Being abroad most of the time really, and for good reason, diminishes appreciation for homeland in many ways. It’s a way of compensating for the things you really do miss. For me, it seemed like everything went to hell in a handbasket soon after I left and it was downhill from there. Having been back on a long term basis for over a year has restored my faith.

It’s still a bushel of problems, the mortgage meltdown, the war, the disintegration of consumer protection and social programs. But we, better than any other nation, can vote them back in and therein lies the greatness and resiliency of the USA. It’s not just a fact, it’s a feeling. You wouldn’t have experienced this rush of optimism if you’d been abroad, though you would have certainly picked up on the encouraging direction.

I think any of the 3 (or is it now 2 — I hate to lose Edwards and his concience of the party effect) of the Dem front runners are impressive, though unlike you, I lean more toward Sen. Clinton.

The Huckabee victory definitely sends a signal to the Repubs–that they’d better pay attention to what the Times recently called the Wallmart Shoppers.

I think–make that I know— this campaign is going to be nothing short of a hoot! And its results will be a turnaround — in a good direction, for the entire developed world.

January 5, 2008 @ 2:09 am | Comment

Thanks for the excellent perspective, Ellen. I’m actually okay with Hillary, who I still think may surprise us, but I would rather see an end to the dynasties and start afresh, provided we have a good alternative. Obama strikes me as a very good alternative, but I am still willing to back Hillary.

January 5, 2008 @ 2:22 am | Comment

Hillary was only 7% short, transforming to about 19,000 votes short. The election has more psychological impact.

Mitt Romney is rejected because he is a Mormon, which is unacceptable for Repub base. I feel sorry for him.

January 5, 2008 @ 3:20 am | Comment

Obama says he would use “military force in circumstances beyond self-defense…to support friends, participate in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities.”

Sounds like something Bush would say before invading someplace.

January 5, 2008 @ 3:57 am | Comment

The rejection of Mitt Romney and the other Republican candidates who had aligned themselves closely with the Bush doctrine must have the Grand Old Party in a state of rage, hysteria and despair.

Hate to burst your bubble, but Huckabee won in part because of his religious views – I’m not sure it was because Bush was being rejected in any particular way.

If you look nationally, recent polls suggest McCain is now the preferred Republican candidate.

—-

As for Obama, if he wins in New Hampshire he’ll have all the momentum going in to Super Tuesday. As Bush showed in 2000, an early lead doesn’t write you off – but it does help.

It’s less clear for the Republicans as what the result of NH will mean, as neither Romney nor McCain took Iowa – Huckabee is unlikely to be in a position to win NH. Though I do think that if Romney loses there it will make it a race between McCain and Giuliani.

January 5, 2008 @ 6:31 am | Comment

Wow, Obama’s speech is positively Lincolnesque.
He’s a great speaker and is very inspirational.
If he becomes president and achieves any one of his goals (health care for all, energy independence, pull out from Iraq, fight common enemies, terror with nuclear weapons, diseases, hunger, etc), that would be a huge step in the right direction for this country and world.
I am a Ron Paul supporter, and he is still my first choice. But bowing to reality, Ron Paul is not going to get the nomination so Obama is my man.

January 5, 2008 @ 6:34 am | Comment

Fatbrick, Hillary was supposed to invincible. She could not be stopped and she would crush the opposition. She came in third. Not second, but third, no matter what the percentages are.

Raj, show me the data both about McCain leading the polls. About Huckabee’s win, the Evangelical component was key, but part of his apel based on all I read was also his rejection of the GOP talking points and coming across as an outsider. That frenzy of articles and praise he got a couple of months back as his popularity started to grow did not come from Evangelicals (Joe Klein of Time was gushing about him, for example). Then, when the GOP oligarchy realized he posed a serious threat we saw a huge backlash of smear articles from the right all repeating the tired and false talking point, that he represented the far religious right and was bad for the party – this, from a party that thrives for 8 years under Rove by coddling the far-right religious base.

I believe McCain is now the favored candidate by most rational Republicans, if only because they now realize he is the only one who is actually electable. But I have not seen him leading the polls or anuwhere else yet (he came in fourth in Iowa). Iowa did create a huge window for McCain that he will take advantage of and I suspect he may now surge ahead by default – all the others are virtually unelectable.

