary lost.A big factor was the hostile press in the United States and their the way they gave Obama such an easy ride.
The best candidate lost.
Complain about this comment
A-Scotsman writes "Hillary Clinton hasn't lost. The USA has. McCain will now win." This is a very real concern, and not just for the US. It's a serious problem for all of us. Clinton has to overcome her loss and persuade her supporters of the need to bolster Obama's campaign. Otherwise, we're all in trouble.
Complain about this comment
First, I agree with douglasdooley and hiboutoo; although inexplicably to me, Clinton lost in part because of the very misogyny that Webb delineates here--blatantly, unabashedly, and shamelessly--and that was indicative of the media coverage of her. In the democratic campaign, race trumped gender; meaning, Obama was not castigated for being African American or the victim of vicious racism in the ways that Clinton was doggedly bashed by the press no matter what she did, no matter what she said (and let me say that I read the BBC news because the coverage of the US is, Webb's comments notwithstanding, less a mouthpiece of the US goverment and its imperialist, normative, and highly problematic ideologies than any US news I've ever read/heard). The press' misogyny via Clinton was (and is) not only conspicuous but flagrant and brazen, whereas Obama was not the target of this country's widespread and insidious racism, at least not _nearly_ to the extent that Clinton was the victim of constant, blatant sexism, and by the press no less, who should be as objective as possible as journalists and not, then, reflect the voices and ideologies of cultural plebians and overt sexists who donned shirts that read "Life's a bitch; don't vote for one" and "Iron my shirt!" Clinton was accused in the media of souding like a "nagging wife," of being too "manly"--exemplified in the line that if she gave James Carville "one of her cojones, they'd both have two"--of having gotten where she is because of sleeping with Bill, of sounding "too shrill," of having an annoying laugh, etc., etc. When newscasters are saying these things, and chuckling about them even, then we know that culturally we have a huge problem in relation to patriarchy and misogyny. And, again, we did not hear anything of the ilk being said in the media about Obama--no one was suggesting that he could sing and dance, too, or that he had big lips, or gee, why didn't he ever play basketball, or any other disqusting racist ideology stemming from the days of slavery. I am not suggesting that Obama has not endured racism; to suggest that would be absurd given the stunning prevalence of racism in this country. What I am saying is that Clinton was bashed so hard in the media that in order for there to be 'parity' between the two (sexism and racism), Obama would have to have been the target of extreme and overt racism like what I just suggested, and of course he never was, and this where we see that race trumps gender, culturally speaking. That Clinton won the big democratic states--N.Y., Calif.--as well as states like Ohio, Penn, Texas, as well as swing states like Kentucky and West Va., and yet is not the nominee is utterly mind-boggling, yet of course in our deeply racist and misogynistic culture, it's "better" (in that ideological mindset) to have a man than it is to have a woman as the presidential nomiee, even if that man is African American, and it is that sentiment, ladies and gentlemen, that reveals not only the intricate ways that race and gender complicate and refract one another, but reflects misogyny at its finest (for, after all, as the BBC reported just a couple of days ago, Obama won the nomination with the longest losing streak and Clinton lost with the biggest winning streak). Oh, and Webb--you're just as much a part of the Clinton bashing machine as Chris Matthews, and there's nothing more damning than that since he is a cultural neophyte and, quite simply, a moron.
Complain about this comment
Why Clinton lost:
1) The proportional representation system.
2) The protracted nature of the process.
The process is likely to favour a fresh bold face who can grab early momentum, rather than a safe boring pair of old hands.
Complain about this comment
As a White, Southern, baby-boomer male, Hilary never appealed to me, but she was the least onerous of the Gang of Three. Now, I'm left with no one to vote for in November. I can't support McCain because of his antiquated ideas and support of Bush's War, and I could never take a smoker seriously for any elected office above the level of dog-catcher. The US electoral system works so well on paper and so poorly in practice.
Complain about this comment
Watermanaquarias:
are you kidding me/us with this??? all the blathering about her style of dress? here's what i was talking about earlier (for some reason the post didn't come out in its entirety, but it should be shortly): talking about her dress, pros or cons, is misogyny at its finest, for, after all, would you--or anyone, more to the point--discuss obama's style of dress? of course not! you and webb are, sadly, completely in line, ideologically, and it is there, my friend, where you need some work.
i can't even imagine someone talking about obama's style of suits or that his pant legs are too long or that he should wear cuffs or maybe wear blue to bring out his eye color. and you don't think sexism had anything to do with clinton's not clinching the nomination? WOW.
Complain about this comment
Hillary Clinton lost because she lost Iowa. If she had defeated Obama in Iowa she would probably have won the nomination. She lost Iowa because of her arrogance (she refused the answer questions and she refused often to talk to journalists).
Complain about this comment
Very interesting points, although I don't agree with all of them. I don't think her being a woman was an issue. And I doubt any one here in America cared if she talked to the Beeb (sorry). Her main failure was she that she ran a 20th century campaign in the 21st century. She used the Internet poorly. Obama had the best of the best in Silicon Valley helping him with his site. This forced her to rely on big party contributors, which has become passe.
Complain about this comment
I find many of the excuses Clinton-supporters are giving her are astonishing.
The real reason she lost is really quite simple ; she didn't run a good campaign. Obama completely out-organised her. She thought she could get by on some rather dubious credentials and rely on the Clinton name, and just flew right over the 'fly over' states.
Obama ran a great campaign, and people who are crying sexism, glass ceilings, media bias and all those other clichés are just missing the point. The reality is that she was just thinking inside the box, and Obama prooved to be a more lateral thinker.
Complain about this comment
As a Clinton supporter this is why I think she didn't win the nomination:
1. Gender-Misogyny is still a big problem in the U.S. Example:At one of McCain's rally's somebody said "Are we going to beat the bitch?" And McCain registered the affirmative. Point being what would the reaction have been if this was about Barak instead (Beat the ni**er?). It would have been disastrous for McCain. Instead it was a non-story because it's still okay to denigrate women.
2. Poor planning. They didn't compete in the caucases. What were they thinking?
3. Bill. Need I say more?
4. The media was in love with Obama and the coverage was biased (possibly compounded by #1). For example they didn't report how the Obama's used the race card, but they castigated the Clintons.
5. The public wanted a change away from a Bush or a Clinton.
6. She should have said the vote on Iraq was a mistake. Sure Bush lied, but you are still responsible for that vote.
7. The public knew about all the Clinton's secrets, but nobody knows about the skeletons in Obama's closet........ yet.
8. The public has fallen for the lone outsider can change the whole system myth. Does anybody really believe that? Yes, the system is corrupt, but it's going to change a movement to change that, not just one man.
9. Gender Part 2- Many say Hillary is too wooden, but when she showed some emotion days before the New Hampshire primary, people said that's why they couldn't vote for a woman. See the point? Women are always considered:
wooden/tough/bitchy
or
too emotional
Translation: Only a man is acceptable. Misogyny.
10. The way Democratic primaries are held is way too complicated. If you had "winner take all" primaries Hillary is the nominee.
All that said I will back Obama because anybody is better than another 4 years of Republican rule.
Complain about this comment
Post #51 could have been written by Geraldine Ferraro.
Complain about this comment
#42 Gary_A_Hill No, all the reports were that Mrs Clinton had initiated the meeting and that Diane Feinstein had told reporters Friday that Mrs Clinton called her Thursday afternoon and asked if she and Mr Obama could meet at the California senator's home. I don't think Dianne F would have cause to lie about it.
Complain about this comment
Obviously there are many reasons why Hilary Clinton lost this very close race. But I believe the top 3 reasons why she lost are 1. She voted in favor of an unpopular war and refused to apologize for it. 2. She clearly lacked integrity when integrity is what many voters now look for. 3. Voters are looking for major change after 8 years of George W. Bush and Hilary looked too much like the status quo.
Complain about this comment
Itb looked like Mrs. Clinton spoke from written scripts designed to meet what voters wanted to hear while Mr. Obama spoke from his heart. On the other hand only Mr. Obama showed to be able to inspire America and be trusted in all corners of the world both so much needed today.
Complain about this comment
Yes there are lots of reasons why she lost, and the pundits say it was hers to lose, given her early lead in opinion polls, but you could also come up with a list of reasons why Obama won it. Listening to the speeches of the two candidaes, it was clear that he was the most inspirational and offered something new that was reminiscent of he Kennedy era. Interestingly he also got the endorsement of Edward Kennedy towards the end. Some have said that there is no substance and no experience behind the clever packaging of Obama, but the Republican alternative is not good. McCain's age and experience could well count against him compared with Obama offering something youthful, dynamic and new. Don't forget when Bill Clinton first became president, he was offering something new compared wih George Bush senior who'd been part of the administration for years. Hiliary was also part of the establishment, and associated with previous administrations and it counted against her. Interesting times ahead, but a very difficult choice for our American friends.
Complain about this comment
"She failed to talk to the BBC"
That's rich! As if the BBC could swing a single vote in her favour. It's more than likely that any comment given to the BBC would be taken out of context anyway.
Hillary Clinton may have made a few mistakes on her attempted journey to the White House but failing to talk to the BBC was not one of them.
The USA elected George W.Bush as President almost eight years ago and an abject failure he is. He has taken his country, together with other countries as hangers on into a war that was unnecessary and it's not easy to extricate from it. He has almost single handedly ruined the US economy and the rest of the world suffers as a result. He has courted big business, when he should have taken far more interest in those who placed him in the White House. In fact, up to the date he entered the White House he had not, to my knowledge, been outside of the USA.
In placing Barack Obama into a position where he can take the Presidency could give Americans more of the same, although from a different Party perspective. Does he have the experience needed not to be taken advantage of? Will he have a better foreign policy than the present President? There are many imponderables because Barack Obama is in essence an unknown. Will it be "what you see is what you get?"
If Americans put Obama into the White House they may well rue the day but they don't really have much of a choice now because the return of a Republican, John McCain would definitely be a tragic mistake.
Complain about this comment
"This isn't a popularity contest, but it is a contest to win the hearts and minds of American democrats. Obama did that better. End of story."
Er.... so he won the popularity contest then.
Complain about this comment
As a Yank living in London, here are 6 reasons why Hillary lost my vote:
1. She supported the Iraq war and a gas tax holiday (bad judgment)
2. She whined about getting a hard ride because she was a woman (so am I)
3. She ran commercials claiming she had 35 years experience - I'll count her time trying to sort out healthcare and being senator but sorry, being married to the Governor of Arkansas and President of the United States is not the same as being an elected politician for 35 years.
4. She ran commercials featuring her mother telling us what a great gal Hillary is and how we should vote for her. Duh?
5. I'm not keen on having Bill as shadow president.
6. Her pantsuits are an unfortunate fashion choice.
This doesn't mean I'm an Obama suppporter - that will depend on seeing his choices and stances over the next five months.
Complain about this comment
Justin, I would like to point out that Hillary did not drop her campaign. She suspended it. That is a big difference in that she can do everything (i.e. raise money, still maintain her campaign staff etc.) that she could do if she was still in for the long haul.
The Clintons are a slippery bunch and it's best not to turn your backs with them around. Also; I agree that Hillary would be nothing without Bill but I also believe Bill would have been in Arkansas being a good ol by without Hillary.
Complain about this comment
Bear in mind that the UK elected and re-elected Margaret Thatcher. Was the UK 30 years ago less sexist than the USA is today, or was she simply a great politician?
The UK has not yet had a major party black contender for Prime Minister. Is this because the UK is more racist than the USA or just because no superlative black candidate has yet come forward?
If Hillary Clinton had run her campaign as Barack Obama did, and vice versa, I'd have developed an ever lower opinion of him and an ever higher one of her. So, while I'll gladly assume thet the vast majority of Clinton supporters are not racists, I'd be very glad if they would return the courtesy by not insisting one must harbour vile and primitive prejudice against women if one did not support her candidacy.
Complain about this comment
Many good reasons, indeed. I feel she made a major strategic mistake of underestimating Obama. And she was not the only one, who is not as described below an empty package, but a person who comes across as together in many ways. He fought a consistent campaign, he showed integrity, etc... That is essentially, I believe, what people feel is needed in the country's CEO. That person needs to make good decisions esp. about people. The current occupant has none of these qualities and he is obviously not up to the job. He has brought in cronies, people who are on either side of the line when it comes to corruption. That Cheney hasn't been impeached yet is a miracle that we can thank amoeban Mme. Pelosi for.
As for Hillary.... I signed off on her when she started pandering like crazy. The shot of whiskey in Penn. did it for me. Here is a woman, a double-digit millionaire, drinking with the boys. Are you kidding??? That was as bad as Kerry duck hunting with a retinue.
The pandering, Justin, the pandering...
And let me add this: As the editor of a small publication in Switzerland (after all a very rich country!), I was not given an interview after 5 or so faxes and emails. In fact, I never got a response. Take that, BBC, it was because of THAT MISSED INTERVIEW that she did not lose.... ;-)
Five more months to go...
Complain about this comment
#46, Cunard. If she went ahead on the vote based on trust, which I don't believe, then she was truly too stupid to be our president. Even those of us sitting on the sidelines, but knowledgeable about the Middle East, knew that he would invade. And his action had nothing to do with missiles; it had to do with conquest.
Complain about this comment
The Clinton's clearly believed their own hype. Hillary did a good job but lost and now its time to get behind the Democratic Nominee!
There's no glass ceiling in terms of female heads of state in many other counties therefore I don't believe she was the victim a gender bias voters to the extent that it cost HRC the nomination.
Now in the case of Barack this is clearly a significant global event!
Complain about this comment
When she said that she was going "to take those profits away from those oil companies" she scared me to death. This is why she lost my support ... reminds me of Mussolini.
Complain about this comment
As I said to my lady friend from Chicago 6 months ago, who was at school with Hillary, don't worry she might not win the nomination. 5 million little people sent their small contributions, mostly by way of the internet, to fund her opponent. Without the millstone of Bill round her neck she might have won. Too many people can't forget how grubby shameless he was, and leopards never change their spots. If Hillary is half as loyal to B.O. as she once was to Bill, then he has an excellent chance of beating the Old Man.
Complain about this comment
Frankly, many potential voters feel Clinton lost because of the Democratic party's behind-the-scenes shenanigans!
It's a wonderfully utopian design to nominate the first-ever African American (as it would have been for the first woman!) but one has to question, is Obama 12 years too early to win over the huge, inbred racism, of many millions of voters who may have stepped-up and voted for a woman?
As a rock-solid Obama supporter I have to hope that I'm wrong! Having spoken to many people (who should know, and act better!) I feel horridly right though! I sincerely hope my fears are unfounded!!
Complain about this comment
englishprof44
Like the number.
I am sorry if I stepped on your toes. I would have thought that the compliments for what Hillary has achieved and her intelligence quotient being above normal compared with many men would have said it all. But now you want to pull the sexism / misogyny thing.
Appearance is important. Body language even more so.
By the way - good points. Obama though does already wear a lot of blue that highlights his face. Hope he will wear one of those bright pink shirts with the dark blue tie one of these days. That is also a colour that suits his skin. Despite his length, ankle boots with the cuban heel will push his dominance over the short guy Mccain.
Go on. Tell me I am trying to win him the gay vote and the mexican vote now!
Hey . This is a fun blog today so that people can wind down from months of "excitement"
Have a good day. Sunday tomorrow. Its all over for the moment. We can sleep in.
Complain about this comment
Hilary did not lose the race, her campaign manager did.
Complain about this comment
Dear Mr Moderator
Please strike out the bit about the cuban heels.in # 75
I do not not want the little guy Mccain to get any good ideas.
Lord he needs them, though probably an Alan Ladd box of 15 inches would be a better choice..
Complain about this comment
#71, Right on! Sexism had nothing to do with her losing. She used it as an excuse for losing. The odds were against Obama, not her. I am very proud of America for nominating him. I have long held the view that, in this day and age, racism is overrated and I am vindicated. The next generation won't even be able to understand it.
Complain about this comment
Is this a joke? Or are you planning to leave the BBC to try to get a job in the US media, so you want to use this for your resume?
Complain about this comment
The next USA election in November 2008 seemed to be a stick-on for the Democrats.
2 terms of Bush, and all his leadership involved, meant that any electable Democratic candidate would stroll into the Oval office.
The latest battle for Democratic supremacy has not been helpful in this regard.
In the Democratics favour; Spoilt ballott papers in 2000, Iraq, the Economic meltdown, The Republicans being past their sell-by date etc meant that that the electorate could easily make a different choice from the Republicans.
However the Democrats seem to be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
In macro political terms, all the Democrats had to do was to ensure they had a truly electable leader.
This is a Reagan/Bill Clinton/Blair/Cameron type who has the charisma which appeals to the electorate.
But is Obama or, if she was successful, was Hiliary?
So whilst Obama fits maybe might tick all the boxes certainly in the charisma stakes, he is probably "10" years ahead of his time.
Whilts he has huge charisma, and his rhetoric is impressive, to lead the most powerful country in the world requires a bit more.
What does he really stand for?
So I sense that McCain might get a (landslide) victory for the wrong reasons .
Whilst it's been a epic battle between Obama and Clinton, McCain might just end up the winner for no other reason that he's seen as a clear winner with his own party and has had more time to get his political ducks in a row e.g. softening on global warming.
However in the 60's both Kennedy and Nixon amazingly presented similar agendas. Both spoke of progress and change.
Sound familiar?
But November is still 5 mothns away and the campainging will only get more intense.
Complain about this comment
Hillary saying she was shot at in Bosnia was just her way of playing the Alan Johnston card. Who wants to bet this one won't get through the BBC censors. It sure took them a forever to wake up to the Oreo cookie posting ;-) What a bunch of unerdeducated maroons ;-) Anyting past Picadilly Circus baffles them.
Complain about this comment
I believe that Kurt pretty much nailed it in post #61.
I find all the rants about "misogyny" and "sexism" less than credible. Clinton did not lose because she is a woman, she lost because she was not the _right_ woman. Americans (and the American media) have been ready to accept a woman for years; the problem is that, thus far, none with the proper leadership attributes have attempted to run for President.
I base my claim on the way that Maggie Thatcher was treated by the American media and viewed by much of the American public during her period as PM. I do not recall anyone, whether they hated her or loved her, disputing that she was a strong, intelligent, capable leader of her government. Even when she was being castigated for some specific action or policy, she remained highly respected, even admired, for her effective leadership skills. I can think of few American female (or male, for that matter) politicians that even approach the leadership stature and competence that Lady Thatcher exuded. Somehow, I can't picture the Iron Lady whining about an unfair system or how it was misogyny or sexism that forced her departure from the leadership of her party.
(I recognize that our UK friends apparently don't have the same view of her; I am speaking of the perceptions I observed here in the US during, and shortly after, her tenure as PM.)
Complain about this comment
It is really sad to see such an analysis from the BBC. I could have taken such utter nonsensical banter from the US media, but not the BBC.
Complain about this comment
#70 allmymarbles "she was truly too stupid to be our president." What about the other seventeen Democrats - are they all 'too stupid' as well? I don't think so. 20-20 hindsight is a wonderful thing and a pretty poor reason to give for not supporting her. How do you explain Mr Obama's repeated votes to continue funding in Iraq - was that 'too stupid' as well?