Romney was not rejected for his Moromism – if you think that is the case, explain why. And if it is the case it is an awful indictment of the Republicans. After all, the Dems just gave the majority to a black man. Are the Repubs so unenlightened and bigoted they would reject someone you, Fatbrick, feel is a good candidate simply because of their religious prejudces?

Boo, I can show you at least 100 quotes and probably more from each candidate that make me cringe. Everyone one, from Hillary to Edwards to Giuliana (1,000 for him_ et. al. If you are going to don a white glove and hold a litmus test, rejecting each candidate who said something dumb at one point, you will be left with very few candidates to choose from. In fact, there would be none at all. John “Bomb-bomb Iran” McCain would be off the list first; he has said some staggeringly dumb things (he is my state senator, I know). But we have to see him and the other candidates for more than this quote or that quote, the context of which most of us simply don’t know. And besides, people do fuck up. Let’s make our choices on evidence weightier than that.

I edited this comment slightly; just woke up when I first wrote it and didn’t mean to be so emphatic.}

January 5, 2008 @ 10:32 am | Comment

Huckabee’s ads emphasize his credentials as a “Christian leader” and a “Baptist paster.” This was evengelicals voting for one of their own, not an anti-Bush (or an anti-Mormon) vote. Evengelicals are not a big electoral factor outside of Iowa and South Carolina, so IMO the nomination is still Romney vs. Giulianni. If independents get excited about Obama, that could reduce McCain’s vote in New Hampshire and improve Romney’s chances.

I don’t understand Hillary’s appeal myself, but if you stood by her through Travelgate, Filegate, cattle futures, the destruction of billing records at the Rose Law Firm and all the rest, why would Iowa cause you to hesitate now? Judging from the Norman Hsu scandal, she is apparently the candidate favored by the Chinese army, unless being a Chinatown dishwasher is a whole lot more lucrative than I imagined. This stuff has all been aired, yet Hillary still enjoys enormous leads in both Florida (25 percentage points) and California (20 percentage points) and that’s where the nomination will be decided.

January 5, 2008 @ 10:42 am | Comment

There’s no doubt Huckabee is going after the far-right religious base. But he has also dared to go against the GOP sacred cows, perpetual tax cuts for the rich for eternity, and harsh immigration policies (give McCain creit here, too, for not bowing to the party oracles). I’ve been tracking coverage of Huckabee for a few months and saw the media on both sides put him in a new category of from-the-heart, old-fashioned, aw-shucks kid of guy; for a while some of the right-center pundits seemed quite enchanted with him. It was only when he began to gather momentum that we saw the panic and the cries from the like of Hugh Hewitt and the entire NRO/Weekly Standard chorus, feigned horror at Huckabee’s religion. This was for one basic reason they know America will not elect a kook who believes in Creationism, no matter how charmed some Republicans might be with him. Also, the tax cuts make him a huge worry for the party, in direct defiance with party ideology.

January 5, 2008 @ 10:52 am | Comment

Also Peter, I do want to remind readers about your comment style here. I just went through your past contributions and I wonder what your game is. I loved this one from Dec. 21:

After Obama raises the minimum wage to $100/hour and invades Pakistan, he can try this one. Here’s my advice: appoint a commission and a raise a pile of dough by gutting the report when the players pay up. That’s how Al Gore ran his airline safety commission

Go ahead and comment, but I don’t believe anything you say.

January 5, 2008 @ 10:58 am | Comment

Richard, I wondered about how seriously to take his comment, but he has spoken more than once in favor of American unilateralism, in favor of increasing the size of the military, of his opinion that America can be revitalized by a strong, aggressive military, and I conclude he’s a proponent of the warfare state, and this wasn’t just an off-the-cuff remark that he can later regret.
I hope I’m wrong and you’re right, but I doubt it.

January 5, 2008 @ 1:29 pm | Comment

Boo, if you’re correct I hadn’t picked up on that trend – I hope you’re not right! I had my own misgivings about a few remarks Obama made that frustrated me deeply, but decided not to judge him by those things alone. He will be under heavier scrutiny than ever now, so if he is a proponent of the warfare state let’s hope that fact is brought to the foreground. Again, I haven’t seen it, but then I admit I havent been watching the Dems recently as much as their opponents

January 5, 2008 @ 2:03 pm | Comment

I think Rchard is right. Voters are looking for different things. So, in order to win as many votes as possible, a candidate sometimes has to say something his or her audiences want to hear. It is essensial to look at it in a bigger context.

Obama did say “invade Parkistan…”. He said that during a debate, in which Hilary Clinton tried to boast how tough she could be. Obama also made the silly remark of baring all toys from China. I am not bothered by that at all.

John McCain made the “Bomb-bomb Iran” remark. He has always held the more hawkish view points on foreign policy. Also, he is as strong as anyone in support Bush’s Iraq war.

January 5, 2008 @ 2:56 pm | Comment

Obama’s win gives black Americans (and alot of non-caucasian voters) a candidate to believe in. Jesse Jackson was just a prop. Alot of young voters turned out for this caucus too, it has been pointed out that larger numbers killed Hillary’s movement as she relied on a committed base. If Obama wins NH, Hillary is in trouble as it shows people aren’t buying what she is selling. Again, non-caucasian voters and the young are Obama’s camp. And he has almost as much money as Hillary except his war chest is built on nickel and dime populist contributions and not big money breakfasts (though he has had them).

Huckabee also has populist support from social conservatives and there alot throughout the US who also have a candidate to truly believe in and not just the most electable candidate. He may not do as well in the northeast but I’ll bet he really racks up victories throughout the mid-west, Texas and the SE. Even winning a few big states won’t help Rudy or Romney and chances are they might be dividing a few big states between them. Many small victories can rack up enough primary votes to win the nomination.

This may actually be an exciting election…for once.

January 5, 2008 @ 5:51 pm | Comment

Yooo-hooo! Obama kicks ass! HRC in third! It’s a race!

January 5, 2008 @ 10:27 pm | Comment

As a young (23) American conservative, I find myself rooting for Obama. No more of the Bush-Clinton dynasty that has ruled the White House since I’ve been in kindergarten.

America is falling into a crisis of economy, security, and above all, a crisis of spirit, delivered to my generation part and parcel by the baby boomer generation (thanks guys! I can’t wait to cut off your social security funding). I don’t agree with many of Obama’s policies…but I agree with Obama and I hope he may overcome the great challenges that lay before him and send the Clinton-Bush dynasties into the ignomious dustbin of history.

January 6, 2008 @ 12:41 am | Comment

Nanhe, one of the things I find very interesting about the Obama phenomena is that he won in Iowa, a state that is overwhelmingly white. Apparently those “Caucasians” feel that he speaks to their interests as well. He also got a majority of women’s votes, the young and Independents. Everyone who sees him and/or knows him comments on his ability to walk into a room and relate to everyone in it, no matter who they are.

He’s not my first choice but it’s a very interesting election, that’s for sure!

January 6, 2008 @ 3:28 am | Comment

he won in Iowa, a state that is overwhelmingly white

I’m not sure if you realised what you’re saying, but you’re implying you’re surprised Iowans would vote for a Black guy.

January 6, 2008 @ 4:44 am | Comment

@ Janus:

Policy idealism always meets political reality and ends up being blunted to some extent. The Obama admin would have the same experience but his consensus building skills will be a long needed relief to 16 years of polarity and demonizing.

@Lisa:

Hillary is yesterday’s America. Obama doesn’t list being black as one of his credentials for election, Hillary does list being a woman as one of hers. Big difference.

Raj:

Yes, it is surprising because this is the same population that also propelled Huckabee to the front.

January 6, 2008 @ 5:03 am | Comment

Huckabee’s win in Iowa was an aberation. He can’t win nationally. His win was a victory for McCain, who I am betting is going to be the Republican nominee against either Clinton or Obama. You heard it here first (well not really first….).

January 6, 2008 @ 5:06 am | Comment

I Think There’s a Balancing Factor in American Elections

There are so many posts these days about the American election, which of course is just a game for rich people. But this post will add something new to the discussion.

I believe there exists a “balancing factor” in American elections.

Now, the term “balancing factor” is coined by me and is first used in this post. I don’t believe any pundits or experts have used this term before.

Now, what does “balancing factor” mean? Well, why don’t you let me explain?