#72 wdihtcai "reminds me of Mussolini.." Actually Mussolini was a Fascist, meaning extreme right wing, not a socialist. Other nations have nationalised essential industries or levied tax on windfall profits. Even that paragon of fair and balanced speech, Bill O'Reilly, thinks the huge profits big oil is making is obscene. I don't know where you live, but here in Los Angeles gas/petrol is hovering around the $5.00 mark and some observers consider that there is a new "Enron effect", that petroleum prices are being manipulated. Mercifully I drive a little, 4 cylinder car most of the time; filling up a far grander and far more comfortable vehicle costs $120.00. It seems to me that Mrs Clinton had the right idea. There are people here who commute sixty or more miles each way from areas where housing is less costly, but the price of fuel has counterbalanced that. Not so long ago we thought $2.45 was high, now it's double. Forty years ago, gas was around 30 cents a (US) gallon, and just a decade ago it was $1.03, the equivalent of about $1.21 in today's money. Little wonder that Mrs Clinton suggested a cap on profits since everything else has increased in price because of it - make it less profitable and perhaps the oil companies will re-think the outrageous prices we see today.
Complain about this comment
Here are a few of my reasons (and I suspect others shared them):
1) We've already had George I and George II (or would Papa Doc and Baby Doc be a better analogy). And a lot of us thought *that* was too banana republicky... We *really* didn't feel like voting for Evita... Particulary while Juan was still around.
2) Bill was a brilliant politician but he turned out to be a self-indulgent jackass that literally diddled his time away while he was President. He didn't start any needless wars and he benefited from an up cycle in the economy but I really cannot think of any significant accomplishment from his 8 years in office. Hillary is also brilliant, hard working, and tough but, if we did elect her President, why should we expect her to actually accomplish any more than Bill did.
3) A lot of us were disgusted by the Presidential pardons that Bill handed out during the last few days of his Presidency. None of the people pardoned should have been pardoned, and many of the pardons were clearly associated with cash contributions to Bill or to Hillary's Senate campaign.
4) A lot of us were disgusted by Hillary's flip-flop on the changes in the bankruptcy law. When she was First Lady, she made a principled stand against the changes (which were anti-consumer and favored predatory lenders) but once she was in the Senate she accepted campaign contributions from the lenders... And voted for the very changes that she had previously opposed.
5) Her claim that she voted for the Iraq war because she was mislead by the White House and the rest of the Executive Branch is obvious crap. Whatever else you can say about her, she isn't naive. After 8 years as a Washington insider I imagine she has developed a considerable degree of scepticism about intelligence reports and I have no doubt that she and Bill have lots of back channels of information. No... She was reading the polls and, after 9/11, the average American was mad as hell and wanted to whack somebody... And she decided it was politically expedient to follow the rest of the bleating sheep in Congress (both Republican and Democrat) and vote to authorize the invasion.
6) When this primary campaign started I was favoring John Edwards (I had preferred him to John Kerry in 2004) and I was actually negative about Obama... I felt that I didn't know anything about Obama and that he didn't have much of a track record. As the primary season wore on, Edwards faded and Obama started to win me over. Even the ways that he responded to crises impressed me... And I was impressed about the way he used reason and persuasion rather than sound bites and fear mongering. He assumed his audiences were open minded and intellligent and did not appeal to their prejudices and fears.
7) I became increasing negative about Hillary because I found her campaign strategy lacked integrity and was using sound bites and exploiting voters ignorance rather than appealing to their intelligence. Her attacking Obama in Ohio for supposedly supporting NAFTA when Bill had also supported it when he was President was pure sound-bite politics. Never mind the fact that one of her senior campaign officials was lobbying for Columbia in an attempt to get that country admitted to NAFTA or a similar treaty.
8) And getting Ferraro to tell us that Obama was winning *because* he was a black guy! Less than 15% of the population is black. More than 50% of the population is female. And in the privacy of a voting booth, none of us practice affirmative action. That dog just won't hunt.
9) And the idea that Hillary would have won except for these arcane Democratic primary rules... Obama is a first term Senator, Hillary and Bill have been the most power couple in Democratic politics for the last 20 years. If those rules are in any way arcane or unfair, who should we blame?
The US (and the world) have some very serious problems to solve:
*The Energy Crisis and associated rises in food prices
*Global Warming
*Globalization
*Darfur
*Zimbabwe
*Israel/Palestine
*The Iraq War and Al Quaida
*US Healthcare
I don't admire Michael Jordan because he is black and I don't care if Tiger Woods is half Korean. I admire them both because they are (were) better at what they do than anyone else out there.
It is too early to be sure but Obama just may be the Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan of US politics.
Let us hope he can also play at that level once he gets to be President because we really need someone playing at that level.
Complain about this comment
#71. It was Clinton herself who used the gender card. She was a "victim" of bias and sought sympathy. What she failed to understand was that modern women don't see themselves as victims. She turned off a lot of women with that ploy, maybe not old ladies with blue hair, but working professionals like myself. We hold our jobs through merit, not because we are women. I was ashamed for her and her cheap tricks. She demeaned herself.
Complain about this comment
#82. Once you have the troops there, you have to fund them. The trick is bringing them home.
Complain about this comment
On the mark, Mr. Webb, especially the bits about Bill. I believe all voters with a memory of the 1990's just can't stomach the idea of 4 to 8 more years of the Clinton 'sleaze opera'.
But, it may not be behind us yet, friends.
Two question in my mind:
(1) What did BHO promise Sen. Clinton the other night, in exchange for her support--a Supreme Court seat, the Attorney General's seat, promotion of Bill as the next Secretary-General of the UN?
(2) What did Sen. Clinton threaten BHO with if he didn't knuckle under to her demands?
It's old-school corrupt Chicago politics, with two old-school Chicago politicians, only now the stakes are national and international!
To quote the great Harry Carey: 'Holy Cow!'
I bless the memory of the Founding Fathers, who left us the Electoral College, thus diffusing the power and reach of people like these two.
Complain about this comment
I'm interested that because you mention both sexism and racism in your analysis, a lot of these comments seem to slide instinctively into banging on one or other of those drums - as though they were the only two factors that could really have swayed voters' choices. So to broaden the thread a bit more ? did the fact that the candidates shared a common religious faith neutralise a further factor that could otherwise have damaged one or other of them very significantly?
Our two countries seem to do the religio-political interface very differently, and to some extent contradictorily. The UK actually enshrines the primacy of one particular faith in its unwritten constitution, and its bishops have automatic seats in our upper house; yet a British Member of Parliament's religion seldom if ever becomes an issue, whether campaigning or in office - assuming any of us even know reliably what it is in the first place, which we mostly don't. Under the US Constitution, on the other hand, Congress may (I believe?) explicitly 'make no law concerning religion' - yet religious faith clearly exerts a far more potent influence on everyday politics than it does in Britain.
I suspect that a declared (or even discreet) atheist or agnostic Presidential candidate, from either party, would almost certainly have been eliminated from the race within weeks. If I'm right, could someone perhaps explain why?
Complain about this comment
I have to comment on all this "empty suit" rubbish regarding Obama. Huge amounts of criticism seem to be leveled at him mainly due to the fact that he is a good public speaker. Being a good speaker simply doesn't mean that the person is in any way shallow (they could be though *cough Blair cough*) or that they lack good judgment. In the cuban missile crisis, it can be very easily argued that JFK had never dealt with a situation like the one he was experiencing. Yet despite different recommendations of a few of his more experienced advisors, he chose to react to the crisis in the only way that could have boosted the US world image and prevent WW3. (For the record he chose a strong and non-violent reponse by blocking cuban ports preventing soviet missiles getting into cuba). Sometimes experience means your set in your ways.
Complain about this comment
peterm99 #82
Good post on Maggie T- Lovely LADY
"If you want someting said, ask a man. If you want something done, ask a woman".
Margaret Thatcher
.
SalemDesign # 85
Great post .
Whoever gets the nod to be POTUS has a lot on his plate.
'The best thing about the future is that it only comes one day at a time"
Abraham Lincoln.
Goodnight wma.
Complain about this comment
#84: "#72 wdihtcai "reminds me of Mussolini.." Actually Mussolini was a Fascist, meaning extreme right wing, not a socialist. "
Mussolini was a socialist (or at least claimed to be), before he became a fascist.
As for the price of gas:
Here in the UK, we're paying around £1.15 per litre. That's $8.58 per US gallon at current exchange rates.
Complain about this comment
Well!
Allmy marbles and Waterman are my favourites, and Peterm99 as usual can say a lot with relatively few words. RobFawcett and Peter are right about Thatcher, who I couldn't stand, but she was a great leader - hard, but never mean. Salemdesign is right on too, and quite a few others, and Justin's quickie list sure worked to stir up a storm...
Englishprof, you should learn to use fewer words and open a few paragraph breaks, and you're mistaken to dismiss Waterman's style comments, which are seriously true and to-the-point. She was a visual disaster, and Obama the opposite. You may argue that appearance is trivial, but it has a huge effect.
David, Just give up. And all the rest of you hoping for the zombie's return in 2012, 2016, 2020, ....dream on. Like McLoser, she's better off in the Senate for life (Byrd's managed 9 terms) or the golf course and a quiet life...
She lost because she was mean, and that sums it up more than anything else. Obama is a class act, as many have noted, and that's that.
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
ed
Complain about this comment
David (#60), she didn't lie, but that's not the whole story. This quote: "Feinstein said she had talked with Clinton several times after the primaries ended." in an article by Carolyn Lochhead here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/indexn?blogid=14
makes that clear. Feinstein is one of my senators. She has a reputation as a mediator and one of Clinton's mentors. There is no question in my mind that Feinstein was instrumental in bringing about a complete turnaround in Clinton's posture, probably with the knowledge of other party leaders.
Feinstein does not lie when she said that Clinton called to set up the meeting, but she is not going to tell you what went on in all those preceding calls. It's pretty obvious, anyway.
Complain about this comment
#65 mightyfop. I didn't think I needed to explain the difference between a popularity contest and an election. A popularity contest is like American Idol or Eurovision - you see how good-looking and talented someone is, then pick your favorite. An election is when you evaluate the candidates' positions on the issues and try to predict the likelihood that they'll keep their campaign promises. Obama didn't win because he's better looking or a better speech giver. As others have written, Obama's credible message of change led American democrats to support him. Why did Clinton lose? Not for superficial, frivolous reasons. American democrats are ready for significant change. I agree as well with those who credit his 21st century campaign style.
Complain about this comment
citizenofthisworld (#83), what world are you from? I don't think you get the concept behind this forum.
Complain about this comment
Hi Iapetus!
We could use one of your sons right now, and I reckon you know which one we've had plenty from - full 20:20!
I forgot to mention that the speech HRC gave this lunchtime would have benefitted from a 30% reduction in length, mostly at the end.
She'll be happy, though, that she's still leading the headlines - attention is attention, after all.
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
I thought the demographic breakdowns in the Obama/Clinton contest were especially interesting, telling, and a real indication for the near future of American national politics.
An evident factor that I haven't seen discussed here is age. Underlying and influencing all other considerations is a strong perception by younger age cohorts that Obama represents a significant change in inter-generational politics.
There is a kind of ill defined 'thermalcline' in American economic and political experience that is strongly percieved by those too young to have participated in the Viet Nam war in any fashion and rarely even recognized by those who are older - regardless of political affiliation.
It seems to me that Mrs. Clinton was simply too strongly identified with 'first-wave' baby boomers and G.I. generation voters - as is John McCain - to win. Younger voters are beginning to assert themselves as the determining factor in American politics.
Complain about this comment
Malaka,
AND it was CANADIAN whisky!
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
Did she really not speak to Auntie ?
This may not be the reason she lost, but it does seem rather foolish - what was she thinking ??
Complain about this comment
#94 - Gary "There is no question in my mind that Feinstein was instrumental in bringing about a complete turnaround in Clinton's posture" You could well be correct, but it was who called first, Mrs Clinton or Mr Obama, that was the subject, not who convinced her to pull out of contention. But the important thing is that they had what appears to be a productive meeting - and that they parted laughing or joking would appear to negate the impression (mentioned by some here) that they loathe each other. Perhaps they like each other far more than most people think, which could explain why Mrs Obama (supposedly) doesn't care for her!
Complain about this comment
The real problem for Hillary was that she came up against a capable opponent. Had she been up against someone weaker, her mistakes would have been forgiven much easier.
In the end though, it's unfair to say that it was Hillary's to lose, as it was clearly Obama's to win.
And win he did. The end....for now.
Complain about this comment
re: #95 hartleyae
Be careful with making those distinctions between elections and popularity contests, especially on a foreign blog site (we wouldn't want them durn furriners to develop an even lower opinion of our political system or to confirm for them the lack of sophistication of the American voter).
Using your definitions, I don't think we in the US have had one of them election-thingies since at least 1932, probably a lot longer.
;-)
On a more serious note: I expect that only a small minority of voters vote on the basis of results of meaningful issue evaluation. Most go for the "packaging" of the candidate by their campaign or catchiness of sound bites or the attractiveness of the 30 second campaign commercials, etc., etc., etc.
If it were any other way, campaigns would not need to spend the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to "sell" their candidates to the voters.
Complain about this comment
It is a shame that the BBC cannot report more accurately on America. What is the difference between the way an American would view their first female candidate for President and the way a Brit would have for MT? You have this strange need to represent American culture as somehow more shallow, less deserving of serious analysis and somehow dumb. Yet nothing could be further from the truth.
Hilary Clinton achieved an amazing success, a huge number of votes, more than her husband, more than John McCain, more than Ronald Reagan ever did in the Primary phase. She faced a brilliant opponent. It was an embarrassment of riches. The Democrats fielded two really excellent politicians. Imagine that happening in the UK? No, London gets Boris. Go figure.
It is also worth pointing out that there are two blocks of voters: Hilary's older more working class block and Barack's younger more middle class intellectual block. There is a passing of the baton from the baby boomers to the Millenials, different narratives, different concerns, different ways of thinking about America and its role in the world. These were the stories weaving in and out of this hard fought campaign. Again, imagine if such discourse was part of the British political process?
As a previous comment mentioned, it is a shame to see the BBC host such Low Brow nonsense. But then again I guess it is a blog.
Complain about this comment
#93 Ed Iglehart; rarely have you posted such patronising comments - no-one cares what you think of the writing style of contributions made by others or whether you like them or not.
With regard to Mrs Thatcher, you might consider her canceling free milk for school children, the poll tax, the sinking of the Belgrano, the introduction of 'Care in the Community', the watering down of the provision of long-term care for the elderly and the gift of Hong Kong to China, not to mention her classic dismissal "There's no such thing as society." Not mean? Perhaps these things didn't make it up to north of the border and Palnackie.
Criticising Mrs Clinton's fashion sense is ironic, coming as it does in the same week that Yves St Laurent died and who introduced pant suits for women; possibly you just hate all women except for Char, since you never have a good word for any one of them. As for "giving it up", I refer you to the second paragraph of my post at #28. It's you who need to get over it and move on; stick to glassblowing.
Complain about this comment
Hillary Clinton's loss proves that negative campaign ads work and if you don't use them, you could lose. Had she had the killer instinct, had she used all of the ammo available to her, she'd have blown Obama away. I certainly hope the general election isn't so sterile. I expect lots of lies, dirt, and smear tactics. I expect supporters of McCain to use every trick clean or dirty, legal or illegal to defeat Obama and I expect Obama's supporters to retaliate. It will be a boring letdown if they don't.
Complain about this comment
With respect to #105 David_Cunard
I don't live in the UK so I never experienced Maggie's domestic policies...
But I was paying attention to the Falklands/Malvina's war and I am a bit puzzled about your position on sinking the Belgrano? The British sub could have easily sunk all three ships and my understanding is that the aircraft carrier and accompanying task force were also being shadowed. Sinking only one ship, in my view, showed a certain degree of restraint. There were some folks that complained about the sinking occurring outside the exclusion zone but the exclusion zone was only relevant to neutral noncombatant shipping. Any naval vessel was fair game no matter where it was and, if fact, no one in the Argentine navy ever complained about the sinking.
The loss of life was, as they say, regrettable but then it was the Argentines that started the whole affair. And I rather suspect that, under similar circumstances, the US Navy would have swept the seas clear.
And as for Hong Kong is concerned. I had some very enjoyable visits to Hong Kong and would certainly have preferred if it had stayed in British hands but there was no question but that the New Territories were going to be returned to Chinese hands once the governing treaty expired.
And my understanding is that the treaty governing the Island was in perpetuity but I also understand that the Island is totally dependent on water that comes from the New Territories. All China would have needed to do was turn a tap and it would have shut off virtually the entire water supply. Much as I was pained by it, I always thought that returning HK to China was inevitable. Do you think Maggie, or any other PM, could realistically held on to it?
[As an aside, I thought that spending the Hong Kong government's funds on the new airport was positively brilliant. A little self-serving (all those Brit contractors) but I still feel that the money went farther in serving the people of Hong Kong than it would have if it had disappeared into mainland coffers.]
Finally Hillary didn't lose because of the pant suits and Obama didn't win because he was chic... After all, John McCain is the Republican nominee and yet he's a pudgy 72 year old who beat Mitt Romney who looks like a Lands End sweater model.
Complain about this comment
"Criticising Mrs Clinton's fashion sense is ironic, coming as it does in the same week that Yves St Laurent died and who introduced pant suits for women;"
I guess it just proves I don't understand irony.
Complain about this comment
#93, Ed Iglehart. In reading through all comments, I find a wide variety of reasons why one candidate may be favored over another. Some of it is pure emotion. A woman will support Clinton just because she is a woman, for instance. To me that is not valid, just as I do not feel it is valid to support Obama only because he is black.
Other writers seem to be guided by specific political philosophies, and still others are issue oriented. The issue oriented ones often reveal specific knowledge. I find Justin Webb's column interesting and most of the entries intelligent (if one skips over the emotional blather).
It would be fun to learn something of each other so that what is written can be put into perspective. But the best thing about this sort of column is its anonymity.
Complain about this comment
interesting assessment from mr. webb. it is clear that he understands the great deficits ms clinton faced in her candidacy: a long public career, a relationship with a man of friable reputation, and a nasal, uninflected voice. i feel certain time will show us that a short public career, a wife with a similarly brittle reputation, and a fabulous voice with no content will give the republicans a glowing victory.
Complain about this comment
Obama has no substance yet he beat the 'heavyweight' candidate. Obama has no substance yet he was able to give a measured speech on race at a time when his campaign was on a knife's edge. Obama has no substance yet he took all the negative blows from Clinton and did not hit back, did not seek revenge...
It takes great strength to run a bruising primary campaign. It takes great strength to keep a team together under fire. It takes an iron will to stop yourself from retaliating when the kitchen sink is thrown at you. It takes a strong sense of humility not to gloat when the competition is defeated. It takes substance to be an Obama...
All forms of prejudice hurts but gender prejudice against white women did not result in lynchings and the many other unspeakable trauma experienced by African-Americans. Hillary's gender was not an inherent disadvantage as there are more female than male voters. She was arrogant at the start and its cost her dear!
I am amused that some still parrot the argument that she had more votes so she 'won'. While some say she had more electoral college votes. Well the primary was according to DNC rules that she AGREED to, and with which Bill got the DNC ticket. The rule says the candidate with required amount of DELEGATES win...
Obama played by those rules and should not be judged by different set of rules. Now that he is facing McCain, he knows it is not about delegates and would have to change his strategies so he can win the popular vote and electoral college. He has displayed great savvy against the in-house rival, he will do even better against McCain.