In American elections, no matter how great a president is, his approval ratings around election time will always hover around 50%. Simillary, no matter how poor a president is, his approval ratings around election time will also hover around 50%. This is the fundamental idea behind the “balancing factor”

In elections of most countries, it is very very rare that the two candidates can both get around 50% of the vote. Most times, one candidate will get 70, 80, or 90 % of the votes. For example, the elections in North Korea usually end up with Kim Jung-Il getting 99.92% of the votes, the elections in the former Iraq end up with Hussein getting 98.2% of the votes. Of course some democracy lovers will yell: “But those 2 elections are faked! The votes are faked!” Well, then how about the election in China? I believe Hu Jintao was elected with around 90% of the votes.

But the America is different. America’s elections are always like suspense thriller movies. Almost during every election, the pre-election polls always always show the two candidates within very close margins (no more than 10%) of each other.

And this is not a coincidence. So I have been thinking, what causes that “balance” between the 2 candidates? Is it that someone is manipulating behind the scenes, I think not. I believe the voters reached their opinions based on independent thinking. Also, I’m not talking about swing voters who can’t make up their minds. I am talking about a unique group of voters.

There is a group of American voters (20%-30% of all voters) who deliberately try to create drama and tension in every election. If we see the American election as a tug of war between 2 parties, then there exists a group who will voluntarily help the losing side pull, and when the other side is losing, they’ll switch to the other side and pull, and switch back and forth, forth and back, always making sure that no side is losing too badly. They do it because they enjoy the drama of elections, and they feel they are really influencing the outcome of the elections.

Therefore that group of “balancing” voters do not have their own political opinion, and they don’t care who wins. They operate by one rule: whenever a candidate’s rating is going down fast, they’ll support that candidate and therefore pull up his ratings. That group consist of only 20 to 30 percent of all voters, but that is enough to make every election so tense and close right before election night (even landslide victories like Reagan and Nixon’s had pre-election survey showing very close ratings between 2 candidates).

From a psychological point of view, those voters are suffering from “domination” symptoms, that is, they want to feel they have the power over great events. All in all, the American election system is a system that ensures drama and tension, and that drama and tension translate into entertainment (like watching a suspense thriller), and that entertainment serves as a way to promote American hegemony around the globe.

January 6, 2008 @ 5:29 am | Comment

CLB, I agree about McCain, unfortunately. I would much prefer Romney to win the nomination, as like Huckabee I believe he is unelectable, as David Brooks said in a most unusual column last week. (A new Zogby poll now shows McCain ahead of Romney.) Huckabee doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell in New Hampshire, but he may surprise us yet again in the South. One thing is for certain: there are more suprises to come, and I wouldn’t be writing off Hillary just yet.

January 6, 2008 @ 6:05 am | Comment

CLB. No offence, but I’ve been tracking McCain’s potential for some time. 😉

richard, I think you’re acting out of the wrong motivations. You should hope the Democrats and Republicans choose the best candidates for America – after all, some scandal or policy proposal cock-up could kill off whoever the Dems decide on.

Be honest – would you really prefer Huckabee or Romney in the White House compared to McCain or Giuliani?

January 6, 2008 @ 7:28 am | Comment

Raj, I was responding to Nanhe, who characterized Obama as representing “non-Caucasians’ interests.” My point was that there are plenty of “Caucasians” who feel that Obama represents their interests as well, not that I was surprised Iowans voted for him.

To elaborate, I think it’s an oversimplification, and also not accurate, to label Obama a candidate whose primary appeal is to “minorities.”

By the same token, HRC has a lot of support among African Americans, Edwards has a lot of independent support, etc. None of the three major Democrats’ support bases break down all that neatly.

January 6, 2008 @ 9:20 am | Comment

Guliani?

To quote Joe Biden, “all that ever comes out of his mouth is a noun, a verb and 9/11.”

January 6, 2008 @ 9:22 am | Comment

[“balancing factor”…20-30% of ] those voters are suffering from “domination” symptoms, that is, they want to feel they have the power over great events. All in all, the American election is a system that ensures drama and tension….that translate into entertainment… and that…serves as a way to promote American hegemony around the globe.
Posted by: Math at January 6, 2008 05:29 AM

@Math

I have noticed the same. Nothing is too outrageous when you realize that America was and is the home of powerful European colonial masters. These are the power behind the organizations that brought the first British white slave migrants, most of whom were from the weakest strata of Celtic and English societies, impoverished crofters and weavers, landless labourers and other dislodged remnants of the old regime facing the choice of poverty or emigration.From Germany,13 Mennonite families went to Pennsylviana, followed by the Tunker and Hernnhuter families.Beginning in 1683, when Rhenish Mennonites arrived and founded Germantown just outside of Philadelphia, members of Anabaptist, radical Calvinist and other German Protestant sects migrated to south eastern Pennsylvania and nearby northern Virginia.
Between 1721 and 1749: 27,000 French, many of them originated in Normandy, Poitou-Charentes and �le de France came. Russian farmers went to the south-east of the country, to newly conquered territories.

In 1620: 99 Pilgrims came to New England.The people that came to America were from England, the Netherlands, Sweden and France. In the 16th – 19th century, 11-12 million Africans were taken to America by English, Dutch, French, Danish, Spanish and Portuguese traders.
It is also interesting to note that former President George Bush (Sr) was knighted by the Queen of England. Actually America’s founding fathers prohibited such �titles of nobility�. The question remains: Who was George Bush actually serving when he was President�We the People or the British Empire? According to the prestigious “Burke’s Peerage”, a guide to English aristocracy, George Bush and John Kerry are both descendants of Queen Elizabeth II as well as other British royalty. About two-thirds of the US presidents are cousins with ties to British royalty.
It was George Bush (Sr) who first publicly coined the expression �New World ORDER�. George Bush’s father, Prescott Bush, a Boner along with Percy Rockefeller and Bush family business partners, the Harrimans. Their symbol is, in fact, a skull and crossbones�the symbol for drugs, poison, piracy, death and the Nazi’s “Death’s Head” battalion.
According to Dr. Leonard Horowitz, Prescott Bush joined John D. Rockefeller and the British Royal Family in sponsoring the eugenics initiatives that gave rise to Hitler�s racial hygiene programs. Prescott Bush was found guilty of trading with the enemy (the Nazis) during WWII. According to court records, the Rockefeller family and their Standard Oil Company supported Hitler more than they did the allies during WWII. In fact one judge declared Mr. Rockefeller guilty of treason. Dr. Gary Glum has also documented the insidious eugenics programs to create a “superior race”, which were initially sponsored by the American elite (i.e., the Rockefeller, Carnegie, Harriman, Morgan, DuPont, Kellogg and Bush families).

The Rockefeller family, along with their lawyer friends John and Allen Dulles, created the United Nations for the purpose of establishing a world government. Allen Dulles became head of the CIA as did George Bush. George Bush (Sr) is an active participant in the CIA’s MKUltra mind control programs.

On February 1, 1992 George Bush (Sr) addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations and stated: �It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance.� Patriotic Americans view Bush’s statement as treasonous. George Bush also stood before the United States Congress and stated that the �New World Order� is the �rule of law�. Perhaps what he meant to say was �rule of lawyers� because it is the lawyers and judges in America who are in fact implementing the “New World Order” through fraud. However, not all lawyers are aware of the ultimate plan of the global elite. I think we should all take a look at what the mainstream media has dubbed as “Conspiracy theories,” when it is these royal wolves in sheep clothing, professional con artists and well paid mouthpieces of the colonial masters who conspire to insure that any true patriot like Ron Paul will never be allowed to serve the American majority.

to serve the people.

January 6, 2008 @ 9:24 am | Comment

“I would much prefer Romney to win the nomination”

For those in the US and abroad who are watching the election, Romney really got heated when McCain went after the pharmaceutical industry and went so far as to call them “heroes”. Wonder who is funding his war chest and where his investments lie.

Ron Paul is the only worthy candidate on the Republican side and everyone jumped on what he said “wrong war, bad budget, evil corporations”.

I’d vote for Paul.

@Lisa:
You are reading my statement the wrong way, lots of white folks like Obama, otherwise he would not have smacked down the Hilla-monster in Iowa so badly. For all, Obama represents a refreshing change and a candidate who is willing to talk to and listen to all sides before making a decision. For non-white America, especially for the black community, here is an accomplished man of color who is not some foolish Jesse or Rev. Al running on a platform of “getting whitey” and actually is intelligent, educated, well liked and successful.