To the crystal gazers who continue to foretell doom if Obama becomes president, there is a fine line between objectivity, subjectivity and wishful thinking...
Complain about this comment
With respect to #89 sueraven
You raise a good point.
I have not come up with a completely satisfactory explanation but here are some of my thoughts...
It is an unfortunate truth that the average modern American does not know much history... Not even US history and certainly not European, Asian, or Middle Eastern history.
The Founding Fathers were, in contrast, very aware of history. Their immediate roots were European and they were very much aware of the religious fanaticism, and the wars and inquisitions that had (for them) recently taken place in Europe.
I live in Salem, MA one of the puritan settlements in colonial America. In US history class we were taught that the puritans fled England and Holland to avoid religious persecution. It was only when I got a bit older and read more about the puritans, that I came to the realization that they had been driven out of England and Holland because they were bunch of bigoted, superstitious, religious fanatics. Not only did the hang several innocent people as witches, they also hanged a number of Quakers just for following a different brand of Protestantism.
The Spanish Inquisition, the religious wars in Northern Europe, the English Civil War, and the Salem Witch Trials were not that far in the past when the Founding Fathers were writing the Constitution. They understood how dangerous religion could be and how important it was to have a secular government.
Unfortunately, it is an understanding that has been lost in much of the US. Somehow, that knowledge and understanding seems to linger on in Europe... Perhaps you do a better job of teaching history over there.
Prejudice, bigotry, and fanaticism are the result of early-age indoctrination. That requires that the religious or political leaders fostering it have control of the educational system and keep the children isolated from any outside influence. Every totalitarian leader whether it was Joseph Stalin, a medieval pope, or a modern religious cult leader has known this.
It seems easier to achieve this type of control and isolation in the US than in Europe, perhaps because of the size and relative emptiness of the country. It seems an explanation why so many of the really nutty cults are out in the emptier states in the Western US.
Compared to Europe or Japan, the US has a particularly weak public educational system that has been under relentless attack from the Conservative Right.
The rich folks don't want to pay for poor folks education (They send their kids to the sort of private schools that GW and Mitt went to) and the religious conservatives don't like the fact that they don't control the public school curriculum... I.e. they want bible thumping scripture teachers not a science teacher teaching evolutionary biology.
In Kansas, a Federal Judge (a moderate Republican) ruled that "creative design" (the Religious Right's attempt to counter the theory of evolution) could not be taught in public school. Following that ruling he received death threats, and he and his family will probably have to spend the rest of their lives with armed bodyguards... It isn't only Muslim fanatics that murder people for what they do or say.
As you note, it is an unfortunate truth of US politics that while you can be black, white, female, or even gay... You better at least pretend to be religious (although you can be a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindu or, certainly, any flavor of Christian). Agnostics or Atheist need not apply.
Hypocrites are, of course, welcome. Newt Gingrich famously served divorce papers on his wife while she was in hospital dying of cancer. I know it's "until death do us part" but he could have at least waited until she was actually dead. So much for "family values."
Complain about this comment
While there's no shortage of this sort of commentary domestically (a sort of primer today from NBC's Chuck Todd titled "Clinton's couldas, shouldas, wouldas" is a more comprehensive introductory autopsy), I do appreciate the foreign perspective - to get out of my American bubble.
Particularly, I appreciate the fresh lack of the memetic phrasology used in our media. Descriptions of Hillary's wooden affect and inauthenticity are good examples of saying the same thing in different parlance. I wish Justin could distill daily UK politics for me like he does US politics. But, alas.
Too much in the post to get into, and it's all been hashed out before so much to get me into adding my own comments on the minutiae at much length here. - I just wanted to deliver my kudos.
I do feel the need to add the obligitory, clichéd statement though: I didn't vote against Hillary because of gender. Why would I? There were so many more foreign policy driven reasons, and she and Barack were practically identical on the domestic. While sexism was present (as was racism and her playing upon Jewish tensions with the Black community on her side), especially in the media, please read Maureen Dowd, etc., and get beyond that. I'm offended at the suggestion that she lost because she was a woman. Slate's XX Factor blogger, Meghan O'Rourke, in "Death of a Saleswoman" even suggested she lost, paradoxically, because she wasn't 'enough' of a feminist. Bottom line: she was the establishment, he's the future. I don't want a third Clinton term any more than a third Bush term. The '90's were great, but let's move on, shall we? It's not the '90's anymore. I'm tired of triangulation and sordid goal-post moving maneuvers. Call me naïve, but they'll both have 527's and McCain is a pretty genuine guy like Barack, so I'm not too worried on that front. If it'd been Giuliani her "tough and tested" argument would have held more water.
And, by the way, Hillary wasn't accessible to our media either. That hostility might have helped with Republican primary voters, so it's quite ironic that John McCain has been the most open of all three!
Complain about this comment
Great list!
I think the Bosnia gaffe was an unforgiveable one (as was the RFK assassination reference) and I'd LIKE TO THINK that this had a big part to play in her downfall in that it would be good if Americans really cared about this outrageous lie. I suspect other things counted against her far more than this did in the end but in my view this was sufficient alone to have her campaign suspended with or without her agreement.
Complain about this comment
Justin, you don't even have a clue. #1 was laughably wrong; the only cultures in the US who are even considering gender as an issue are the eldest of people; and, coincidentally, they are the ones who supported HRClinton the *most*!
The young people supported Obama (initially), and we are the ones blind to such errors in judgment as gender, sexuality, color, etc. We're just ready for some change. (Sorry to use the already worn-out phrase, but it's true.)
Complain about this comment
#107 SalemDesign - and my position about the sinking of the Belgrano. It remains a matter for disagreement, and Mrs Thatcher was very defensive about her action as this will demonstrate on YouTube, a confrontation during prior to the 1983 General Election. The unassailable fact is that the vessel was outside the Total Exclusion Zone and sailing away, not toward it. Perhaps no-one in the Argentine Navy could complain since they were dead; however, in 2002 relatives of the 323 who were killed filed a human rights action against the (UK) government. Although very exciting for the British and the world, with ships dispatched from the UK and sent down to South America, it really was a jingoistic attempt to relive the days of Empire. At the time I was as thrilled by as everyone else, it was just like an epic film, especially when the QE2 sped down, a vessel I had been on immediately prior to her conversion to a troopship/hospital and it was thought by some onboard that the Argentines would bomb us in mid-Atlantic. At the time of Belgrano's sinking it was not generally known that she was outside the exclusion zone and the information came to light as a result of leaked Ministry of Defence documents. This pre-Iraq analysis may be of interest.
Concerning Hong Kong, it probably was inevitable, but the ease with which she signed away the 'perpetuity' left a lot to be desired. I don?t think Winston Churchill would have thought much of it since he had said (in 1942) that he was not going to preside over the the liquidation of the British Empire. Although Mrs Thatcher was a breath of fresh air after the previous Labour governments, she became dogmatic and self-centred and held on far too long. History may consider her less successful than when she was in a position of power. Francois Mitterand described her as having "the eyes of Caligula and the lips of Marilyn Monroe" - I think the mind was in tune with the eyes.
Complain about this comment
An interesting analysis of the Clinton
campaign can be found in:
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11496736
Complain about this comment
re: #107 SalemDesign
I wonder as well about the Belgrano sinking controversy and await the answer from other knowledgable posters to your question.
Regarding Hong Kong:
I believe the Brits just made the best out of an essentially impossible situation. While technically British rights were perpetual, it was apparent that the Chinese would not stand for it and would take some action at some point. It represented an affront to their sovereignty and was a stark reminder of historical weakness and shame.
History (e.g., India and Portuguese Goa, etc.) demonstrated that, in similar situations, the sympathy of the world was against any colonial power retaining even a remnant of possessions against the will of an ex-colony. In this case, also, world opinion would likely have supported a Chinese takeover by force had Britain not agreed to a peaceful transfer.
Britain was not in any position to successfully resist any Chinese attempts to recover HK by force; it is doubtful that it could have enlisted any support for such resistance from either the UN, NATO, or the rest of the Commonwealth, and, quite frankly, the moral argument for insisting on rights granted by an agreement extorted long ago is not compelling.
I am amazed that they managed to handle the entire situation so well: neither side lost face, and the length and terms of the transition minimized, as well as could be hoped or expected, the negative impacts on the HK population.
The US situation with Guantanamo is somewhat similar, i.e., we retain the facility based on an extorted agreement. The big difference is that Cuba is in no position, either militarily or economically, to compel us to leave or to renegotiate. I expect that some day, the US will do the honorable thing and return the territory to Cuba, but it's likely to be a cold day in the infernal regions before that happens.
The US is again going down the same road, in that it is attempting to coerce and/or bribe an agreement out of the Iraqi government for a continued presence, bases, immunity, etc.. For now, it appears not to be going per design, as many in the Iraqi government are not quite the Quislings the US had expected.
Complain about this comment
#198 Ed: "I guess it just proves I don't understand irony." You're 100% right on that one.
#114 campantman - still quibbling over the RFK reference when it was obvious to anyone that it did not refer to Mr Obama - and I'm not at all that the Bosnia 'gaffe' was not just false memory. But give it up people - Mrs Clinton has conceded so there's little point in raking her over the coals, although it gives pleasure to a number of misguided souls (which rhymes!)
Complain about this comment
She lost because she did not win enough state or super delegates. The math is very simple. Her generation of American women has many notoriously poor losers. I suspect this is because they have seldom lost and when they do it seems so unfair. I expect she will do more to confirm my view in the coming months. I hope Obama leaves in out in the cold to fume about 'how unfair' it all is .... I predict she may now divorce Bill since he didn't deliver on his promise to make up for Monica and the impeachment.
Complain about this comment
Justin:
an interesting blog....and all of the information is the truth!
Complain about this comment
I still don't understand why so many
people interpret the RFK reference as
an indirect call for Obama's assassination.
It is fairly well documented that she
had rehearsed this line earlier in the
campaign in an attempt to link herself
with the Kennedy legacy. One could
call it a clumsy attempt to gain stature
that she did not deserve, but I don't
see how one could extend it beyond that.
Of course, it didn't help when Ted Kennedy
endorsed Obama.
Complain about this comment
Two words sum up here fall from grace. Arrogance and hubris. It really is that simple. She expected a cake walk and instead when it turned into a death march she faltered. Arrogance will eventually bring anyone down and it took a little longer for her to fall. And of course being married to Bill, someone who is or may already have lost their marbles, doesn't help either.
Complain about this comment
#46 that's exactly why you need someone who was not in government then to be in government now!
Complain about this comment
I think Hillary and McCain could both benefit from the Jeremiah Wright speech training camp in Chicago.
Complain about this comment
As a die-hard liberal Democrat, I could never overcome Hillary's failure to admit that her vote on the Iraq war (the so-called authorization for use of force) was wrong. I I felt at the time ... and have only become more convinced of this since then ... that her vote was a matter of political expediency: responding to the false call to patriotism that the Bush administration has fostered ("you're either with us or against us"); the wide-spread mistaken assertion and belief that Iraq was behind Al Quaeda and, therefore, 9/11; her belief that she needed to look tough on defense and anti-terrorism and could do so by voting in favor of the "use of force."
If she had only taken the route John Edwards did ... admitting her mistake, expressing her deep regret and actively working to resolve the debacle in Iraq ... I would have viewed her differently and may well have voted for her. In my view, that was a fatal error in her campaign strategy.
BTW, she only had the higher number of popular votes if you count the actual votes in Michigan and Florida. However, those primaries were violative of the Dems' rules, she knew it, had promised not to participate in those primaries, then did a 180. And her popular vote calculations also ignore the caucus votes in the states where caucuses were held.
Complain about this comment
I am of the US and read the BBC in search of a more rounded report of the issues. So what the BBC says does interest me or I wouldn't be reading it.
#41 A-Scotsman well said.
#85 good closing - he admires the best person regardless of their appearance. Really, all this talk about Hillary's fashions. Who cares.
I would vote for a Presidential candidate with an Einstein hair-do if he had Albert's brain. And think of the wardrobe!
#104 Good analysis beginning 1/2 way through.
Race and Gender - concepts with global reaches. Obama has been referred to as black. But I understand he is white too. Why can't we refer to him as white too? Most of the US is a mix of something. Hillary is female. Most of US is one or the other; male or female.
Historic Fact - In the US, the law giving the right to the black man to vote was passed before the women's sufferage act passed. So the black female did not get the vote until all women got the vote. All that negative stuff towards women is very much in existance here. Not all, but much. Being female played a role.
This has been a great democratic primary. It happened because so many are fed up. Because of this, we listened to a black/white man and a female debate. Progress. Edwards was the guy too nice. Too bad.
Someone mentioned Cheney. Made me think of bird hunting in Texas. We got wind of it because Cheney buckshot ventured into some guy, who probably did not have a hunting permit either. And sea-boy goes to DC by FLA blotch.
Grassroots Info: Staunch Rep. voters have had little to say about their party for some time.
That is how a black/white man and a white woman lead the democratic party debates this campaign season. They talked about domestic issues. Hadn't heard that for a while! George didn't do domestic. Except for Homeland Security. That was scary.
I enjoyed reading your comments on the US campaign. Good global chats are made possible through www.
Subject of this blog: Why did Hillary lose?
A good analysis of the vote isn't in yet, but I expect it to show:
1. Younger generation caught the Obama inspiration wave.
2. The black female is more connected to her race concept than her gender.
3. Fact, elections are not ruled by popular vote.
Complain about this comment
Pretty facile comments for you, Justin. Surely organizing, or lack thereof, was her biggest foe. And not being Bill Clinton's wife, so much as Bill Clinton himself. The things he said were criticized far more often than the things she said.
How about another thing that not many people are talking about - starting the campaign too early. A book was published in 2005 titled - Hillary vs. Condi: the 2008 election (or something like that). We all knew she'd run. We weren't so aware of Barack's plans. Will future campaigns try to hold back the tide of speculation as to a candidate's running? I think the same issue is going to hurt John McCain too. Newness is a brand new political weapon.
Complain about this comment
As one of the BBC correspondents pointed out, he witnessed Hillary early in her campaign out on the street with voters but not actually making eye contact with anyone that she was talking to. She's not a natural politician. Her rather hectoring manner turns many people off. Also, she still tends lead speeches with her own personal credentials and experience, as opposed to what she'd like to achieve for the American people. Listening to her reminds you of the class swot. Enough already!
Complain about this comment
jabogitlu wrote:
"#1 was laughably wrong"
and, guess what... I was laughing when I was reading Justin's piece.
It's a weekend, Justin's alllowed to have a sense of humour and, anyway, it cheered me up after seeing Switzerland lose in Euro'08.
Complain about this comment
Comment #81 MarcusAureliusII...before you have a pop at the BBC for being 'under-educated' - you might want to check out your own inept handling of English spelling and grammar!
Hillary's version of what happened in Bosnia, apart from being a blatant lie, was an insult to those who actually died there. She LIED. It was a bad call. That was enough of a reason for me.
Complain about this comment
I didn't vote against a white female candidate or for a black male candidate- I voted for the best candidate. Isn't that kind of what "I Have A Dream" envisoned for us "future generations" anyway? That was 40-45 years ago, time to start moving along. Did Hillary want to be "President" or "Woman President"??? Next time, will she please graduate to running for "President" instead?
After the Iowa surprise, out came all the charges of "not ready for a woman, media is so mean and degrading and dismissive to women....blah" But, anyone is supposed to have respect for Bill's comments dismissive of black voters' opinions, etc??? White voters are the hardworking ones who count...
Why did the Clintons start up with race, inject it into the discourse as a major re-occuring campaign issue? (As if it was even more humiliating for Hillary to fall behind because a BLACK man was beating her?) It all felt so schizophrenic, the logic used over the months of the primaries. "Time for a woman to win/he's only winning because he's black (this is an advantage?), and he's smart, has interesting ideas and things to say, he's got the darn kids inspired and captivated--so it's really no fair to women."
I think my last shreds of respect for the Clintons vaporized with these sorts of reasonings and related comments!
Funny, Condoleeza broke a double glass ceiling to rapidly achieve an enourmous amount of power, and no one complaining on Hillary's behalf now- about her plight as a woman- how she lost because she is a woman--celebrated for Condoleeza. (Whoops wrong party and alliance. We'll pretend then that she doesn't count, didn't break any glass, doesn't have any influence on anything or anyone- since we disagree with her policies.)
Hillary is a woman, but DID NOT lose because she is a woman. She simply lost after her campaign went downhill as fast and dirty as the other campaign inspired hope for a palpably better future, and hence caught on fire like none other in any recent history. Sincerity, hope, and resulting positive energy is so infectuous; complaints, chronic accusations and criticisms just aren't. As the Clintons slid into a desperate attack mode, the Obamas kept their cool and civility.
And by the way, to see one smart, gutsy lady--to be truely inspired, and to hear, amongst other things, explicit descriptions of what low-hanging glass ceilings feel like, and why a woman of any description might want to think hard about supporting Barack, check out some speeches or interviews with Michelle Obama on youtube. She's absolutely no-baloney fierce! (And that is a major compliment by the way!)
And to anyone still entertaining, "Hmm, I think I'll switch from supporting Hillary to supporting McCain because Obama and the media were so terrible to her": please be responsable enough to at least examine, compare and contrast their positions, behavior, motivations, and ethics. Basing vote soley on race or gender is foolish! It's nobody's "turn". Look at the issues and how an individual conducts self! Night and day differences on just about everything, every detail. One example, McCain is anti-choice/ the Obamas are solidly pro-choice.
Complain about this comment
"Mussolini was a socialist (or at least claimed to be), before he became a fascist." [#92]
Mussolini was a fascist, ergo - national socialist.
Hitler was fascist - ergo national socialist (NSDAP)
Stalin was a fascist - ergo...
Of course one could reverse the argument and state that:
Mao-Tse-tung was a national socialist- ergo a fascist.
Mengistu Haile Mariam was a national socialist - ergo a a fascist.
Pol-Pot was a national socialist , ergo....
Kim-Il Sung and Kim Jong-il have been national socialists, ergo...
And so were Saddam Hussein and Hafez Asssad (both Baathists)
As their policies (let alone their outcome) clearly indicate.
Complain about this comment
MLK was "all talk and fancy speeches" too, wasn't he. "No clear policies!!" Charges that "Obama is all talk, useless fluff, no experience" are similarily bunk.
Complain about this comment
Why would not speaking to the BBC adversely affect HRC's campaign? I don't see the connection there. Can you please expand on that point?
Complain about this comment
Come on she only just lost - on delegates, they were neck and neck all the way. The significance of the result is to show how a non-white and a female candidate - however sad to have to say it in a modern society - have produced divisive results. The McCain campaign must be licking their lips!
Complain about this comment
re: #116 David_Cunard
Thanks for the opendemocracy link to the Belgrano controversy.
My personal feeling is that any cease-fire/peace initiative/whatever following an aggressive action (in this case the Argentine invasion) that does not explicitly call for restoration of the status quo ante, will tend to allow the aggressor to consolidate the gains achieved through the aggressive act. Thus, based on my (admittedly limited) knowledge of events, I do not find fault with the sinking.
However, it will be interesting to find out all the details if and when the complete story is made accessible to the public.
Complain about this comment
Why Hillary lost?
Well, what about: she wasn't good enough?
We can all sit back and analyze this till the cows come home, but at the end of the day, that's about it.
I must admit to being a bit tired with many of the arguments raised to explain her "failure" (not a failure at all, of course, 'cause she put up a huge fight and nearly clinched it).
Most of all, I'm a little put off by all the misogyny arguments. Surely no-one seriously thinks we'd all have gone and whole-heartedly supported Clinton - given her campaign, given all the weird lies, the dissembling, the inappropriate attacks - if she happened to be a man?
Get real: if anything, all those things would have destroyed her more quickly had she been a man. The idea of misogyny playing a role here is one big fat red herring. It's ridiculous and obfuscates the facts.
Why Hillary lost? There are lots and lots of reasons, but ultimately, I feel it's this: she didn't have The View.
What distinguishes a Commander in Chief from a great commander in the field? It's perspective; being able to see beyond the box. You want your generals out there, fighting their hearts out. But you also want to know when the foreign embassador slips in, indicating the possibility of peace.
You want - and need - the complete picture to do the right thing. You want The View.
Clinton, however, can't grasp The View. She's a bulldog, a terrier - a general. That fine; these are great traits.
But they're not enough for president. They're not presidential, and aren't seen to be such.
Why Hillary lost? Because, this time round, she wasn't good enough.
It's that simple.
Complain about this comment
1. Letting him get his foot in the door
2. Good old fashioned gerrymandering by the RBC.
3. Clinton may have lost this fight as early as Feb. '05 with the election of Howard Dean as chairman of the Democratic National Committe
4.Hubris among old school Democrats. Obama's machine is full of the Congressional wing of the party that lost out in 1992 to Clinton and his people.
5. Republican voters in open primaries
6. Caucus cheating
7. MSM sexism
8. Money talks.
MyBarackObama.com: With 1.5 million donors, this campaign has blown away anything we've ever seen in terms of grassroots fundraising. The technology is all centralized, so Obama knows the name, address, giving patterns, and occupation of every donor out there, as well as social networking information, like who the best raisers are. He has bypassed Actblue, and will probably end up building in a Congressional slate feature to further party build while keeping control of the data.
One email from Moveon to their full list can bring in between $100k to $1M for a candidate, with $1M being the very top end of the range. With one good email to his list, in a few months, Obama will probably be able to bring in $1-3M for a Senate candidate under attack or split that among several. 10-20% of the money going to Senate candidates this cycle might come from Barack Obama's internet operation.
9. Superior bottom up GOTV organizing by Obama volonteers. Use of facebook etc to target new voters.
The Obama campaign is masterful in this. From top to bottom, they have destroyed their opponents within the party, stolen out from under them their base, and persuaded a whole set of individuals from blog readers to people in the pews to ignore intermediaries and believe in Barack as a pure vessel of change.
His answer to his political rivals is:
"OK, I'll find voters in so many nooks and crannies and make you work in so many states that you won't have a chance to make this narrative work." His response is not necessarily building a progressive electorate; that would be accomplished by plugging into the nascent progressive structures that already exist. Obama appears to want to build an electorate aligned with Obama's principles and values.
(http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5637)
10. Clinton didn't talk to the BBC.
Complain about this comment
Justin, I think you'd better come home. I don't think many (three? Out of over a hundred? But I may have missed a couple) quite get your sense of humour. Humor. irony even. Whatever.
Or the situation in Hong Kong and what part of it the 99 year lease pertained to.
Now, has either Mr McCain or Mr Obama had a proper chat to the BBC? (I may have missed it, there are so many other important things going on.) The lesson is the first to do so, or the one who does most often, will become President.
Quite simple, really. Obvious. So we can skip all the punditry, the polls that just confuse the issue, and the interminable repetitive analyses, from now until November. What a relief.
Complain about this comment
PS. When is the BBC going to get better software for its blogs???
It's extremely difficult to answer posts.
PS Ladies should go over to http://blog.pumapac.org/
Complain about this comment
# 100 "Did she really not speak to Auntie ? "
In the US the BBC and Justin Webb have a reputation of being anti US and anti Most US politicians. This reputation is justified. What Americans don?t realise is that the BBC is anti many things eg UK and its history.
This could be excusable or understandable in privately funded organisations such as Fox CNN but the BBC is totally paid for by the tax payer and is supposed to be impartial etc
The BBC was never intended as a platform for vested interests to promote their minority (as in few people subscribe to them) causes - most of which are left overs from reconstituted Marxism mixed with liberal left views which represent a fraction of the UKs populations views
Webb and the BBC was blatantly anti Clinton from the beginning no matter what she did
Complain about this comment
This goes out to everyone who believes that Mr. Obama is not the better candidate, and that Mrs. Clinton was the better choice, or indeed that Mr. McCain is. The majority of the Democratic party voted for him, both delegate and average citizen, and while this country ISN'T a democracy as so many tout it, but a republic (fair bit of difference there), he claimed the popular vote as well as the deciding delegate vote don't believe me go to this link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html and look with your eyes.
It's a very small margin, but all that means is Democrats had a hard decision to make between two worthy individuals. Lets all forget about silly things like race and sex and the scary idea of "duplicitous hidden agendas" and focus on whats gonna get America back on its feet. So when your raging against how unfair it is that he's the candidate and he wasn't wanted by your fellow democrats, just remember that your most of your fellows disagree with you.
Complain about this comment
I'm really glad Obama is the Democrat's candidate and hope he wins. I hope he can deliver change and unite America, if not, it may lead to people being even more sceptical and apathetic in the future (similar to Tony Blair's legacy in the UK). Personally, with HRC on board, I think Obama can be a great President.
It's sad that the long term belligerent supporters of Senator Obama continue their nasty attacks on HRC on this blog. I think you have missed the point about the change message, and have retreated into old politics. The point is to unite and move forward together. All you need to do is read Clinton's speach, then read Obama's, to see that both these people are major assets to the Democrats, who despite a hard campaign share a mutual respect and want to work together.
So forget about the pant-suit jibes and talking about 'zombies', actually do what Obama is suggesting and unite the Democrats! Some of the comments on here fit a school yard better than they do political debate.
Well done Obama and well done Clinton. Two excellent campaigners who genuinely want to look beyond binary divisions.
Complain about this comment
Re: 5. She failed to speak at all to the BBC.
Because the BBC were supporting the other candidate.
Complain about this comment
"5. She failed to speak at all to the BBC." Funny, but also true and symptomatic of her inability to connect with people (genuinely or otherwise). Fine, she didn't speak to the Beeb, but nor did she return phonecalls or even speak personally to the Superdelegates that she was allegedly wooing. Obama did.
Complain about this comment
Post 138 hits the nail on the head - Obama just looks more presidential than Clinton (and it has nothing to do with race or gender). I imagine over the prolonged primary campaign voters had time to sit back, look at the respective candidates and imagine them making State Of The Union addresses, meeting foreign heads of state, having the nuclear codes. Obama seems to suit the part more than Clinton. And McCain (except for those with lingering memories of Eisenhower - not a huge constituency). Since Reagan, election winners have always been the ones who look the part, who can act the part. I'm sure the job would be Martin Sheen's if he wanted it. Can you imagine a Jimmy Carter winning in 2008?
Complain about this comment
David Cunard....in response to your suggestion that I am 'still quibbling over the RFK reference when it was obvious to anyone that it did not refer to Mr Obama'. HELLO!!!!!! The woman was hoping to become the leader of the United States of America. How can anyone with any such pretentions display so little skill for tact and diplomacy???!!? You may be right in saying that she did not INTEND to refer to Obama, but given that Obama has been under secret service protection since May 2007, given that June 2008 represents 40 years since the RFK assassination, given that Obama has the a similar air about him as the Kennedy brothers (in terms of his charisma and inspirational public speaking), this was an appalling display of insensitivity and poor judgement. Forgiveable maybe under other circumstances, but she was running to be PRESIDENT for crying out loud!!! Surely this is hugely significant!
And frankly I find the assertion that her Bosnia gaffe may have been, what was it, 'false memory', profoundly frightening. What else would she have gone on to experience 'false memory' about once elected??? People bemoan the alleged lies and deceit of the Bush administration, yet are willing to forgive Hilary Clinton for these PROVEN and monumental fibs. What on earth is that all about?
To tell the voting public that you and your daughter were shot at in Bosnia when in fact all that happened was that an 8 year old read you a poem is an astonishing lie and an insult to the intelligence of basically everyone. Shame on you Hilary and I think in losing this contest she has simply got what was coming to her.
Complain about this comment
Right! I shall resume patronising mode (Condescension mode to those who prefer US English usage):
107, 112 SalemDesign - Model arguments and presentation/layout - coherent as well as easily readable. The same can be said for Peterm99 consistently. Besides, I agree with you both.
109, Marbles, Of course I agree with you on all points, bar anonymity, on which I'll simply say "yes and no" ;-)
111, Emmnues -Simply brilliant!
Regarding the Belgrano, I'm of the opinion that it ranks as a war crime. The ship was outside the defined exclusion zone and heading away from the conflict. As I said, I never liked Thatcher, but it had nothing to do with gender. She was a very powerful and effective leader by sheer force of personality. Though clearly able to employ "feminine wiles" when she saw fit, I can't recall any situation when she even hinted at having been hindered by her gender. Unlike some we might mention.
And claydiggs (#123) says it all in two words! Why do the rest of us even bother? And Justianus does as well in a few more words at #138. Quietlaurieann (#139), also understands truth AND irony, which is something missing in a whole lot of folk taking Justin to task on his list, and David (119), Gotcha!
Laurieann, To answer a huge accumulation of posts, open a 'notebook' or textfile, and run it side-by-side with the blog. ;-) I shall check out your link, though gender-disqualified ;-) And I've still to follow G'nR's Economist link.
Montaradave (142), I take comfort in the fact that the BBC (and Justin) seem to receive such accusations from all sides in equivalent proportions.
Salaaaaaami and cheese
ed
Complain about this comment
And Links R us for links and stuff.
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
Re: #116 David_Cunard
I, erh, was not suggesting that the dead sailors could have complained... There was a recent documentary about the sinking here in the US and they interviewed both British and Argentine participants (i.e. guys that were involved that didn't get killed) and they analyzed the legal issue of the exclusion zone.
According to the show, the maritime exclusion zone was intended to warn away neutral shipping. It did not define where combatant ships could or could not be attacked. Any British ship could be attacked anywhere and the same applied to Argentine ships. And they interviewed Argentine naval officers who said that was their understanding at the time.
From my understanding of the period leading up to the Falklands/Malvinas conflict, the Thatcher administration was guilty of sending very mixed signals to the Argentines. The withdrawal of any significant UK naval presence seemed to have convinced the Argentines that the UK would not act to defend the Falklands. But once the Argentines invaded... What are you suggesting a less jingoistic PM should have done? Negotiate the evacuation of the British residents and RMs and slunk home? I would say that would set a very bad precedent and would have undoubtedly been political suicide for Maggie or any other PM.
I was not aware that the families of the people lost had filed a human rights action against the UK government... Obviously, one must sympathize with their sense of anger and loss but I doubt they won in court. And in the case of the Falklands/Malvinas I would suggest that the real villains of the piece were the members of the Argentine junta who started the war and put their servicemen in harms way.
And your position on the Falklands and HK seem sort of inconsistent... HK was taken from Chinese sovereignty pretty much at gunpoint at the time of the Opium wars while the Falklands were seized from the Spanish who, presumably, had no more (or less) rights to the islands than the UK. But you fault Maggie for giving back HK while also faulting her for defending the Falklands from an armed invasion.
Complain about this comment
petrm99 (#103), All of your points are well taken (although I suspect that the US cannot sink any lower in the opinion of our neighbors than we already have). The landslide presidential election you mentioned (the one you suggested was the last issues-based election), FDR vs. Hoover in 1932, came as the US economy was faltering. I believe that the democratic nomination at least reflects support for change, Obama's campaign theme. We'll see how this plays out at the national level.
Complain about this comment
RFK2008
May I answer your and others reference to a pantsuit jibe that I appear to have been guilty of making, where as a "people watcher" I threw in my 2 cents worth. Perhaps I should have been a shoe salesman like Al Bundy. Stepping on toes I could have made a million with inadvertantly upsetting people. No mean feet!
Place the blame at Justins'door. A reporter whose previous pieces include Obama won because he was black and won because he was not black says a lot. The present list of Clintons' failures because she did not tip, did not speak to the BBC shows his journalistic savvy. He is the catalyst, lights the touchpaper, sits back, and watches while many go ballistic with their reply.
My replies like earlier on this thread about my "opinion" concerning Hillarys' lack of dress sense are usually made with a tongue in cheek answer, because thinking too hard to place a sensible reply, guarantees I will put my foot in my mouth. Perhaps a smattering of truth lies in the prose, but often difficult to pinpoint.
May I make an attempt at pacifying all who took offence and try to pour oil on troubled waters. Not an ecological answer or even a logical one for an Obama supporter but unity is the key.
So I negate my own feelings and those of Gloria Steinam, an American feminist who wrote :- "Some of us are becoming the men we wanted to marry", and suggest that Hillarys' failure could partly be put down to the wording of the quote from Timothy Leary, [a quote that was not totally ignored by Maggie Thatcher] "Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition". Maggie was my heroine of the past, and a leader I admired.
Me? .Misogyny, very occasionally. Miscegeny always. Misogamy never!
While I am on this apologising kick, may I also plead guilty to being one of the many who has been teasing and/or attacking the honourable David_ C for his staunch support for his candidate. I am very grateful to all the input on these pages from all red, white and blue posters here. All of us agreeing would result in a very boring thread. After all- "Two Eds are better than one"
Complain about this comment
1 and 2 are relevant - when the race came to two candidates I heard the comment which is less appealing to the US populace, a woman or an "African American" - to be PC.
Bill Clinton still has a trail of inuendo following him during the campaign, and, given the history of unfortunate mishaps to people in high places during the Clinton occupation of the white house, onehopes that Obama doesn't even consider Ms Clinton as VP.
The summer should be interesting, but I can't wait for the end of November!
Complain about this comment
Justin : I agree with the reasons you give why Mrs. Clinton lost the Primaries. With regards to the member who says the BBC doesn't make any difference to voters in America, may I remind that their journalists and reporters are among the best and most respected in the world.
Complain about this comment
I agree with one of the comments made about Obama being beautifully packaged. America is place where people are easily sold the so called "new and improved" product. The point is correct that Obama is all fluff and no substance. Fancy rhetoric without much to back it up. Also, I really feel the comments about Hillary coming off as mean are way off base. If a man had acted in the same manner no one would have batted an eye.
Complain about this comment
As a 40-something woman, I've worked all my life in the most male-dominated professions (science, engineering, and IT). I've had a first-hand acquaintance with the nature and effects of gender bias, as well as the recent history of social change in the U.S. in this regard.
Consequently, it infuriates me when I hear Hillary Clinton's loss attributed to such bias in the media. The most significant media biases in the campaign have been excruciating failures to scrutinize the issues which each candidate holds dear, the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate as a legislator and leader, and the qualities of the advisors each candidate consults. Of course there's gender- and race-bias --- the natural results of superficial coverage. But these biases act to the detriment of all contestants and the voters' interests.
I've followed the careers of both Clinton and Obama with great interest, since Clinton proposed a national health plan in the early '90's, and since Obama's speech denouncing the Iraq war.
Senator Clinton has a single, glaring defect both as a politician and a legislator --- her rigid, arrogant insistence that the righteousness of her positions trumps the needs to build consensus and recognize her opponents' legitimate criticisms. She has tremendous competence and strength as a legalist, but her current nods to political necessity have only developed into pandering to PAC's and interest groups. Her political style is grounded in a mechanical, rote understanding of the levers to pull, the buttons to push, and the staid traditions of party-based fundraising.
Senator Clinton fell into the trap of losing focus on her goals to obtain the power to enact them. Her implied style of governance is authoritarian, secretive, and belligerent (she's generally supported the Bush administration's power grabs, including the PATRIOT act, etc.).
By contrast, Senator Obama's proposed style of governance is based on consensus-building, openness, and accountability. His focus on clean politics has been a hallmark of his political career. Another of his sharpest differences from Senator Clinton has been an explicit recognition of the power of technology in repairing the traditional failings of nation states and the human damage to the planet. He also has an astonishing ability to be both right _and_ plausible to voters and other legislators.
Senator Obama has managed to build a stellar staff of advisors that more than makes up for any perceived or actual experience deficit. [See http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4940 and http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/05/08/obamas-energy-advisor-speaks-to-technology-investment/]
Senator Clinton's staff is a tired roster of the usual suspects --- Democratic Party operatives and Clinton administration hacks. While they may have been effective in the balmy 1990's, none of them have shown vision or competence to fight the horrific Bush agenda. Their ability to repair the damage is questionable from the outset.
Hillary Clinton, as an individual woman, has journeyed a long and difficult path, in Bill Clinton's shadow. She deserves our respect and gratitude for her achievements. Unfortunately, Senator Clinton chose the most overt and glamorized path to power, rather than maximizing her many real talents. She's always been far better suited to a policy position than an elected one, and it's my hope that she will pursue this path in future.
As voters, we do no service to any minority candidate if we accept their failings without adequate scrutiny or consequence. Such action diminishes and demeans real achievements, and presumes future ineptitude. As American voters, we would have failed Senator Clinton, her nation and the world if we elevated her to a position for which she was not the best candidate.
Complain about this comment
Patienceltd,
Very well said!
"Senator Obama's proposed style of governance is based on consensus-building, openness, and accountability. "
Perhaps this an appropriate time to remind blog readers of a profile from the New York Times, obviously not intended to help Obama's campaign.
It makes for informative reading, and highlights his ability to bring divergent 'sides' together.
Salaam, etc.
ed
Complain about this comment
I've always admired Hilary. However, the main reason I couldn't support her was not only her vote to invade Iraq, but her continued support for the war. America is sinking fast, and is doomed if we don't get out of Iraq. I think Hilary felt she needed to show the world that she could be a tough commander-in-chief, but women have a different style of conflict resolution and that could have been her strength if she wasn't so afraid she would be rejected for being too soft. Even though she made some mistakes with her campaign (ALL candidates do), and despite her trickle of a tear (that made front page news all over the world!), Hilary showed us all just how tough a woman can be by sticking it out for as long as she did. I hope Americans can remember this the next time a woman runs for president. I firmly believe the world would be a better place if women (especially moms) could get a shot at power.
Complain about this comment
#148 "campantmanshe has simply got what was coming to her." - Ah, the Jeremiah Wright school of reasoning!"
And check out #122 G+R's post; I'm not alone in my opinion.
I don't understand why the Hillary-bashers are still venting their spleen here - you've been given what you wanted and even now her concession and support for Mr Obama is not enough; what do you want, her head on a plate?
Complain about this comment
After careful thought, I think I may have cracked the 'was it sexism or racism' question. Since Mr Obama's mother was white and his father black, isn't it actually sexist, rather than racist, to invariably refer to him simply as black?
Complain about this comment
Justin - I think all of your reasons are valid, but perhaps in the wrong order of importance...many of your contributors are also 'right'...but I want to dig into one aspect of the gender issue by using an example:
Back in the day...in Washington State we had a Governor named Dixie Lee Ray...she was a female, more-or-less Democrat, probably a lesbian, direct-speaking, unattractive in conventional terms, scholar, but...
She was not mean-spirited; she didn't abuse 'underlings', she did not use gender as a reason or an excuse, she was not a party hack, she was intelligent and knowledgable, and honest to a fault (sometimes leaving the media red-faced because of her derision for their double-speak)...and voters, such as me, crossed party lines to vote for her...what's my point?