@Math:

Why do you even waste everyone’s time?

January 6, 2008 @ 10:58 am | Comment

Why I have a gut feeling a lot of Ron Paul supporters are not registered. I know one from my work who is wearing a Ron Paul T-shirt. When I ask him that if he is registered? He said no, lol lol lol…hahahaha….also, a lot of states limit primary to the parties i.e. California. If you want to vote for Ron Paul in Cali primary, and you are a democrat, you have to re-register to change your party.

Nanhe, here is a question for you, are you registered to vote?

January 6, 2008 @ 1:09 pm | Comment

Sorry Richard, I would vote for Obama, but I would have myself crucified on a cross before I’d vote for Hillary Clinton. There are just too many unanswered issues surrounding this woman.

Face it: If the Democrats choose either Obama or Hillary for their nomination, the Republicans will win and I’m not so sure that’s a good thing either.

America is not ready for a black President. I have no problem voting for a black person; I would have voted for Colin Powell, but he was too smart to run for that office. Thank Goodness.

A choice for Obama or Hillary will ensure a victory for Republicans. Mark my word. Remember, Iowa and New Hampshire are in the Mid-West and the North.

The American people are at a loss because there’s not one single candidate worthy of leading this country. Not one that will win anyway.

January 6, 2008 @ 1:32 pm | Comment

Ron Paul refers to the constitution, which is not a completely libertarian document, but definitely a document designed to create a limited government rather than a powerful government. Note that NONE of the wars since WW II have been declared by Congress as the Constitution requires – Not one!!!!!
SO, America, either we�re governed by the Constitution, which means a smaller government with less power, or we end the pretense…..
Ron Paul IS the modern embodiment of the forefathers of the united States. He is standing against those who are picking away at the remaining freedom granted citizens of this nation by the Constitution.
For example, to join the US Army, we’d have to take an oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution from enemies from within (inside our borders) and from without (outside our borders). So far almost all of our enemies are from within our borders.

A few years back, many of us found out that there are some pretty big violations of the Constitution going on in our own government, that the Constitution is not really being taught in our public fool (school) system, and that kids are actually graded on their opinions today, too! It’s absurd

January 6, 2008 @ 1:52 pm | Comment

“Nanhe, here is a question for you, are you registered to vote?”

What a silly question. I’m registered as an independent.

And Rumorhasit is pretty on about alot of laws that circumvent the constitution to certain degrees, but the system requires that these violations be taken up in federal court, which no one has really done.

January 6, 2008 @ 5:04 pm | Comment

THM, you really need to explain that remark, “America is not ready for a black president.” I find it funny that the GOP seems totally scared shitless of Obama winning the nomination precisely because they know America is ready for serious and dramatic change. Have you been following how well Obama polls among Republicans? Sorry Gordon, I know you aren’t a racist, but I do think you have some prejudices and preconceived notions. You say both Hillary and Obama are absolutely unelectable – even if they are up against Huckabee or Romney? Sorry, I simply think you are wrong and I’ll bet my life savings that one of the them – Obama or Hillary – will be our next president. The only one who could meet them head-on is McCain, but his pro-war stance is too radical and strong. The people don’t want a variation of what they have now. Tey want an overhaul, and McCain doesn’t cut it (and neither, possibly, does Clinton).

January 6, 2008 @ 7:11 pm | Comment

Unlike Al Sharpon and Jesse Jackson, Obama has never positioned himself as a black people or a minority on the oppsoite site of majority of white Americans. If marica is not ready for a black president simply because he is black, I think the country will be viewed in a very bad way in the world.

January 7, 2008 @ 6:31 am | Comment

I’m for Sen. Clinton going in, but I get totally unglued with this growing number of sweeping references to “16 years of Clinton and Bush”. The two double terms couldn’t have been more different. Under President Clinton we saw peace, prosperity, growth. If his reach toward centrism and bilateralism was irritating at times, it was also necessary to consolidate pressure behind issues he believed in. That is politics. Obama’s refutation of that is as naive as it is calculated. He is truly a treasure of inspiration, but he is, in the end, a lightweight.

If you want to win the presidential election, if you want to run the country, if you want to be a constructive and authoritative world leader you need to be able to deal. You need to be able to pick the fights you’re likely to win and appeal to your opposition, with conciliation and inclusion for help with the ones that you’re not.

You don’t change the system by ignoring its pitfalls and eloquently declaring yourself above them. I’m highly amused that the left is falling for that. Politics is the art of the possible. President Clinton’s terms of office, until the Right Wing sandbagged him at the end was about as good as it gets. You can quote a litany of bad moves, but the brilliant and successful ones far outdistance them.

I will support which ever of the three musketeers gets nominated; there’s not a bad one in the bunch. But I am hoping the candidate will be one with the best proven ability and willingness to lead us into realistic, political and populist changes and I think that’s Sen Clinton,

And Richard (and you’re not the only one) I want to take issue with you referring to Hillary vs Obama. That’s Senator Clinton. When the Fox crowd wants to denigrate her they refer to her as Mrs. Clinton and to all the other contenders by their titles or surnames. But singling her out by her first name in a sentence referring to her opponent by his surname, that’s the edge of linguistic sexism oozing in. This is not surprising. If there’s anything our society despises more than blacks it’s women. I know you, I know that you respect both. It’s just that these societal norms have a way of subtly and not so subtly seeping into our language, our reflexes and our responses.

Mostly I am enjoying, reveling in the primaries, the debates, the TV newsmags, the polls. This is the most interesting race ever. I am glad Sen. Clinton came in 3rd in Iowa because it keeps Edwards in the race. She can recover from that; he couldn’t have. He may not be able to snag the nomination, but he can continue to be the conscience of the party. There’s a long road ahead and little is truly predictable

January 7, 2008 @ 7:33 am | Comment

Ellen, I hope you know how much I admired Bill Clinton’s presidency even if he was too center-right on some issues for my taste. He got things done, he communicated, we were a beloved country, we were rich and relatively content. Now is not the time, however, for a return to the center. We need to head left – not radically, but enough to prove to the world we are not a country of ignoramuses who live for the death penalty, who see embryonic stem cell research as murder and who are totally ruled and manipulated by corporate interests. In ordinary times I would be more open to the idea of a Hillary presidency (maybe – I still have issues with her presentation and personality, which truly matter in a president). Not now. More than anything, she (and Edwards) has the albatross of iraq around her neck. It’s a time for real courage, and for all Obama’s flaws he certainly has courage when it comes to Iraq, and he never once flip-flopped or backtracked.

I’ll support Hillary if she wins the nomination. I’m thinking now that she really might not win. It’s a true toss-up.

About “Hillary.” Thanks for pointing out that I and others use her first name – I hadn’t given it much thought to be honest. I do it, I think, because it instantly identifies her, like when we all called Bush “W,” especially when he first came into the national spotlight. That designation made it clear we were talking about GWB and now GHWB. “Clinton” refers to Bill Clinton for me and probably always will.

January 7, 2008 @ 8:11 am | Comment

Going lefter of center as time went on whittled Kerry’s margin down enough to be beatable when Bush was demonstrably vulnerable in 04. There’s going to be some red state attrition in this election and the Dems need to capitalize on it.

January 7, 2008 @ 8:35 am | Comment

America is not ready for a black President. I have no problem voting for a black person; I would have voted for Colin Powell, but he was too smart to run for that office. Thank Goodness.

I completely disagree that Americans aren’t ready to vote for a black president, even one named Barack Hussein Obama. Obama’s surge is proof of that. There is a lot of enthusiastic buzz on blogs and in comment forums that I didn’t see before. I think his win in Iowa has given him a lot of credibility, and I see people jumping on the Obama bandwagon. I myself now favor him over the Democratic candidates although my mind is far from made up.

A choice for Obama or Hillary will ensure a victory for Republicans. Mark my word. Remember, Iowa and New Hampshire are in the Mid-West and the North.

Once again, I disagree. None of the Republican candidates has strong appeal, either. Between Obama and Hillary, Hillary is more vulnerable because she antagonizes a large number of voters, who would vote for any Republican candidate instead.