Hillary could have been any or all of the above (Dixie Lee Ray traits) but the fact is she's mean-spirited (even to the people protecting her), dishonest, and opportunistic...the only supporters she has are those who will vote 'female' just for the convention of it and the mouth the cliche that 'it's time for a woman in the Whitehouse.'
The tragedy is that she lost to a 'light-weight' word-smith, who may turn out to have very little to offer history.
BK
Complain about this comment
David,
"And check out #122 G+R's post; I'm not alone in my opinion."
Grasping at straws, methinks, to call this support:
"One could call it a clumsy attempt to gain stature that she did not deserve,"
And just what's wrong with the "Jeremiah Wright school of reasoning"?
"America's chickens are comin' home to roost. Violence begets violence; Hatred begets hatred, and terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that, y'all, not a black militant, not a reverend who preaches about racism, but an ambassador whose eyes are wide open...." Jeremiah Wright
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
ed
Complain about this comment
"The withdrawal of any significant UK naval presence seemed to have convinced the Argentines that the UK would not act to defend the Falklands. But once the Argentines invaded... What are you suggesting a less jingoistic PM should have done? Negotiate the evacuation of the British residents and RMs and slunk home?"
"real villains of the piece were the members of the Argentine junta who started the war "
real salem i agree with most points but would say that some sides are not so black and white on this issue.
maggie could have been considered to have started the Falklands by neglect.
The day they invaded I told a diplomat I knew(with the UK foreign service) that the Islands had been invaded.
The response was"what ,bloody maggie we 've been telling her about that for months.I've got to go.
Later he was heard to remark that all they needed was to have held the years millitary exercises in the falklands. show some force.
She withdrew the navy in order to allow the war to happen.
Sorry she was partly responsible.
However Honk Kong was being leased and most good people leave when their lease is over and they are asked to leave.
the last paragraph is spot of though.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, but I don't think being a woman should be on that list. Being a certain kind of person, yes, but woman, no. She was shrill, spiteful, disorganized, nasty, less than honest, had no control over her spouse, and ran a lousy campaign, with some inept people around her. Plus she carried a lot of baggage, in her own right, not in her pastor's right, that made it seem inevitable for her to lose.
This is a new era in the world. I am pleased that she is the first woman to run for president, because a woman is long overdue, but I am glad she is not going to be the first woman president. She does not seem to be the type of person one would want as a sibling, friend, or neighbour. It doesn't have to do with gender. It has to do with personality. Type A pushing too hard.
Complain about this comment
David # 160
Nobody wants Hillarys' head on a plate. The grey matter inside will be of great value to the Democrat party who can benefit from her input and future planning from all members in organising Mccains defeat.
However that said, I think you , Hillary and her supporters, not forgetting Obama and his supporters would all love to see Bill "en brochette". After all. Who did he help?
Viewing Eds' figures for the cost of the USA war effort and watching the 1000s of dollars flying by at the blink of an eye, a joint contingency fund to send Bill somewhere foreign until the beginning of December might be in every Democrats' interest. Perhaps Obama as the Democrat leading money source could initially pay the airfare, and with a quid pro quo situation of Hillarys' debts being honoured by him, she can reimburse the party fund from Bills' lecture income.
5 months talking must be about 8 million dollars of waffle, going by the earlier figures of the Clinton income. A later book by Bill- "Lifes a b**ch. How I shut up and swung the election" will probably net him another 15. Hillarys' future adult and childrens book "The goat came back" will leave her a zillion millions in the bank.
And America lived happily ever after..........
Complain about this comment
David # 160
Nobody wants Hillarys' head on a plate. The grey matter inside will be of great value to the Democrat party who can benefit from her input and future planning from all members in organising Mccains defeat.
However that said, I think you , Hillary and her supporters, not forgetting Obama and his supporters would all love to see Bill "en brochette". After all. Who did he help?
Viewing Eds' figures for the cost of the USA war effort and watching the 1000s of dollars flying by at the blink of an eye, a joint contingency fund to send Bill somewhere foreign until the beginning of December might be in every Democrats' interest. Perhaps Obama as the Democrat leading money source could initially pay the airfare, and with a quid pro quo situation of Hillarys' debts being honoured by him, she can reimburse the party fund from Bills' lecture income.
5 months talking must be about 8 million dollars of waffle, going by the earlier figures of the Clinton income. A later book by Bill- "Lifes sucks. How I shut up and swung the election" will probably net him another 15. Hillarys' future adult book "My boyfriends back and I'm going to make him sorry" will leave her a zillion millions in the bank.
And America lived happily ever after..........
Complain about this comment
This is my last word on the subject, fellas. Hillary Clinton did not lose because she is a woman. She lost because she is Hillary Clinton, a party hack who, with her husband, heads up an oppressive political machine. Her personal reputation is far from lily white.
Complain about this comment
Mr Moderator
You have done it again and so have I.
Read the title of Bills'suggested book. By forcing me to change my original words for a theoretical Bill Clinton and separate Hillary Clinton book we have now together insinuated a double entendre meaning which is a million times stronger than my first copy.
By the way, Hillary endorsed a book that was titled Beatrices Goat?! Why could she not have written a follow up book using a goat title.
Complain about this comment
Let's take a break from bashing Hillary.
There's another ruthless narcissist on the scene.
But consider the source - Britain's Sunday Mail.
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
So now, after all the nastiness of the campaign, all is sweetness and light between Hillary and Barack! Not long after Bill got all hot and bothered about another example of sleaze from the Obama camp about his wife, he is hot to trot to accompany her back to the seat of power as Second Man to her Second Lady. Barack needs to think long and hard about offering her the VP spot. Maybe his long-term mentor, now reportedly reconsidering his retirement from that vitriolic pulpit, has some ideas!
And Ed, surely you must admit that most of your blogs are couched in "patronising"terms.
Now that June 27 has been declared Veterans Day over there, maybe you will spare a thought for this old chap - it's my birthday! Thanks in anticipation!
Complain about this comment
I'm a republican, so I didn't start out as a Hillary supporter, but after observing her grasp of complex issues and incredible strength, I feel much better about her as a presidential candidate.
She has earned my respect.
She has proven to me that she is as strong and tough as John McCain, whose personal strength very few people can match.
Obama, in my opinion, is an empty suit. A well-tailored, elegantly cut and very fashionable suit -- but empty nonetheless.
Complain about this comment
I don't think Hillary anticipated Obama's getting almost every black vote.
Complain about this comment
#163 - Ed, read the last paragraph of #160. You suggested that I 'let it go', why can't you move on? There are more important things to be discussed. I have no doubt that when Mr Obama selects his running mate, if it should be Mrs Clinton that will be a poor choice in your view and if it's someone else, then that will provide an opportunity to vilify her and to reason why she was not chosen. She's damned either way.
Regarding the Belgrano affair, Mrs Thatcher seemed just too defensive and declined to answer the question. There's another video with David Frost in which she virtually berates him for querying her decision. Had she answered with an expression of regret at the outset, the response might have been mitigated, but she was so adamant about what she had done, not considering that possibly it was the wrong. It was that attitude which eventually became her undoing.
As for Hong Kong, regardless of the legal position, it had the appearance of caving in, and later Mrs Thatcher had regrets at not being able to continue a British administration. I think it is difficult, if not impossible, for Americans and those of other nations, to understand the role that the British Empire has had in everyday lives. When I was at school, the world map was covered by large blobs of that odd shade of pink which denoted British possessions, as this highly coloured mapwill show in red, not pink. There must be millions of people who can still remember that today, more so when Hong Kong left the family of nations, and similar to the withdrawal from India (which I can't actually remember!)
Giving up "The Empire", upon which 'the sun never set' was emotional, signaling Britain's new place in the world order. The Falklands war was a remnant of that as, I believe, was Tony Blair's decision to join with America in invading Iraq, a decision which was contrary to the will of (most) British people. Britons, at least the ones of my youth, before wholesale immigration, are/were generally a stiff upper-lipped group, but when the time came to "rally 'round the flag", it was a return to the days of glory, best summed up with a headline in The Sun which simply read GOTCHA S over a photograph of the Belgrano. A later BBC article may be of interest. Quite possibly Britain's fascination with the US election is connected with being the 'parent' of the strongest power on earth; remember, some people still refer to the USA as "the colonies" even though in jest. It's vicarious glory when America succeeds, just as any mother is proud of little Johnny when he does well.
Complain about this comment
Moreon the supposed "war hero". and there's a good deal more to indicate he's the next disastrous choice to be avoided.
Salaam, etc.
ed
Complain about this comment
Noble,
"surely you must admit that most of your blogs are couched in "patronising" terms."
Sir, and I understand that, as a result of your considerable age and service (which both do you honour), you might have difficulty comprehending what I write, but I admit nothing.
And I hope to remember your birthday if you can.
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
David,
"I have no doubt that when Mr Obama selects his running mate, if it should be Mrs Clinton that will be a poor choice in your view"
It doesn't take magical powers to guess that, considering I've said as much on more than one occasion.
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#167 WatermanA - "Nobody wants Hillarys' head on a plate" You might not, but there do seem to be many unnecessary adverse comments about her, not only here but with other blogs which solicit responses. The race is won and acknowledged, but there are some who just want to pour salt and vinegar onto the wound to prevent the healing process. No _rational_ person can deny that she ran a remarkable race and can be an asset to the Democratic Party. It's time that her abilities were acknowledged - if Mr Obama can praise her, why not others?
Complain about this comment
John McCain is very much a war hero. Nothing "supposed" about it.
Read the details of his time as a POW.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/01/28/john-mccain-prisoner-of-war-a-first-person-account.html?PageNr=1
This one's for you, ed. ;)
Complain about this comment
David,
Although a modern day battle of 2 gladiators on the field must result in a victory for one of the contestants, I too am not at ease with further blood-letting. The electorate has decided and a "coup de grace", the thumbs down and finish him/ her off is uncalled for.
I now see Eds' posting @ #170 and believe the story has justification in showing Mccains' background, but I am fearful of the future.
I do not know if you can remember a similar joust in our postings in the past when I hinted at details that could be regarded as hitting below the belt. I would be very naive to believe that I am the only one having these facts but the ladies and gentleman here kept their mouths shut.
Hillary unfortunately got the full truck load of normal debatable material thrown at her, and Bill as her husband and ex president received his fair share too.
Now, coming to the Republican v Democrat battle I can accept the justification of the possible Mrs Obama rant tape if it exists and the interest in Mrs Mccains' tax declarations etc, but any underhand, below the belt stories will force me into a timeout.
Many posters relate their senior years and their individual history on these pages as I have done myself. However I reserve the right to maintain my dinosaur thought processes regarding the wives of our candidates.
Perhaps when the manure hits the fan it is ultimately Justins' call as to the posting value of the information. If every other news outlet is pushing the material and he follows suit, I will retire to the garden and splash in my own compost heap here.
Complain about this comment
As one of the first Americans to vote (I reside in New Hampshire), I ruled out Hillary Clinton because she voted for the war.
The majority of Democrats in Congress voted against the war.
It doesn't take a lot of political savvy to understand that voted to give an axe to an axe murderer, is a vote for an axe murder.
Well before the war started it was clear that most, if not all, of George W. Bush's evidence was fake.
It was well known that the mobile bioweapons story was fake.
It was well known that the aluminum tube story was fake.
It was well known that the african uranium story was fake.
And it should be obvious that there wasn't a connection between a secular Shi'ite leader (Saddam Hussein) and an Islamist Sunni (OBL) who had publicly declared he thought Saddam should die.
Hillary is not Bill. She's always been considerably more hawkish, and that fact is quite well known.
Hillary is also not stupid. She knew the evidence for going to war was rubbish. She should have known the war was illegal under the U.S. Constutition (because the UN voted it down twice). And I sure she knew very well that in the hands of Geroge W. Bush it was an authorization to go to war, not a sabre rattling tool.
If Hillary had noted "no" she would be our next president.
1.2 million Iraqis paid with their lives for WMD their nation did not posess. Hillary lost an election. All things considered, she made out well.
Complain about this comment
I've no personal axe to grind, but while the immediate nomination race may be over, there is still potentially contentious Democratic family business to be settled before the real Election. So in spite of the recent outbreak of unity and harmony, I wonder if the continuing sharpness of many anti-Clinton comments could be explained by a fear, in the minds of those Democrats who voted as much against her as in favour of Obama, that he might yet 'betray' their support by choosing her as his running mate, and thus render their votes irrelevant at a stroke?
And such a reaction could, arguably, spread to a wider Democratic audience too. After all, if Obama and Clinton do end up running on a joint ticket, then people who recently had no difficulty taking sides between them might just wonder what on earth the last five months of expensive fuss and bad feeling have really been about? Ordinary folk whose support O and C would badly need might be forgiven for asking why the two of them couldn't have thought of that sooner . . .
Complain about this comment
Ed: You are the surely master of the "backhanded" compliment! Here I was, happily reading your comment honoring my age and service, only to cringe at the last sentence, which cast doubt on my ability to remember my birthday.
I can assure you that I have no difficulty comprehending what you write, most of which identifies you as an intelligent gent who also happens to be an artist in glass.
However, you COULD at least try to be nice once in a while.
What? No comment on the rest of my blog about the "let's all be pals and win the White House together" scenario? Doesn't that make you sick? Talk about hypocrisy!
Complain about this comment
Justin, some interesting points AND you've managed to pull some utterly humorless people out of the woodwork for the rest of us to giggle at.
Hands down Clinton was defeated, and I know the media have antagonized her and her supporters somewhat, but there clearly is some disconcerting resentment in the ranks. She DID NOT run the most gracious campaign. Every pundit on the planet was saying prior to 2008 that Clinton had this in the bag, and she believed she did too. But Obama was out of the gates at 100mph and she was forced to regroup and salvage the race, during which time some poor decisions and ill-advised statements were carried across ("Change you can Xerox", anyone?).
Had she not taken the race for granted she might have won. Obama ran a nearly perfect campaign but did not have the pre-existing vast support base. And look how close, albeit indisputable, the results were. Mark Penn, as her early campaign advisor, has a lot to answer for it seems... one anecdote suggests he wasn't aware that the Democratic Party delegate apportion system was different to the Republicans. Idiot.
Here's the thing though.. the normal delegates are apportioned according to the popular vote in the Democratic Party. Obama had a clear delegate lead. So where was Clinton getting those "I'm leading the popular vote" numbers from? Thusly she shot herself in the foot a little by trying to win back the nomination in the late stages. I don't the super delegates would have crowded to Obama if Clinton had not been THAT determined. They saw what might come down the road with this sort of dispute and put the final nail in her coffin. A little more subtlety and it may have actually gone to the convention.
Ultimately it was Obama's strengths that gave him the big W. An incredible orator, with a wealth of professional and political experience, possessing a great mind, sound policies and a supremely well organised, well-funded campaign. These are the things I hope the doubting voters start to look at. How cynical is it to blast him as all talk and no action, or too inexperienced?? If he intends to run the White House even a fraction as well as his campaign, America will be on the up again.
P.S. Respect to Clinton. I'd be the first to admit I thought she a bit smug and blustery all season, but I think a little empathy from her detractors would help heal wounds.
Complain about this comment
#182, Scott. I agree with you completely. I have offered the same analysis, but not as eloquently. I am particularly glad you mentioned the Iraqi lives lost. We so often forget the real victims in this unconscionable war.
Complain about this comment
#182 ScottM1 "The majority of Democrats in Congress voted against the war." Although correct by overall numbers, in the Senate the result was Democrats for the resolution 29, Democrats against it 21. In the House 81 for and 126 against. Mrs Clinton was in good company when she voted. Like her, not all the Democrats in the Senate are stupid, so I think your list of 'well knowns' may not have been so obvious to them as you suggest.
Complain about this comment
Noble,
I was sure you'd see the giant lump of tongue swelling my cheek, and at least we do agree on the need for sick bags in the presence of such faux bonhomie.
You will vote for the Old Philanderer, while I'm for the 'dark' side, but we can still be pals, I reckon.
;-)
ed
Btw, Scott M1seems to know what he's talking about, but so he should, with an honourable name like Scott. My great grandfather carried that name onto the field at Gettysburg, and as a surgeon on the losing side, performed so many amputations that he could never face a sober day for the rest of his life. General Pickett was his uncle. So it goes....
Peace, brothers and sisters.
Complain about this comment
none of the candidates have held a presidential post before so to claim that Obama can't be a good president is absolutely a stupid assertion with no substance.
Why would Obama make a bad president? Is it because he is young, black or both?
Complain about this comment
Thanks for the link. there are other variations...
Hmmmmm
ed
And his philandering, and what was it he called his wife? Is this really Presidential material? Not in my opinion.
And the Vets on here might be interested in this
Complain about this comment
ed,
It is fascinating that anyone could have read of McCain's captivity and concluded he was weak. It's a seems desperate.
You really should read McCain's recounting of his entire time as a POW, about the torture he endured, his refusal to leave before those who had been there longer, about his refusal to cooperate with his captors, who were eager to use pictures of him with war protesters as propaganda.
It's hard to believe that anyone would begrudge him the compliment of being a noble soldier -- unless, of course, one couldn't bring oneself to acknowledge it because of certain politics. ; )
Complain about this comment
By the way, ed, did you know that McCain refused to talk with them once he got to the hospital and that his knee was that size because a guard had repeatedly stomped on it because he refused to cooperate.
In fact, McCain was tortured so often and so brutally because he wouldn't cooperate. His arm was broken and rebroken. He went for months unable to use body parts because of beatings.
You really should read McCain's own words and not someone's reworking of his words.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/01/28/john-mccain-prisoner-of-war-a-first-person-account.html?PageNr=1
Complain about this comment
I have and continue to admire Hillary a great deal. The veracity issue was a bit disturbing. The Iraq war has been one of my biggest bugaboos for over ten years. If Barack wins--I hope he does--I believe he will be the greatest president the US has ever had. I hope he can maintain his knack for candor and for conflicted dialogue (requiring a steady attitude of respect). I want to go back to college and have a professor like Barack Obama. At 45 years old/young, I've never felt so positive about a Presidential candidate for this country as I am with regard to Senator Obama.
Complain about this comment
"I want to go back to college and have a professor like Barack Obama."
That is exactly where Senator Obama should be -- on a college campus debating abstract, theoretical concepts. This would prevent our being the guinea pigs for their real world debut.
Complain about this comment
re: 190, 191, 192 and others re: McCain
I've read and heard of many differing versions of what went on during McCain's time as POW, many credible, many not.
The only thing I can conclude with confidence is that he went through much pain and adversity. He certainly did not adhere to the strict "name, rank, and serial number" stand that the Code of Conduct required, but, to the best of my knowledge, none of the other POWs did, either.
Had he curried favors from his captors at the expense of his fellow POWs, that I would consider unforgivable, but there are no credible indications of that of which I am aware. Since I cannot say with confidence what I would have done in his circumstances, I can accept his actions and not hold them against him and I do respect him for what he endured.
The only things I find troubling of his Vietnam-related actions are agreements between the US and Vietnam to forever seal records relating to Americans in captivity and the vehemence with which he seemed to oppose further efforts to determine the fate of MIAs. One way or another, he will have to clarify his position on these to me before I can be fully satisfied regarding McCain's Vietnam related issues.
Calling him a war hero, as many of his supporters tend to do, however, is ridiculous. Starting with the '91 actions in the Gulf, the US press and public has gone overboard with the term. Now, not only is anyone who becomes a casualty, KIA or WIA, labeled a hero, it has become fashionable to so label anyone who serves or served in a hostile area; even anyone who is/was a member of the Armed Forces without even having been in harm's way is very often labeled as such. This usage has cheapened the term and is unfair to those who I consider legitimate heroes (e.g., awardees of the CMH (or VC, for the Brits), or firemen who enter burning buildings at great peril to themselves to rescue a child, etc., etc.).
Complain about this comment
Sometimes I wonder if members of the press even read their own reports. They call Hillary "brutal" or "not authentic" in comparison to Barack Obama. Obama is speech over substance.
Unfortunately we Americans (and the media) rarely look deeper. If it sounds good and makes good TV, we want it. As long as he has the cadence of a preacher it doesn't matter what he's done or is able to do - shucks, it sounds good - so on to the next round of Political Idol.
Hilary's mistake was not about being a woman but rather being too "boring" (at least initially) trying to explain the finer points of her agenda. Obama was sound bite and image management from the start. A better campaign strategy? Maybe. but... Authentic?
Hillary has had to be anything but brutal. If she even tried to move gingerly toward assertive she would be cast by the Obama campaign and the press as being racist? Racist?? The Clintons? Because of the work they have done, when Bill was president some African Americans would
often kindly joke he was our first black president. It just goes to show that in the game of political correctness the race card trumps the sexism card. Nobody is immune.
Let's review some of Hillary's racist or brutal claims:
1) It took both MLK and LBJ to successfully help pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (outrage?)
2) Supporter Ferraro suggesting that Obama has some tailwind because he's black (what else is a nationwide 50 point lead among black males?(CNN) Can we say women are energized by the Clinton campaign? Mormons by the Romney campaign? African Americans by the Obama campaign?) -- Obama demanded she renounce Ferraro for this "racism"
(pre Reverend Wright of course).
3) Bobby Kennedy made it to June so her willingness to press on has precedent. (Make an innocent passing analogy regarding the deceased? Has she lost her mind?)
What is Obama's defense for his 20 year relationship with his spiritual mentor Reverend Wright? (also named his book after a Wright quote) .... "I wasn't there that day" Do we believe Wright had one momentary outburst? Is this a lone sermon in this church or near daily occurrence? Is their relationship more than a simple endorsement? Aren't these valid questions?
Obama only distanced himself when it became clear that it was affecting his campaign. Was this honest or "silly season" political gamesmanship? Does this satisfy our need to evaluate our future president's decision making ability and willingness to stand up for what is right? Is this question
any less valid than questioning Hillary's relationship with Bill or Ferraro? Why does Obama wish us to simply "move on"? Will the press seek answers or would that be too hard on him? Would they go after Hillary even after she switched churches? Question her ability to choose cabinet members? Chances are for him they'll just let it go. Sexist? Probably not but unfair and biased without a doubt.
Reasons Hillary lost the nomination:
Non-reasons:
1) Sexism
2) Failed to tip a waitress in Iowa (good one Justin)
3) Mark Penn / Sean Penn / or any other Penn
4) Lack of authenticity / emotional / tearful / brutal / wrong color pantsuits
5) Lack of ambition (yeah right)
Supporting Reasons:
1) "Bill" baggage - (But without Bill where would she be?)
2) Unfair press - (Why was the BBC asking Hillary if she was going to drop out after losing Iowa? At that point (Jan 3, 2008) she was leading all challengers in national polls by double digits - that's like after the first mile asking a marathoner who is in the lead if she will quit and stop running)
(She ignored the question and questioner)
Primary reasons:
1) Obama energizes the voters with superior oratory skills
2) We Democrats view the politically correct race card as more important than the sexism card and liberally use both of these against our opponents - except in this case we were the ones who suffered.
3) She belongs to one of the American political dynasties (Clinton/Bush) and therefore cannot represent change in a year when change is so important (In addition to pushing over $580 million in corrupt earmarks to Obama's $100M)
4) She lied (yes, lied) about the conditions in Bosnia (to call it merely a "loose interest in veracity" is like saying Bill did not have "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky)
Complain about this comment
It's really amusing how people have reacted to this - often totally missing the point (that it's funny...).
Anyway, I'm a woman and I can't stand Hillary. She's economical with the truth, she sounds like she's always giving you a lecture and she's followed around by Bill, who tends to put me off my dinner. She's pretending to back Obama now after the criticism she's levelled at him - she's quite within her rights to do so, but it just sounds a bit hollow to me. Then again so does most of what she says.
However, I do agree that a degree of sexism went on during the campaign. It has been reported here how Hillary's been called 'a bitch' or 'the bitch' as well as some ridiculous comments about ironing men's shirts, etc, and I've seen evidence of merchandise produced saying much the same thing. I'm curious as to how all of that is allowed to go uncriticised, whereas if someone did the same but regarding Obama's race, there would be an uproar (and rightly so). I don't for one second really believe her gender lost her the nomination, but as a side issue I'm disappointed it was used against her nonetheless by some. It's not the fact she's female that bothers me, it's the fact she's Hillary Clinton.
Complain about this comment
GOP Insiders Worry About McCain's Chances
I particularly resonate with that last comment.
Have y'all seen the Louisiana "speech"?
Yukkk!
ed
Complain about this comment
The summary we've all been waiting for
All you ever needed to know about the Democratic Primary campaign
xx
ed
Complain about this comment
Headline news!
(note the understated British one)
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
David Cunard...
Oh dear. You're wondering why people are 'bashing' Hillary on a comments page on an article about about 'why Clinton lost'. What on earth are you wondering about? The whole reason people are posting here is to debate that issue. Inevitably, totally inevitably, that is going to involve pointing out her flaws and shortcomings to some extent. Why does that surprise you? Most bizarre.
Let me restate my original point:
Justin produced a great list of reasons why Hillary lost to Barack Obama. In my view, one point on that list is particularly pertinent. She told a whopping, enormous lie about her time as First Lady and her visit to Bosnia. She based much in her campaign on her supposed 'experience' and thus if that experience is not even true what validity does her campaign have??
PLUS the bare fact that she even dared to tell such an untruth in the first place is horrifying, and I don't say lightly. Do YOU want a would-be President of America who tells such callous, cynical and ignoble lies? I certainly don't.
Consider also that there is videotape footage of her landing in Bosnia with Chelsea Clinton. Was she scatty enough to forget that? Was she arrogant enough not to care? Which is worse? Either is pretty bad in a potential world leader.
And one more word on that RFK reference. Just a few days ago we marked the 40th anniversary of the loss of perhaps the greatest President the USA never had. A man that would have ended the Vietnam war and prevented so much that has gone wrong since. Of course, this can never be proven but I think I'd have had Bobby over Tricky Dicky any day.
If you claim to be as wonderful as Hillary Clinton obviously does, you do not make such inept and tactless statements and expect people to think you're the person for the job.
The right person won this contest. Let's hope that the right person wins the next one.
Complain about this comment
Arrogance not aggression, was Hillary's problem; if she had been more aggressive than arrogant she was close enough that she could have won, but she started this campaign with the assumption that the nomination was already hers, and the public who wanted a choice in the matter took their opportunity and they chose Obama.
I grew up around many women and I've been married for years, so I know women are very aggressive, sometimes more so than men, but as men, our own prejudices hide this trait from us, so it often comes as a surprise and they seem sneaky, like they've hidden it from us.
I've been interested in politics my whole life, having been raised by admirers of Goldwater and Reagan, but my wife, who doesn't even vote (except that one time I convinced her to), surprises me with the strength of her political opinions.
Complain about this comment
Not diagreeing with Justin and many American bloggers, who obviously are a much better position to judge, I would just like to add the following thoughts.
Sen. Clinton's campain was all about me, Sen. Obama was more about us. Sen. Obama was about Change and the future, Sen. Clinton was about - well I am not quite sure really.
Americans know that change is happening just now, it is all around then. It is not very nice and there is no going back to the good old days.
Complain about this comment
Campantman,
It's true that the sniper fish story dishonours those who actually have faced sniper fire, but that's not the truly important reason why what, in other respects is essentially a trivial exaggeration, and in most other circumstances, say a competition in tall tale telling, might even be worthy of polite laughter and light applause.
In the midst of a media-intensive campaign for the highest office in the land, it demonstrates a callous disregard for vulnerability to exposure (arrogance?), an obvious perceived need for self-aggrandisement (narcissism, insecurity?), as well as the often noted tendency to mendacity (untrustworthiness?).
The subject's response to exposure was typical - "I mis-spoke, so I'm only human." - and actually better than the usual diversion and avoidance of blame, but then along comes Bill, and tries to excuse it by age and fatigue....in a hole - stop digging!
I find it ironic that such an essentially trivial matter can have turned out to be so pivotal, but then, as is well known, Americans don't understand irony.
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
More on McSurge
Get your McSurge golf gear here!
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
CAMPAIGN '08
McCain Cites His Experience
Over Obama's
Says opponent's never napalmed a village, married a beer heiress or been caught up in a savings and loan scandal.
WORLD NEWS
Bad News: U.S. Funding, Training
Group Aiding Taliban, Al Qaeda
Good news: if we?re fighting ourselves, we can?t lose.
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
Everyone and Ed
Moving on to the superbowl decider between Obama and Mccain and with old, disenchanted Hillary supporters, the Repubs and Independents attempting to link Obama to sainthood and his supporters as mesmerised cult followers we must be grateful that even the romans did not regard crucifixion as torture.
Obviously the Democrats will try to undermine Mccain every step of the way, and his service record, name rank and number stance [ or the lack of it], is now being put under the spotlight, if not the microscope. Will the thumbscrews be used to elicit info from all who knew him? Will we put the boot in or the boot on before moving him to the rack? Does USA want a public hanging, drawing and quartering to quench their thirst for vengance against the Bush regime, and Mccain , as a scapegoats' link to it?
Luckily Obama comes from white American and Kenyan stock, because could he trace his family back to an earlier black American slave heritage, the romans also felt that a slaves testimony obtained under torture was the only real truth. Real truth you can believe in?
David can now rest happily in his bed, knowing that Hillary will not have to take her place in the dunking stool or sit in the stocks for her mis-speaks. Even we civilised opponents realise that a stake through the heart is taking it a wee bit too far.
My own view of Mccains'"breaking"under torture and the need to follow this line of thought, is that it does a great dis-servive to all vets, ex-vets who were held prisoner, and present day military personel. They are the true heroes albeit pawns in the power play of government ideology.
Thank the lord for civilised waterboarding now! No blood. No broken bones unless the detainee struggles to resist the torture. Perhaps life long psychological problems and nightmares. Ok a death or two but in the main good clean fun? Naked politicians in chains perhaps with George Staphlococus asking them incisive questions? Haven't we come a long way! Politics is politics and one does everything to win? Is this a correct path to follow?
Do you think we can accuse Justin and his secret police moderators with going against our human rights? "Sleep deprivation" counts as a torture and is also included in the modern day list of crimes against the individual.
Complain about this comment
CBS' Schieffer Gives Props To Clinton: 'Yesterday, She Showed Us Her Best'
Yeah, yeah! All too rare from a Clinton, true enough, but no mention that such grace has been the pattern for Obama, who also has set an even better example for the even younger people who have worked for him....
Gahhh!
ed
Complain about this comment
"Only a fool or a fraud talks tough or romantically about war,"
Hmmm.
Lao Tzu ~2400 years ago
Complain about this comment
Ed
If you thought my questions placed with the tortures of yesterday and that of the present day were talking romantically about war, then I suggest you keep to your tree house.
May I not question the Democrat vision of proceding down a path to humiliate its opponent?
Complain about this comment
Waterman,
"May I not question the Democrat vision of proceding down a path to humiliate its opponent?"
You most certainly may, and wisely too. The reference to romanticising war was to the opening lines of the new McSurge's TV ad, and not to your goodself nor to your tongue-in-cheek waterboarding references.
The trouble I have (among many, of course) is that I'm faced with two alternatives (well, actually three) regarding McCain.
1. Embarrassment that this is considered the best America can offer as an alternative to the embarrassment of Dubya.
2. Strike out with ridicule to cover my embarrassment (and distance myself from the creep)
3. remain silent (nearly impossible in my case) ;-)
Salaam, etc.
ed
Complain about this comment
"Calling him a war hero, as many of his supporters tend to do, however, is ridiculous. "
Actually, disputing that he is a war hero is more ridiculous. Anyone who has read the details of his capture and treatment all those years could never conclude that he was not both brave and strong.
There is simply no getting around the fact that McCain was a brave soldier who handled his imprisonment with honor.
One's denial of his bravery and heroism can only be attributed to politics, which just proves that despite the rhetoric of "change", some things resist change after all. That you can believe in.
Complain about this comment
How come so many of y'all don't use your real names? Actually, Mr. Cunard, I started reading the BBC site because I decided the U.S. media wasn't going to give Hillary a fair shake.
Hillary's an earnest Midwestern Methodist and seemed more "authentic" to 17 or 18 million of us than anyone else. Her truly Midwestern roots also explains what you call a "wooden" speaking style.
Hillary was in Washington with other senators the day the building was attacked by terrorists. No wonder she voted for the war. I think Obama was in the Illinois statehouse that day, wasn't he?
I hope she does not take the VP slot, if offered, but runs again in 2012.
Complain about this comment
"Sen. Clinton's campain was all about me, Sen. Obama was more about us."
You could also say that Obama's campaign allowed voters to make it about themselves, an area in which Americans are know to have a weakness.
Voters want to feel good, and Obama's their "candy man".
Complain about this comment
Now here's quiet graciousness!
Laura Bush supports Michelle Obama.
Well, well, well. Good for her.
xx
ed
Complain about this comment
"Hillary was in Washington with other senators the day the building was attacked by terrorists. No wonder she voted for the war. I think Obama was in the Illinois statehouse that day, wasn't he?"
She was meant to vote using the evidence presented to her in theSIC. not because of an emotional response.
We want clear thinking at 3 am not emotional reaction.
As for being in washington on 9/11 . big deal. she was not in the pentagon was she. and the trade towers were in new york. heradopted home).so that might be more relevant.
Even she did not claim she had been attacked(though if the sniper thing was left alone she might have got there).
She voted for war to prove she had rocks in her pants.
To show america she cared(but did not think)
As for there being ANY connection between this war and 9/11 in the first place, you will not find it.Except in the eyes of those looking for an excuse.
Officially Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.
It has been accepted that the evidence was useless.
That al quada was trying to get rid of Saddam is not a secret.
Now my family is from the midwest and they were all for clinton.I'm not going to dis the midwest.
I never noticed them being wooden.Or speaking like they were made of wood.
but still Wooden did seem to describe their puppet like qualities.
Hillary just knew how to pull the strings right, for some.
No offence meant,i just see her differently.
Glad she's on the good ship Obama now,we'll just have to see if she hasn't frayed the puppets strings to the point where she loses control of a limb.
Complain about this comment
@213
Are you referring to the Pentagon, and are you implying that Senator Clinton was inside it during the 9/11 attacks?
Regardless, I think it's ridiculous to explain her vote in this manner. It's undermines her credibility as a leader if she can be scared into voting that way due to such an experience. It also is an event that occurred around two years before the vote in question. If by this point she was still voting out of fear there is no way she had the soundness of mind to lead the country.
This is a disingenuous and ultimately self-defeating argument to make. I don't believe Clinton is or wants to be seen as an easily frightened sheep.
Complain about this comment
Laura Bush's greeting in Afghanistan looked more dangerous than Hillary's in Bosnia though. McCain has a VP slot open...
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
cgkmccarthy # 213
You attack a fellow Hillary supporter who has been almost risking life and limb in defending her and then are upset that he described her speaking style as wooden! Show some respect man!
Hillary is very much in the roster of names even though she now appears to have taken a lower ranking in the pecking order. I quote:-
"I want rustlers, cutthroats, murderers, bounty hunters, deparados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, conmen, indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, b***erers, bushwakkers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull-dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, s**t-kickers and Methodists".
Give her a fair shake? Shes' pencilled in for when Governeur William J Le Petomane gives up his seat .
Nobody gets left out in our party!
Mel Brookes.
Complain about this comment
Clinton was outsmarted early on by Obama who has a natural charisma she lacks. That's why she resorted to the vicious lies smears and indeed downright lies about him.
McCain has been lapping it up. I know who I will blame if McCain get elected.
Complain about this comment
Several bloggers have an enormous number of entries. Don't you guys have jobs?
Complain about this comment
Ms Marbles,
Semi-retired, semi-employed using computer, and thoroughly obsessed, in my case.
xx
ed
Complain about this comment
allmymarbles
As you can see I have lost all of mine.
Retired, talking to trees, watching the grass grow here in the sun.
wma
Complain about this comment
Rheum 222. Yes, and thank you for asking.
Complain about this comment
Obama "un-plugged"
A nice, down-home meeting and chat with campaign workers following the end off the primary marathon.
Nice
ed
Complain about this comment
You can't be serious with your first claim. Statements like this help reinforce sexism in this country. The reason she lost was first and foremost because she ran a mismanaged and inconsistent campaign. The first Hillary Clinton back before Iowa was the preposterous "inevitable candidate" with a steely persona that would make Margaret Thatcher look soft; the second Hillary, in New Hampshire, was your friend next door who would laugh and - notably - cry with life's ups and downs; Hillary, III tried a more light-hearted approach, making fun of herself on the late-night circuit; then came Hillary, the pseudo-John Edwards populist candidate, who threw back a few whisky shots and frequented steel town dive bars. I'm sure I'm missing a few other Hillary re-inventions. Americans don't like re-branded politicians. They want a candidate with a consistent message. That is why Barack's repetitious message of "change" - as annoying as it has become - has worked so well.
Complain about this comment
#201.campantman "You're wondering why people are 'bashing' Hillary. . . on a comments page on an article about about 'why Clinton lost'."
There's a world of difference between rational discussion and 'bashing' - for example, "she is a party hack", "I can't stand Hillary", "Sen. Clinton's campain was all about me" and "her pantsuits are an unfortunate fashion choice" - what kind of reasoning is that?
Analysing her loss doesn't mean it's open season to make unjustified attacks on her as has been the case throughout the Primary season, as this article from the Associated Press shows. Much as the UK tabloid The Sun claimed it had won the 1997 General Election for Labour, so American press and television can claim victory for Mr Obama.
Complain about this comment
HDonahue (#227), regarding Obama's "repetition message," I agree but think he will need to become much more specific for the general election.
Complain about this comment
An interesting development
Obama is to partner with Elizabeth Edwards on improving his health care plans. Does this add to the likelihood of a Clinton VP? Of course, I welcome the first and dread the second
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
David_Cunard (#228), this is just another rationalization, and a patronizing one at that, suggesting that Democratic voters follow the press rather than vice-versa.
Complain about this comment
Ed (#230), that is interesting, indeed. It shows that Obama recognizes that he must have a Democratic plan, not merely an Obama plan. Perhaps that is where Clinton went wrong when she was working on this in her husband's administration.
Complain about this comment
11. Obama was simply the better candidate in a hundred ways.
Wouldn't that be the most obvious reason?
Complain about this comment
McCain to campaign in all thirteen colonies
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
Abramoff scandal
The stink lingers, and as one disgraced lobbyist
fades into the distance, there are plenty of new ones eager to take up the slack. A good few remain in McCain's inner circle.