RE: Hillary versus Senator Clinton

Hillary’s campaign banners, placards, stickers and the like all refer to her as Hillary, not Clinton. I think, as Richard pointed out, that this is to distinguish her from her husband. I don’t think any of the other candidates use their first names only on campaign materials.

January 7, 2008 @ 9:54 am | Comment

Richard,

I’m glad you recognize the fact that I’m not a racist.

As to my previous comment, America has come a long way in its journey to overcome racism; the fact that Obama is running for President is proof of that, but as a nation we still have a long way to go. Many of the blacks in my family feel that if Colin Powell had run for office, he would have been assassinated by some southern redneck so that his white vice president could take office. As insane as it may sound, it’s not that unbelievable.

I was discussing Obama’s success in the polls among Republicans last night with a friend of mine who immigrated here from Algeria. He mentioned something about a “conspiracy theory” among the right that explained his success in that area. While I’m not much on conspiracy theories, his comments made a lot of sense.

January 7, 2008 @ 9:59 am | Comment

Everything Sonagi says: If not now, when? There were so many things that couldn’t be done, like tearing down the Berlin Wall or ending apartheid. And yet, look what happened. A black man can be elected president.

Obama has been well received thus far by America’s right and even by Evangelicals, and he will certainly draw out more blacks and other minorities than any other candidate in history. And look at the youth vote! Young people don’t care about politics and don’t vote, as we all know. Wrong. Obama has energized them, and they feel (righly or wrongly) this is their big chance to be listened to. All the old rules are out the window. The country is sick of Iraq and of all things Bush. No matter who the Dems nominate, the nation will vote for them just to get rid of the old blood. Kerry was defeated by two tactics – a fear campaign over national security, with all those fake alerts about high threat levels, and by the Swift Boat Veterans. America has learned since then, and those dirty tricks will be much harder to replicate. Hurricane Katrina and torture and Iraq and the housing crisis and the image of Bush smirking through it all will not be forgiven or forgotten. “Face it,” the current GOP is a hopeless mess with no guiding charter or beliefs. McCain is their Last Great Hope, but he is not only old (and I am no ageist, but many young people will not relate to him), he is a true hawk with a far-right voting record. Maybe he could win over Hillary. Obama, I now believe, would crush him. Thus expect the smears against Obama to accelerate. It’s easy for everyone to go after Hillary, but not Obama. He’s been too consistent and too principled, and that poses a very serious threat to our Republican Party. Wonderful.

January 7, 2008 @ 12:48 pm | Comment

@THM

And the same can be said if Powell was a VP, some black person would shoot the Prez so that there would be a black man in the White House. That was from Chris Rock and while it was funny, when he said that joke live more than a few blacks in the audience nodded their heads.

@Hellen
Hillary has to use her gender as part of her platform, Obama does not. Hillary is not Bill and a commentary in the NYT about a fund raising breakfast during the summer said alot about who Hillary is. The writer talked about how Hillary walked into the restaurant and didn’t nod, smile or wave at anyone on the way to the private room. Bill was behind her and went to each and every table to shake hands and chat people up. Obama does alot of those same things…and he comes off as genuine and is not a flip flopper on such a key issue as the Iraq war.

Your candidate will lose. The NH primary allows independents to vote for anyone they want and the polls show double digit leads for Obama.
Time to paint the White House black.

@ Z:

Voting for someone specifically because of their gender or ethnicity is exactly not how have country run. What a dumb statement.

January 7, 2008 @ 12:56 pm | Comment

Ah, is that you Gordon? You’re half-right, I think. America may not be “ready” to elect a black president, but I wouldn’t bet against them being VERY ready to make a big gesture for change. Those are two powerful cross-currents, and at this point I wouldn’t bet heavily against anyone who has a fresh approach and good presentation skills (or “presence” if you will).

Not that I’d campaign for Obama. I have issues about experience and executive ability. We ARE still talking about a Commander In Chief, shepherd of the world’s still-most-powerful economy (EU is not a country), and policy figurehead for 300 million people. I have no idea how much of Obama’s support translates purely into “I really hate Bush”, but that doesn’t make good policy.

Still not campaigning for anyone. I like Ron Paul for one thing….pimping for the good ole Constitution….and I’d love to have him run my small town, but the whole country…..nah.

January 7, 2008 @ 6:40 pm | Comment