Salaam, etc.
ed
Complain about this comment
230, 232, you are right, Obama's planning with a number of experts, Elizabeth Edwards and Sam Nunn are two among many, clearly shows that he seeks the best advice - - and puts the lie to charicatures of a Wright and Ayers cabinet that are spread on AM radio and e-mail chains.
This is in line with his measured response to Iraq questions - as President/CinC he defines the overall mission, but he will listen to his generals and admirals.
We would be better off now if President and VP had listened to generals and CIA in 2002, instead of rewriting intelligence while disregarding warnings of a false basis for WMD and incomplete, optimistic Iraq planning...
I welcome the prospect of a genuinely smart President who recognizes that he needs to listen to a lot of other smart or experienced people to do what's best for the USA. He won because he out-listened and out-planned Clinton.
Obama can win against McCain on real issues and on political judgement, with no need to mention Navy service, POW years, or any experience of McCain's that predates Keating.
Complain about this comment
#231 Gary_A_Hill - You'd be better off telling Tom Brokaw that, not me. As you must know, he's a respected television journalist and sees what happened to others in his occupation. If the press and other media were so unimportant as you suggest, why do voters consult their newspapers when casting a ballot? How else does the electorate decide which is the better candidate? Electors who actually see those running for office are but a fraction of the voting public, so they get their information from the media, which this year for the first time (in any meaningful way) has included the internet. If the media is prejudiced, as I and many others consider it to be, then how can an even-handed decision be made? Votes are cast with the minimum of knowledge - and a vast number rely on what they are told by others. I don't see anything "patronizing" about it.
Complain about this comment
Judging from all the reasons given for Hillary's loss, one would think she lost by more than a handful of votes.
In truth, she came extremely close to a win herself. She was obviously good enough for an awful lot of voters.
Perhaps a better question might be, "Why did Obama start losing primaries?"
Complain about this comment
#236 bluejay60 "We would be better off now if President and VP had listened to generals and CIA in 2002, instead of rewriting intelligence . . ." The Select Committee on Intelligence under the chairmanship of Senator Rockefeller (a Democrat) has come to some surprising conclusions. A Washington Post article about this is headed 'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple. Worth reading, even if one disagrees with it.
Complain about this comment
One of Justin's favourite reads
has an interesting quote. It's from the Manchester Union Leader in New Hampshire, endorsing McCain. Read the reader's comment carefully.
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
Since the creative math that brought us the 'I won the popular vote' myth might well resurface as we move into the VP-choosing season, here's a cautionary tale about two-horse races that I was told many years ago as a young press officer.
The Soviet ambassador (I told you it was a long time ago) in a certain 'non-aligned' third-world country considered himself rather an athlete, so he challenged the American ambassador, who he detested, to a private foot race in the national stadium: where a 'spontaneous' crowd of thousands booed the US envoy when he won convincingly, but dutifully cheered his puffing opponent as he limped in some way behind.
Sure enough, the government-controlled press reported next day that a foot race had been held in the Freedom Stadium at the weekend, in which the fraternal Soviet ambassador had scored a very creditable second place: while the American capitalist lackey had only managed to finish last but one.
You can do amazing things with smoke and mirrors, but they only work when people want to believe them in the first place.
Complain about this comment
David (#237), we agree that the media are biased, but we disagree in our estimation of the voters' ability to deal with that. I think newspapers flatter themselves when they endorse candidates, for example. I never give any consideration to that, and suspect few voters do. The most important influence on voters, I believe, is what they see and hear from the candidates themselves. The press and electronic media edit the campaigns down considerably for publication, of course, but it's pretty clear that they were not conspiring to keep material harmful to Obama's chances under wraps. Most reporters, in my opinion, have the integrity to publish newsworthy items without regard to whether they help or hurt a particular candidate. I can't prove that; it's just a statement of my confidence in our political system, of which the Fourth Estate is an essential part.
Complain about this comment
AndreainNY (#238), I believe Obama was significantly hurt by the statements of Pastor Wright (and the priest), his wife, Michelle, and himself (when he believed he was speaking off the record). His friends have hurt him more than his adversaries, yet he won anyway.
Complain about this comment
David (#239), yes, that article is worthwhile reading. It is a good example illustrating why I reject the notion that the press is willing and able to manipulate public opinion. The Washington Post is one of those newspapers sometimes characterized as part of the left-leaning press, yet they published this because it thoughtful, responsible journalism, whether it leans the right (left) way or not.
Complain about this comment
I think that am done with this!
Complain about this comment
I seemed to have tapped into the geezer contingent. That's OK. I am one of you. I am supposed to be retired, but it doesn't seem to work out that way. Just as well, or I would lose allmymarbles.
Complain about this comment
re: #242 Gary_A_Hill
"Most reporters, in my opinion, have the integrity to publish newsworthy items without regard to whether they help or hurt a particular candidate. I can't prove that; it's just a statement of my confidence in our political system, of which the Fourth Estate is an essential part."
Does consideration of the fact that the NYT sat on the Bush administration's eavesdropping on Americans story for many months prior to the 2004 election affect your confidence?
re: #244 Gary_A_Hill
" . . . I reject the notion that the press is willing and able to manipulate public opinion."
Care to comment on the fact that the NYT consistently and prominently headlined Judith Miller's stories supporting the administration's lies about Iraqi WMDs, etc. prominently on the front page, while relegating all contrarian reports into minor articles buried in the back pages? And, of course, not just the NYT, but most media outlets did the same.
Complain about this comment
222,223,224. I seemed to have tapped into the geezer contingent. That's OK. I am one of you. I am supposed to be retired, but it doesn't seem to work out that way. Just as well or I would lose allmymarbles.
Complain about this comment
Thanks for the link David
I haven't read the Rockefeller report yet, but I will.
I have read the books "Hubris" and "One Bullet Away"; the exhaustive research in the former and some vignettes in the latter seem to confirm my premise: something fishy, led by the VP, went on with the selection and presentation of intelligence(cherry-picking 'Curveball' information, dismissing Wilson's opinion, etc.) and planning for the Iraq war.
The presentation prepared by the Bush administration and presented by Powell strived to be a public repeat of the Cuban missiles photos shown by JFK.
Ironically, the opposite was true, so the reality was more akin to the U-2 photos secretly seen by Eisenhower and JFK that informed them that the publicly perceived 'missile gap' and 'bomber gap' of USA vs. Soviets were far less frightening in actual fact.
Complain about this comment
Ed: I did indeed detect that tongue in cheek comment about my memory, and I also agree that we can be pals, despite the vast political divide. What bothers me about your man is that he just might continue to support the policies that have made a mess of our economy since the Dems took over control of Congress a year ago. You leftists are always blaming Bush for the mess we are in, but forget to mention that it's Congress that really governs the country.
As for No. 140 by Britishishis, you might recall that in an earlier article, Justin opined that he just may never return to the U.K. I think he likes it here! If he stays, we just might make a conservative of him - as the immortal Fats Waller said in one of his songs, "One never knows, do one?".
Complain about this comment
re: #249 bluejay60
". . . my premise: something fishy, led by the VP, went on with the selection and presentation of intelligence . . ."
I believe your premise to be the correct one and is not presented very well in most public discussions.
In general, raw intelligence reports from different sources will range from "the sh-- is about to hit the fan" to "everything's OK, nothing to worry about" and all points in between. It is the function of professional intelligence people to evaluate these reports and arrive at "reality" - a very tricky and often imprecise business.
The fact that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others established a team of non-professionals and/or adherents to the neocon agenda to assess raw intelligence and cherry-picked the worst-case reports and fed these into the administration's decision-making processes, and assigned these greater weight than to the more balanced assessments, has been pointed out on numerous occasions. However, the media (in general), in their attempts to "dumb down" their reporting, have not been able to make this clear to most people. Thus the simplistic "faulty intelligence" dodge still resonates with many people.
Complain about this comment
Noble,
I'll simply note that the seeds of the present economic turmoil were well in place long before the Dems took control of the House, and that their control (at the moment) in the Senate is anything but overwhelming.
There is also the minor matter of tax cuts for the wealthy and blank cheques being written to finance the war....
No matter who is in charge after next January, it's going to be short commons, though we may need a reincarnation of John Maynard Keynes. Who knows, but the Civilian Conservation Corps may be re-activated.
Peterm99, I, of course, agree with your analysis of the dangers involved when "intelligence" becomes the puppet of agenda.
Salaam, etc.
ed
Complain about this comment
Obama Polls Number Bump Up As Democrats Consolidate
The betting is 62% Vs 36%, roughly 7 to 4.
xx
ed
Complain about this comment
#253 Ed - Cherry-picking or selective quoting has been mentioned before, so it should be noted that you're no different to the rest, having omitted to quote the very last paragraph of the Huffington Post article:
"All of this, of course, should be taken with a grain of salt. A bump is one thing, but it remains to be seen is Obama will sustain this lead over McCain."
It may come down to the vice-presidential candidates; for Mr Obama there a lot of names on Capitol Hill. We haven't heard much about the other side.
Complain about this comment
As a female US citizen, I posit that the [primarily Conservative] Press was far and away more vicious about Obama?s perceived ?fatal errors?, namely, his refusing to wear an American Flag lapel-pin (you all must realize by now, I?m sure, that the bulk of our Conservatives are deeply simplistic), as well as the tawdry grandstanding of his soon-to-be-erstwhile Pastor who railed against White America for the cameras.
Performing increasingly as a Philosopher King, Obama turned these roadblocks into stepping stones. When harangued about not sporting a lapel pin, he replied that it wasn't needed to show his love of America. His lack of apology soon caused the detractors to appear scurrilous and petty. When the Press juxtaposed him with his shamelessly clowning Pastor-of-vitriol, Obama took the opportunity to reply in a truly presidential manner via a profound speech about race and America which major newspapers across the country hailed as reminiscent of JFK?s best.
From my POV, in this election, being Black is far more a lightening-rod for hatefulness and negativity than being female. Then, of course, there?s the whole ?He must be a secret-Muslim?-flowering of our national pastime of frothing-mouthed xenophobia, courtesy of 9/11. Obama?s earnest bearing has caused this hysteria to diminish, but not before Hilary showed herself to be just as ignoble as the rest of our political hacks, male or not, by her campaign organization releasing a pic of Obama in Somalian ceremonial garb to the Press (which looked oh so Middle Eastern), then pretending that nothing political was intended by it.
Hilary's groudswell results from innumerable sheep-like female followers who support her simply because she is a woman and is therefore: good; the only candidate who will properly address women?s issues (abortion; child-care; etc.); and, important to support so women can finally be in power.
Ultimately, Hilary?s strength early in the race was based upon her brow-beating contention that Experience is more important than Anything Else Obama Has To Offer. When her subsequent numerous gaffes and outright deceits corrupted her thesis, Obama?s patent Integrity has become the only clear choice.
Just to let our International non-fans know: it is absolutely due to the American public?s profound disgust for the Bush legacy that the voters are largely color-blind and gender-blind this time around. It?s also important that, despite our nauseation by Hilary?s self-serving habits, she will be the best choice to be Obama?s Vice President. Yes, it is a ticket that will sweep the nation, but more importantly, her position as Second-in-Command will be the only thing protecting a President Obama from assassination (another modern national pastime, dating from '63), because if there?s one thing small-brained bigots hate more than a Black Man, it is a Clinton.
Did you know that the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan donated $100,000 to the Obama campaign? He explained that he?d rather see Obama in office than Hilary. Yes, the Conservatives? hate for all-things-Clinton is that deep. IMO, this is by far the primary deficit for her, before her being female.
Complain about this comment
David,
It's pretty bleedin' obvious that, "All of this, of course, should be taken with a grain of salt"
I'd have quoted the whole article, but that's a good way to get moderated. I also left out the more specific material about the polling services. If I provide a link, I expect anyone actually interested to follow it and make their own judgement.
For any other folk compulsively obsessive about the campaign, try this site
Happy Trails,
ed
Complain about this comment
re: #253, #254
I agree with David Cunard's "grain of salt" quote, here.
Polls of _any_ kind this early prior to the election are totally meaningless. Recall the Clinton lead over Obama of up to 40 per cent, I believe, around 8 or 9 months ago.
Obama will get another (large?) bump right after announcement of his VP selection (polarity of the bump is TBD), another one right after the Dem convention, and ditto for McCain. Plus, there will be bumps and troughs for both at various times for innumerable reasons.
However, significance from early polls can be gleaned by the trends established over time (however, these are still not definitive). If these trends continue over the next few months, then I'll start to consider them as significant (maybe).
Complain about this comment
Peter,
However however, maybe? Not your usual standard.
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
re: #255 TimoBurke
"Did you know that the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan donated $100,000 to the Obama campaign? He explained that he?d rather see Obama in office than Hilary."
I researched this and found that it appeared in a Croatian paper and a UK publication called "The Daily Squib".
Since I can't read Croatian, I must rely on the Squib. Since I noted on its home page the following quote:
"The Daily Squib is a satirical publication and should therefore not be taken too fu**ing seriously"
I tend to disbelieve the KKK contribution claim unless I can find something more persuasive.
Do you have a definitive source?
Complain about this comment
re: #258 Ed Iglehart
Ouch!!! You caught me.
I'm certain that you can understand how difficult it is to maintain absolute perfection at all times.
;-)
Complain about this comment
"Bush lied. People died."
There are many still waiting for the evidence of lying. As the WaPo article points out, the intelligence was wrong.
But when it comes to Bush, people believe what they want to believe. And nothing will change their minds. Period. End of story. Don't even bother trying.
I read somewhere that the anti-war position was promoted wholeheartedly once Dean got a bump in his poll numbers for taking that position. After that, it became the defacto democratic position for any democrat aspiring to the presidency. Prior to that, they were singing quite a different tune.
Here's Al Gore talking about Saddam in 1992. After about 6 minutes, Gore takes Bush Sr. to task for trying to negotiate with an evil despot like Saddam. He accuses Bush of looking the other way while Saddam built up his nuclear arsenal and repeatedly criticizes Bush for expecting Saddam to respond to economic sanctions. Gore goes on for quite a while wondering why anyone would try to negotiate with someone like Saddam.
Perhaps Gore could give Obama a few pointers.
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64/]Gore criticizes Bush[/url]
Complain about this comment
Apologies for the confusing link. Don't know how it works here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64
Complain about this comment
#255 TimoBurke writes "I posit that the [primarily Conservative] Press was far and away more vicious about Obama's perceived fatal errors" - What "Conservative Press"? If there is such a nationally-read publication what is it? It's certainly not The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune etc, etc. Perhaps it's The Wall Street Journal, which very few "regular" Americans read, in which Douglas Schoen wrote "First, and obviously symbolically, he must start wearing the flag lapel pin". Other than captains of industry, I hardly think those who supported Mrs Clinton subscribed to the paper.
#256 Ed - No, no, no! You can't get away with that reasoning. It was only one more sentence and, had you included it, it would have counterbalanced the rest of your post, as did the original piece, but we all know how besotted you are about Mr Obama! And incidentally you wrote "The betting is 62% Vs 36%, roughly 7 to 4." If we round-off to the nearest whole numbers, then that is more like 6 to 4. I hold no brief for Mr McCain, but it doesn't hurt to be more accurate.
Complain about this comment
peterm99 (#247), you should recall that Judith Miller got in some trouble over her reporting of that matter, lost her job, and caused The New York Times to apologize for the matter.
Of course The NYT has its point of view, as do individual reporters, and newspapers and individual journalists have varying degrees of integrity. My point is not that all are unbiased, which is obviously not the case, but that, collectively, the American press does its job well, compared to practically everywhere else.
No one should rely on only one source of news, and everyone should assume that there is always more to the story than what is reported, in my opinion. But it is not necessary that every individual citizen be well-informed on every single public issue for the process to work well. If you don't think it's working, what is the alternative?
Complain about this comment
Andrea,
"As the WaPo article points out, the intelligence was wrong. "
HUH?
It's amazing how people can read text and see what they want to. To me it says the intelligence was OK, but the use of it was as distorted as possible.
I don't have any sort of clearance, but even from here I (and a whole lot of others) could see it was a load of codswallop.
And as for Gore, I note you're comparing 1992 to 2002, as though nothing changed through a decade of vicious and mis-targeted sanctions....
It's all in the eye of the beholder, particularly if there's an agenda.
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
ed
Complain about this comment
David,
Your rounding is suspect. 7x9=63 and 4x9=36, so "roughly" seven to 4. I had already rounded 62.2 to 62 and 35.4 (generously) to 36. What whole numbers did you have in mind? 60% to 40%?
Shades of HRC's "double digit" 9.2% win in Pennsylvania!
It IS bleedin' obvious that ANYTHING any of us post here should be read with a critical eye, or else what's the point of discussion.
Where have I pretended to be un-biased? Are you?
Salaam, etc.
ed
Complain about this comment
I just re-located one of my favourite vignettes from the Primary Season:
¿Quién Es Less Macho?
~~ Maureen Dowd
xx
ed
Complain about this comment
# Ed "Where have I pretended to be un-biased? Are you?" Absolutely not - there's not a biased bone in body! Actually Tallulah Bankhead said it best - "I'm as pure as the driven slush." When I was at school (in Britain) I was, to be immodest, a luminary of our Debating Society. I found that I could argue either side with great facility. However, I might find difficulty with Mr McCain.
With regard to the raw numbers you cited, "62% Vs 36%, roughly 7 to 4", I went to the round number closest to 62, which is 60, and to the nearest round figure to 36, which is 40, hence 6 to 4. Where does the multiplication by 9 come from?
Complain about this comment
re: #264 Gary_A_Hill
". . . recall that Judith Miller got in some trouble over her reporting of that matter, lost her job, and caused The New York Times to apologize . . ."
And that's what I find so disgusting about the system. An editorial policy allows an unscrupulous individual to arguably affect the perceptions of the nation sufficiently that a corrupt administration can pursue its policies with impunity, and a job termination and apology well after the fact is considered adequate. Sorta like a suspended sentence for a serial killer, no? And, again, the major media in the US, NYT included, is pursuing the same drumbeat to war with Iran that they did with Iraq, giving voice to the many of the same "unnamed sources" that were guilty of disseminating the propaganda prior to the Iraqi invasion.
"If you don't think it's working, what is the alternative?"
I wish I knew. If I were king, there would be draconian consequences applied to all who abuse the public trust, whether the media or government officials.
I neither watch, listen to, or read any of the major US media outlets (except for PBS) for primary news sources, since I trust them to the same extent that I trust my government (equal opportunity disclosure: both Dems and Reps). I utilize a selection of foreign (British, German, French, and other) sources, with the understanding that they each have their own biases and points of view.
I believe that the US population would be much less susceptible to manipulation by the government (or political campaign propaganda, for that matter) were they to obtain information from a variety of sources and critically assess each of them. Unfortunately, I expect that only a miniscule fraction do.
Complain about this comment
#155 myboucha13 - I think it was my comment at #5 to which you were referring when you wrote "may I remind that (BBC) journalists and reporters are among the best and most respected in the world." Fifty years ago, thirty perhaps, when the Corporation was a paragon of virtue, but not in recent memory. You might want to check the opinions above, for example numbers 14, 31, 64, 83, 104, 142, 145.
For all the Hillary-bashers and those who may care to read a short analysis of what has been said and written about her, there is an insightful article in Tuesday's Washington Post headed
Haters Without a Cause. Worth a read.
Complain about this comment
Is Mrs. Clinton every guy's nightmare vision incarnate of the mother in law from Hell? Yeah. Did her gender make her lose? I don't think so. If we had a smart, real leader like a Margaret Thatcher, I would vote for her in a heartbeat. Mrs. Clinton is NO Margaret Thatcher, or Ms. Rice, for that matter. She tried to pass off 8 years of being the first lady as being real leadership experience. I think getting caught in the lie about dodging bullets in Bosnia probably sunk the last nail in her coffin. I think in the end, Mr. Obama ran a smarter campaign. For better or worse, he comes accross as likeable, and Americans do have a thing for candidates who are likeable. Unfortunately, it's a habit that has come back to haunt us, when "Likeable" candidates like Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush were elected President-and in my lifetime, they were both the two worst Chief Executives my country has had.(People with short memories forget just how bad of a president Jimmy Carter was) Anyway, I agree with part of what Mr. Webb said in his entry-but in the end, I think Mrs. Clinton did not win because of her lack of integrity and charachter, not because of her gender.
Complain about this comment
re: #270 David_Cunard
I believe that you (and many other Clinton supporters) are in danger of falling into a similar mindset that afflicts the Bush administration (I don't mean it as an insult, just as an illustration).
The Bush administration, with great facility, labels all who do not agree with their policies or world-view as "unpatriotic", "America haters", "enemies of freedom", "terrorist appeasers", and/or other similar terms. I expect it from them, as I have doubts about the objectivity, intellect, and/or honesty of most of them. Given many of your posts, I am not generally inclined to believe that you have these same failings.
Labeling those who voice strong opinions against Clinton as "Clinton bashers" or "Clinton haters" or similar is uncalled-for. While many do seem to go overboard with the venom in their criticism, a large fraction of them are merely expressing an unfavorable opinion and providing various rationales for that opinion. By no reasonable standard should that be considered "bashing".
Just as you should expect the Obama or McCain supporters to not consider you a "basher" or "hater" because of your opinions, the converse should also apply. I think that reasonable people on different sides can hold honest opinions without the need to apply pejoratives to the others.
Complain about this comment
Why are we still talking about Hillary Clinton? She lost. And she doesn't have the influence or clout that people ascribe to her, except in the media. Most voters are now looking ahead, and that includes Clinton supporters. But for the time being, people are going to put the election on the back burner. We are tired of it.
There is endless pontificating about who will win the presidential contest. At this point in time Obama is the likely victort. There are more democrats than republicans. Obama can raise more money than McCain. Obama is better organized than McCain. Everyone is disgusted with Bush, including an awful lot of republicans. McCain is old and uninteresting. These are the bare facts. The republicans are so dispirited that they may have a poor turnout on election day.
So everything is in Obama's favor. That being said, unknown factors could swing the pendulum the other way. The greatest fear is that the present administration will attack Iran (thus resussitating the old cry, "don't change horses in midstream.") I hope that doesn't happen. But if it does, it may backfire. Republicans take note.
Complain about this comment
People, People, People
Find yourself a dictionary and look up the word 'SARCASM', and stop taking everything so serious.
She lost, he won. On to the next game.
Complain about this comment
If you decide not to vote, remember you give up the right to complain...when
You lose your job...
lose your house...
Oil hits $200 a barrel...
McCain is President....
US invades Iran...
100 more years in Iraq....
I could go on....
But I think you get the picture
Complain about this comment
Ed Iglehart...
It's certainly true that her comment about sniper fire dishonours and disrespects those who have ACTUALLY faced sniper fire.
However, in the context of a race to secure the Democrat Party's nomination for the Presidential contest the remark has serious implications about her honesty, as Justin originally pointed out.
My central point is that if you are prepared to 'mis-speak' (or whatever it was she called it) about something like that NOW, what might you 'mis-speak' about down the track???
Furthermore, if you are a truly viable candidate you should not need to resort to this kind of storytelling and fabrication. And, when you do make a mistake, you should be able to apologise wholeheartedly and sound sincere about it rather than trying to pass it off as a kind of temporary bout of confusion.
Obama made a few errors of phrasing along the way but somehow, to me at least, he sounded sincere in his apologies. Hillary always sounded like 'hey, you guys are making all this fuss about nothing but I'm going to sort of say sorry cos I think I kind of have to if I want to beat this Obama guy'. There's a difference.
THE BOTTOM LINE??????
Obama had conscience where she had conceit. Obama had depth where she had discourtesy. Obama wanted to win where she expected to.
The end.
Complain about this comment
re: #275 TheFeldkircher
I will agree that the likelihood of our leaving Iraq in a Dem first term is greater than the likelihood of leaving in a Rep first term, although, based on Obama's and Clinton's recent speeches to AIPAC, I am not as confident that the likelihood of conflict with Iran is any smaller with the Dems.
Considering only the economy related portion of your post, it is simplistic in the extreme to think that a McCain victory will result in those (and other implied) negative effects, and that a Dem victory will keep them from happening. There are structural problems with the US economy such that whoever wins the election is unlikely to solve them within even two terms. Further, there are other influences that are completely outside the control of government, anyway.
Our biggest problem is that over several decades, both Dem and Rep administrations have pursued policies that have resulted in the transformation of our economy from a manufacturing one which produced tangible goods which provided a large number of solid, middle class jobs towards one in which an ever-increasing number of workers are providing services, many of which are lower paying and/or not saleable overseas for various reasons. We used to export products created by our national wealth in order to maintain our standard of living, while we are now actually exporting the tangible wealth-creating capability. This is the cause of the job losses when factories move to Mexico, China, etc.
Proposals to pass laws preventing the export of jobs and factories only serve to slow or possibly stop (doubtful) the losses, but they do nothing to actually bring them back. Thus the economic devastation in various regions of the country is unlikely to be ameliorated by these proposals. Further, one could say that a large fraction of our current wealth is virtual, as it is heavily dependent on the good will of those who hold our debt instruments. This could vanish overnight should any number of worldwide scenarios come to pass (including, but not limited to, any conflicts we may continue or start). This status quo will not be affected by the election results.
Sure, we can transform the economy to viability without going back to a manufacturing base, but that is a long-term solution only, requiring at least a decade or two, probably more. I would expect that the near-term US economic trajectory (in an overall sense) resulting from a Dem administration would be nearly indistinguishable from that resulting from a Rep administration. Over the long term, there are likely to be differences, but, given that what both parties always promise bears little or no resemblance to what they actually do when elected, it's difficult to predict what those differences are likely to be.
Complain about this comment
@ peterm99 #277; the problem with economic nationalism and protectionism, is that capitalism will always beat it in the long run. ESPECIALLY when the people calling the economic shits are, well, the capitalist class.
Added to that - you can hardly tell everyone else to open up their markets whilst you are trying to rig yours.
Complain about this comment
For someone who followed the US election only because a lady was likely to become the President - this is disappointing - actually it started to get disappointing after the Bosnia remark
Complain about this comment
#re 277. peterm99
I was trying to make reference to the fact that its being widely reported that 'Clinton' supporters are considering NOT voting or voting for 'McCain'.
Tell me if I'm wrong, but isn't better to have your 'Party' representive in the White House rather than alternative.
Not voting is the biggest issue I have with this or any election, there are millions of people around the world who don't have the right to vote, don't have their voice heard.
Wasting your vote just because your 'pick' didn't win the first race, seems to be petty, lacking in moral fortitude and a severe lack of respect for those that died creating and defending the US electoral system.
One Man, One Vote, its the loudest voice you'll ever have - make yourself heard.
Complain about this comment
allmymarbles
May I submit from all your responses placed here, you are assured of having all "yours" rolling around in the box.
I am taking your reference to having "tapped into the geezer contingent" as the English meaning- man, and not the Americanisation- excentric old man, although if I was being honest, both have their value, but as yet I have not reached the status of being proud of my lawn mower, and I do not believe Ed has a compass on his bike.
Ed
Speaking of older men, some of us decide in our senior years to take a daily "light" aspirin or Ascal in lowering the risk of thrombosis or the possibility of a stroke. Unfortunately both medicines have the potential to produce gastric irritation. Please excuse me for making this personal observation but notice that in replying to David, [who can at times be a pain in the ass], you have been "bleedin" in your comments.
You are caught between the devil and the deep. 1. Accept this pain, 2. reduce/increase the medicine, [it's also an analgesic] or 3. take a further glass of malt. All three have their drawbacks. Blogging with other intelligent opponents is damaging to ones health.
Complain about this comment
David (268),
Bookie's math:
1. look for a common factor
2. try it: 62.3/9=~7; 35.4/9=~4
Alternatively:
62/36=1.7222 =~ 7/4=1.75
A lot closer than 6/4=1.5
Why on earth do you consider 60 the nearest "whole number" to 62? Clinton Math, I guess.
Ms Marbles, I seem to recall you're of the feminine persuasion, so by "geezer" you simply imply "senior" - guilty as charged, and proud to be triply free - mortgage paid, kids grown, ancestors buried! Silver surfers unite!
Waterman, not on the aspirin regime (canna be bothered), secure in my mathematics and gastro-intestinal functionality, I used the Haemotological imagery as an alternative to copulatory which might have inflamed the blood of the moderators. As to medication, I'll continue with option 3.
I had hoped blogging with critically aware colleagues/opponents was helpful rather than harmful. In any event, it passes the time....
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
Ed, Nobody pursuaded me to be a woman. It just worked out that way. And I did mean "geezer" not "senior." I am definitely not into newspeak.
Complain about this comment
Justin, I never realised that you were so cynical! Americans are very cynical, you know - I guess that it's rubbed off in large measure!
That for me was the fundamental difference between Hillary and Obama - a negative, pessimistic tone alongside a positive, optimistic one ... as well as failing to speak to the BBC ...
Complain about this comment
While the list may or may not be correct, I like the concept of avoiding a single cause to achieve simplicity. Too many talking heads speak in talking points and over-simplify. I voted for Obama because I liked him better than Clinton, and the reasons were legion. They did not include gender of race, however.
Complain about this comment
More on odds.
Dem pres to Rep pres is currently 66 to 35.
What would David make of that?
Hmmm 66=70 and 35=40, so 7 to 4.
A bookie needs to be a little more sophisticated, so:
try 66/6=11 and 35/6 =~6, so 11 to 6
or 66/35=1.885714286= 1.89 to 1
Meanwhile the 1200 lots of Clinton as VP I sold short at 2.4 are presently trading at 1.73, for a notional profit of over wsj$700!
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
#275, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If McCain gets in and starts a war with Iran there is no way we'll last 100 days in Iraq, let alone 100 years. Despite Obama's good intentions, a McCain presidency may very well be the quickest route out of Iraq. It will be bloody, though.
Complain about this comment
#287
His Words - Not Mine
at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, a crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years.
"Maybe 100," McCain replied. "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."
I think the last statement is crucial, because being there is creating the very enviroment he's trying to fight against.
Complain about this comment
The "Clintons" candidate inspires more a compromisse with what in not veritable than what actualy is. I am from Brazil and quite used to see, hear, fell and recognise professional politicians. I have followed the primaries in America and, quite often, Hylarie`s speeches sounded as promisses of latin americans self interest first politcians, willing to promisse, do, say anything to get there. The aftermath is typical: "I apologise". This is a leader position, world position,however in the US they seem yet concerned with the collour of the candidate. This "Sex and the City" mentality will require much effort to
un-addict voters.
Complain about this comment
Dear Ms Marbles
My reply # 281, "having all "yours" rolling around in the box" was meant to confirm that your grey cells appeared to be working very well at all levels in your head.
Obviously getting too much fresh air here has removed any hope of my re-learning english graces to a satisfactory standard.
I would hate you to think I took offence to "geezer" and was being offensive in return.
wma
Complain about this comment
Felfkircher,
I know you were just quoting him. I was just trying to have a small joke, which is sometimes difficult in this medium.
Complain about this comment
TheFeldKircher (#275) is incorrect. We (U.S. citizens) always have our right to free speech. We do not give it up when we choose not to vote for any reason. This is just the pious posturing of people who seek to win an argument easily by invoking an imaginary rule.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#272 peterm99 - "reasonable people on different sides can hold honest opinions without the need to apply pejoratives to the others." That goes without saying, but I would refer you back to the link I provided. There have been mean-spirited and inflammatory comments made about Mrs Clinton on this blog, perhaps before you contributed to it, a style which became known as "Hillary-bashing", comments on her clothes, her looks and so forth, none of which were relevant in my opinion. However, if you haven't check the Washington Post, consider doing so - it lays out "bashing" quite well.
#282 Ed I know nothing of "bookies' math/s" dividing by nine seems an arbitrary figure to me. "Whole numbers" are those divisible by ten, hence rounding up and down, so your calculation in #286 (66=70 and 35=40, so 7 to 4) is correct.
Complain about this comment
No, whole numbers are those which are not fractions David. Check any math book. One is a whole number, 1 1/2 is not.
Complain about this comment
Sooner or later there is something to agree with everyone. 294 David, I agree much said about Hillary was irrelevent (see 144 for the spirit we should have now) but much of what was said about Obama seemed even more visceral or cutting. I too would rather see issues discussed than prejudices.
Ed 180's - my ancestor was on the other side of the field 145 years ago this July 4th, wounded in first day skirmishes but recovered in time to finish 4 years campaigning at Wilderness/7 days, Petersburg, etc.
Somewhere before all that - I agree that McCain's war record is best left untouched, and his experiences unquestioned. Only a Bataan survivor could come close to informed judgement, there is no point to anything but earnest thanks. His political record in the USA is fair game however.
Complain about this comment
#290, Dear Mr. Water,
I was not in the least offended by you. I am offended by newspeak and try to demystify (sp?) it whenever I can. I am not a "senior citizen"; I am old, or, if you prefer, a "geezer." I like the sound of geezer better. And I never knew anyone who was "developmentally challenged" who was not retarded. Another bugaboo of mine is euphemisms. People don't pass on; they die. In keeping our language meaningful and alive, I run against the tide. The joy of being a geezer is that I don't care.
Complain about this comment
#295 AAlvinTwiningham "No, whole numbers are those which are not fractions" Not when I was at school : 'A whole number is that divisible by 10 if the digit in its units position is 0.' In any case, rounding up and down should be obvious to the least mathematically inclined. Incidentally, when at school (in Britain, mid 20th century) a billion was considered to be a million million and only in recent years has the American thousand million taken hold - perhaps other definitions have also changed; so much in the UK has become Americanised and not just in speech but in the all manner of ways. There's even American Football!
Complain about this comment
David (294),
""Whole numbers" are those divisible by ten,"
NO! Your school (or more likely your recollection) was WRONG.
The whole numbers are the counting numbers and 0. The whole numbers are 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...
Holes and digging come to mind.
I used 0 because it seemed the nearest common factor. It#s called "approximation" , and very useful indeed if one doesn't want to lose too much to professional bookies, who are much better at it.
Salaam, etc.
ed
Complain about this comment
I can only repeat my suggestion that you consult a math textbook (of any age and nationality!) David. I can assure you that this is neither an Americanism or "new math".
Complain about this comment
The real biggest single reason IMO that Hillary lost (and in my view she did lose just as much as Obama won, but then again he did win it!) is that she ran far too negative a campaign. She didn't learn the lesson of New Hampshire, or at least learnt the wrong lesson. The democrats are a largely united party right now. They have a common enemy in Bush and as the frint runner Clinton allowed herself to focus not on what she wanted and what her vision was, but on Obama. He could have been just as much a shooting star in this as his fellow Iowa victor (Huckabee) if she had run her own race. She opens her heart in New hampshire, however fake that might have been, and turns back the tide, then goes back on the offensive afterwards. African Americans took offense, everybody else remembered what a divisive bunch the Clintons were and are. They remembered the Clinton's learnt there politics in Arkansas, where the biggest fight was with other Democrats and when the fight was a fight.
Meanwhile Obama hardly ever attacked Clinton, and usually when the campaign did it was through surrogates. Obama could look above the fray.
All of that being said, in the end the primary battle might help Obama, he has already gotten through Rev Wright and Bittergate and the is he isn't a muslim thing and beaten one tough candidate. This is one tough cookie.
Complain about this comment
If I could vote in the USA elections, I would vote McCain.
There are several reasons.
- I'm inclined to go left-wing, OR very VERY right-wing.
- I supported Clinton from the word go. I'm a traditionalist, and would have rather seen another eight years of Clinton.
- Obama is NOT experienced enough to be CIC. I don't care what anyone says, but he has not been around in politics as long as Hillary.
- America wants to feel good about itself; fair enough. But I can see you all tripping up within six months. No one knows what Obama has in his closet, or what major mistakes he can make.
I understand that the BBC will seem to be rather biased towards some types of people, but I have a lot of faith in the BBC. I don't take it as the Gospel Truth, though.
I now support McCain.
But Clinton in 2012...
Complain about this comment
Referring to 8. on Justin's list.
(With apologies to those who penned "I Will Survive"...)
First I was afraid, then the sniper fired
But it was really two small children with a bouquet tied
And I've spent oh so many nights thinking how he did me wrong
Darn, he grew strong, now I'll just have to get along....
Complain about this comment
# 299, 300 The digits you mention were called "units", not "whole numbers". And Ed, how would you have a clue what English schools taught at the end of World War II? Unlike us you were safe and well-fed in the USA. But I could read at the age of 5, and at a time when mathematics was simply called "number". I'm not digging holes, simply relating what I learned. Apparently you've never rounded up and down, it's a common enough practice. As for bookies or to use their grander name, 'turf accountants', my late father always warned me that "it's a mug's game." You might take note.
Complain about this comment
She lost because she started that 'elitist' talk. She needed to look at CNN and notices that little 'D' that appears beside her name. She was running for the democratic ticket with republican talking points. That's how she lost me. I WANT smart people to be in charge.
Complain about this comment
David,
"Apparently you've never rounded up and down"
???? do you have ANY evidence from which to draw this ludicrous conclusion?
If you can find a mathematics text in any language from any country which says "whole numbers" are anything other than numbers without fractions, or that they are those divisible by ten (without remainders), I'll let you off.
When you're in a whole, digitise.
Salaam, etc.
ed
Complain about this comment
@302
'- America wants to feel good about itself; fair enough. But I can see you all tripping up within six months. No one knows what Obama has in his closet, or what major mistakes he can make.'
This is such a stupid remark,
No one knows what any politician will do once their in power. But I believe Obama will be the best the Americans have had in the last 16 years.
One thing I do know, I'm happy you can't vote in this election, especially based on the reasons you gave.
Complain about this comment
@ david cunard.
You've REALLY got this 'whole number' thing wrong. Ask ANY maths teacher
you may be getting muddled over 'prime' numbers and 'whole numbers'but you're still 100% wrong
(sez an english public school-type, and we generally get this sort of thing right, one of the benefits of Ye Olde Classical Educayshun, and don't get me started on the sexually suspect latin master)
Complain about this comment
Wrong on ten counts: she lost because she didn't win enough delegates. Simple.
Complain about this comment
I just am so pleased that Hillary appears to be out of it.
She flip-flopped so much during the campaign so much it was'nt even funny at the end.
But just like our favorite bunny boiler, I would not put it past her to rear up again ... probably at the Dems Convention.
I pray no harm comes to Senator Obama or she'll be back!
One day a woman will be POTUS, but not this woman.
Complain about this comment
Hillary just underated Obama,by the time she realised that she had made a mistake, it was too late
Complain about this comment
Mrs. Clinton's major problem was overcoming the adultry of her husband!
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS