Obama or Clinton

pauldburgin Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:41:57 AM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

After Edwards and Gulianni withdrew yesterday, it is likely that one of the above will be the next US president




Of course I didn't mention John McCain and he could actually win, not only the Republican nomination (which appears to be a cert), but also the White House.
But I doubt it, not because I would likely vote Democrat if I were American, but simply because of two factors.
The first is that Bush's administration has had low approval ratings for some while (Iraq has certainly not helped in the long term) and after eight years people usually want a change which leads me to the second factor.
Very rarely has a political party in the US had an administration in the White House for more than two terms. 1897-1909, 1921-1933, 1933-1953, and 1981-1993 are the exceptions of the past 150 years or so. In fact I wonder if the Roosevelt Truman years (33-53), properly count because of the mitigating circumstances of World War II.
So I think it's likely it will either be Clinton or Obama. The main problem there however, is that 2004 showed that it's important for Democrats to listen more to the American voters with conservative values with a view to dialogue.

tags: , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Obama or Clinton | 39 comments (39 topical)

Re: Obama or Clinton (#1)

by lastword on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:54:55 PM GMT

Obama!


Re: Obama or Clinton (#2)

by bigpapi on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:56:16 PM GMT

The odds on a Democrat winning the White House in November must be better than they have been since Bill Clinton's 1992 victory, however nothing can be taken for granted.

Hillary Clinton remains a polarising figure, and if the nominee, she must prove that she is able to do two things: firstly, persuade disillusioned African-American voters to turn out and support her after the trash-talk dished out against Obama in the run-up to the South Carolina primary; and secondly that she can attract Independent (particularly women) voters - something Obama has so far been spectacularly more successful at doing.

Obama's biggest handicap should he be the nominee, and McCain be the Republican nominee, is the experience factor - however with a good campaign manager (better than his current one, David Axelrod), that problem should be surmountable.

Either Clinton or Obama will be able to use McCain's age against him (subtly) and avoid a Reagan/Mondale moment when Reagan, with a beautifully crafted and delivered joke, destroyed his age as an election negative.

Personally I would feel more confident if either Clinton or Obama were running against Romney, as his appeal to moderate and independent voters is extremely limited, whereas McCain, like Obama, has shown an ability to attract support from outside their Party's base.


Re: Obama or Clinton (#4)

by Graham on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:19:56 PM GMT

Definately a need for caution on the Democrats' chances. The latest Rasmussen poll gives McCain a six point lead over Obama and eight over Clinton.  It's still too early for these numbers to be firm, but a lead's a lead.

I think Obama/McCain would, at least, minimise the chances of a Bloomberg candidacy.  I think either Hillary or Romney makes that a much greater chance, and that would be bad for Democrats. 

The dream for Dems would be that Ron Paul runs as a Libertarian again. polls show him picking up about 7% - more than enough to spoil it for McCain.

I'd personally like to see Obama get it. I think California's going to be really interesting for Super Tuesday. Rasmussen has Obama almost caught up with Hillary there. If he overtakes her, wins Cali by several points and doesn't get beaten too badly in New York, then I think he'll get it.


[ Parent ]

Re: Obama or Clinton (#3)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:14:59 PM GMT

Clinton!


Re: Obama or Clinton (#5)

by laurencemarshall on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:44:59 PM GMT

Paul, I just hope that you won't be going on newsnight and prostituting yourself in stabbing one of the democratic candidates in the back.


Re: Obama or Clinton (#6)

by CitizenAndreas on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:48:52 PM GMT

So I think it's likely it will either be Clinton or Obama. The main problem there however, is that 2004 showed that it's important for Democrats to listen more to the American voters with conservative values with a view to dialogue.

I'm not sure entirely what you mean by that, but that approach could be considered as what John Kerry tried in unsucessfully in 2004.

The key in a dialogue with conservative voters is to look at their values as individuals, not to assume that the Republican party represents values of those conservatives the democrats are reaching out to. There are plenty of evangelical christans who are opposed to the war in Iraq, the sucess of Mick Huckabee in Iowa indicates that democrats aren't the only people unhappy about corporate greed.

Opening up to voters beyond your core vote should not mean giving ground to your political opposition.

PS: Obama


Re: Obama or Clinton (#7)

by TonyHannon on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 04:42:35 PM GMT

Obama!!

After the remarkable lurch to the right America has taken over the past seven years, it'll take an extraordinary and inspirational person to make the recovery.

If he wins, it'll prove that elections can be won by finance from ordinary people rather than lobbyists.

Imagine four years of Hillary being sidelined by allegation after allegation from the right-wing US media. It will be impossible for her approval rating to ever go above 55 percent. She's proven that she's frightened of them with her vote to distinguish the Iranian Guard as terrorists. She'll never have the room to be brave. She's taken money from Pharma companies and won't move the system.

She would, of course, be better than McCain but not much. 


Re: Obama or Clinton (#8)

by Just Labour on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 05:04:43 PM GMT

I'd vote for Obama but I believe Clinton will win the nomination.

McCain is highly probable GOP nominee but there's still a few months to go for something to go wrong. Expect a desperate Romney to start dredging up Cindy McCain's previous addiction to prescription drugs, alongside the "political" attacks.


Re: Obama or Clinton (#9)

by JamesM on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 05:09:49 PM GMT

Certainly Clinton.

It's hard not to be moved by the success of a serious African-American candidate, but I find Obama's foreign policy positions worringly ill-conceived. If Clinton were not to win the Democratic nomination I would happily support McCain.


Re: Obama or Clinton (#12)

by TonyHannon on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 10:23:18 AM GMT

Completely agree with WGM below.

I'd say to JamesM - Obama's foreign policy positions are very much to be admired in my opinion. Hillary Clinton attacked him for what is very much a Bill Clinton style foreign policy.

It’s very interesting – read his essay on Renewing American Leadership or a brief review at the Economist.


[ Parent ]

Re: Obama or Clinton (#15)

by JamesM on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:23:11 PM GMT

Thanks for the links.

If Hillary attaked Obama for a foreign policy stance that mirrors the stance of her husband then my admiration for her has only increased. My sense, so far, is that she'd be a far better President than Bill.


I'm dismayed by Senator Obama's wish to engage in direct talks with the leaders of rogue states and were he the Democratic candidate I would unhesitatingly support Senator McCain.


[ Parent ]

Re: Obama or Clinton (#10)

by wgm on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:26:50 PM GMT

McCain is almost assured of the Republican nomination, and if he faces Clinton in November will be backed by both independents and conservative Republicans motivated to vote against Hillary. Hillary's appeal is limited to traditional Democrat constituencies - not enough for Gore or Kerry.
Only Obama can challenge McCain for the independent vote, only Obama can reach out beyond the coalition of unions, black/hispanic groups and liberals that don't quite have the numbers to defeat Republicans with less broad appeal than McCain.


Re: Obama or Clinton (#11)

by lastword on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:12:21 PM GMT

Amen!


[ Parent ]

Re: Obama or Clinton (#13)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:52:34 PM GMT

If she can beat Obama, she can beat anybody.

Everyone keeps saying she's decisive but she keeps on winning. Every time she gets written off, she comes back and wins.


[ Parent ]

Re: Obama or Clinton (#14)

by TonyHannon on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:11:43 PM GMT

That doesn't follow.

If she can beat Obama among Democrats - it does not mean she can beat McCain among the entire US electorate.

She IS devisive - anywhere between 40 and 50 million americans would vote for anyone other than her just to keep her out.

I think this is unfair but that's the way it is. She certainly hasn't helped herself by her negative briefing and campaigning which she did before Edwards or Obama.

She is wooden, she is poll driven and I regret to say - does not have a tenth of the vision or character as her husband - without whom she wouldn't even be in this position.


[ Parent ]

Re: Obama or Clinton (#16)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 06:11:14 PM GMT

Tony, I get tired of this 'Hillary is worse than the devil' drivel. A lot of it stems from sexism and jumping on bandwagons.

McCain is not anywhere near as electable as Obama - if Clinton beats Obama then she can beat any Republican.


It's also worth pointing out that in recent polls, McCain was also beating Obama convincingly on a head-to-head basis.


Edwards and Obama didn't help themselves by teaming up against Hillary and it obvious that Edwards regrets doing this now.


When I judge candidates, I base it more on substance rather than style and therefore Clinton is the right choice for me. She wants universal health care, Obama does not (and Tony, you will argue against this but the bottom line is that Obama's policy is NOT universal health care and it will leave people behind). She has a more mature stance on foreign policy I feel.


Anyway, there's little point discussing this as we may as well wait to see what happens on Tuesday. I think Clinton will win the nomination because she's the superior candidate, just like she showed in last night's debate.


[ Parent ]

Re: Obama or Clinton (#17)

by lastword on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 06:38:36 PM GMT

Barack Obama is the only candidate who can beat John McCain.  Choose Hillary and the whole world is f*%ked.


[ Parent ]

Re: Obama or Clinton (#18)

by TonyHannon on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 07:14:23 PM GMT

I assure you I'm neither the a follower of bandwagons or a sexist. I'm also more interested in substance. I don't think you meant to dismiss me? I advise you reexamine the substance of Hillary's health care plan. It Mandates cover to a system people can't afford. Ted Kennedy says Obama's plan will be a quicker and more realistic route to universial coverage. She has not answered how she will enforce the mandate. It will have to be through fines or auto deductions from wages. Both plans have been costed out by independent economists and Hillary's and Edwards' don't reduce premium costs by nearly enough. [Can't provide link - on mobile]. I get the impression you're not familiar with the healthcare industry in the States (I've lived there and have dealt first hand with their system) yet I don't stoop to suggesting you talk drivel or that you're uninformed. I'd appreciate a similar courtesy. (No paras - mobile won't do them).


[ Parent ]

Re: Obama or Clinton (#21)

by NorthernMonkey on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 03:20:27 AM GMT

Sorry Tony, I wasn't meaning to be dismissive of you personally - I just think there is a severe amount of overexaggerating of Hillary's flaws which generally stem from some Americans struggling to cope with the idea of a female Commander-in-Chief.

I am aware of how the American health-care system operates, however I have not lived in America before and so I won't have the personal experience of it that you have. However, just because I don't have that kind of experience, it does not mean my opinion is any less valid! The Economist, always a reliable and an intelligent source, says Clinton's health-care plan is the most realistic and bold plan out of all of the candidates - a vast improvement from her noble 1990's effort.

I'd expect Ted Kennedy to approve of Obama's health-care plan since he's actually endorsed Obama! But I'm afraid I have to believe The Economist's account more than Senator Kennedy's.


There are arguments to be made on whether either candidate's health-care plans will work, but most importantly to me is that true universal health care is introduced (just like it is in the rest of the Western world). Only Clinton wants to see this happen.


[ Parent ]

Re: Obama or Clinton (#22)

by TonyHannon on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 11:02:06 AM GMT

Completely understandable. I wasn’t trying to invalidate your opinion – merely trying to substantiate mine.

I’m not going to attempt to change your mind but want to make clear for others reading:

  • The rationale outlined by FT (by a Californian professor of Economics) makes the case, I think, for Obama’s strategy – politically and practically.
  • The Economist article, if we’re looking at the same one, draws attention to the problems of mandating cover and links to where it’s been problematic in Massachusetts – where it was introduced by Mitt Romney.
  • Ted Kennedy didn’t endorse Obama and then read the plan!! His endorsement was, in part, BECAUSE of Obama’s healthcare plan. His explanation that the plan was a deciding factor is on youtube and his website.
  • Again, I’m not trying to change your mind – but I argue against the final statement that only Clinton wants to see universal coverage. You cannot have universal coverage at any cost. Premiums have to come down. HMO’s have to be paid. The entire system needs to transition from a healthcare system working for insurance companies (who’ve given Hillary more money than any candidate – Democrat or Republican).
You are absolutely right on one thing: Hillary has been lambasted, the misogynists are out in force and it’s completely unfair.

She is however far from beyond criticism. She started the mudslinging. It’s a fact. She’s had to fire three people from her campaign. Bill, dismayingly, compared Obama’s campaign to the abortive attempt by Jesse Jackson in a clear ploy to brand him the black candidate.

Finally, substance. Hillary attacked Obama for acknowledging Reagan’s success despite her praising Reagan in her book. She told Edmund Hillary that she was named after him despite being born 5 years before he climbed Everest. When asked about weakness in a debate – Obama said he’s not a brilliant paper handler – he loses things if they’re given to him too far in advance. Hillary, of course, proclaimed her weakness to be that she’s “too impatient” for change – and then had the temerity to go and attack his honest answer in interviews. She’s 35 years in public life and has never once shown emotion –never – until an innocuous question on why she’s campaigning has her well up. This, just as polls say she’s about to be creamed in New Hampshire and that women have left her in record numbers. All this AFTER planting six questions on the campaign.  

Northern Monkey – Hillary is not the substance candidate. She’s more wooden than Patricia Hewitt and about as inspiring as a Brown budget speech…and that’s saying something.


[ Parent ]

Re: Obama or Clinton (#26)

by NorthernMonkey on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 04:28:32 PM GMT

Tony, I think you're going way too far now. I'd support Obama if he got the nomination but I'm thinking you wouldn't support Clinton if she wins, which is a shame because there really isn't that much difference between them.

The trouble is, people moan when she doesn't show emotion and they moan when she does - she can't win.


I don't believe that either of the Clintons have said anything racist and Obama has been just as willing to get involved in any mudslinging - take his sarcastic 'you're likeable enough Hillary' remark.


I find Clinton more inspiring than Obama to be honest - I think he just uses too many buzzwords and soundbites rather than demonstrating substance and gravitas. She's certainly more inspiring than Brown anyway!


But anyway, let's wait until Tuesday.


[ Parent ]

Re: Obama or Clinton (#29)

by TonyHannon on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:00:31 AM GMT

I'm afraid taking and understanding criticism are not your strong points NM!!

I did not go too far in that everything I said is fair criticism and is absolutely true.

I didn't moan that she was unemotional - I suggested it was cynical. I didn't accuse racism - Bill framed Obama as the black candidate by comparing his run to Jesse Jackson's. Fact. (Watch it here with Obama's dignified response http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmE1VWUlOD0)

Let's see what happens Tuesday but I would, of course, support her if she gets the nomination.


[ Parent ]

Re: Obama or Clinton (#30)

by NorthernMonkey on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 04:04:50 PM GMT

Tony, I wouldn't say accepting criticism of your own candidate was your strong point either!


All Bill Clinton was saying is that it's no surprise that a black candidate won in a state where nearly half of the Democratic voters are black. Black people are obviously going to overwhelmingly support a black candidate (nothing wrong with that).


But as with Jesse Jackson, it does not determine the final outcome over 50 states.


[ Parent ]

Re: Obama or Clinton (#32)

by TonyHannon on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 06:03:30 PM GMT

Where Obama has been criticised, I've come back with counter argument, links and further information.

You haven't. You were dismissive and reckoned valid criticism went too far - which is why I made the observation.

We should move on - we both know each other's views. Let's hope that whichever one of the candidates makes it to the White House - they make an infinitely better job than the current decietful, divisive half-wit.


[ Parent ]

Re: Obama or Clinton (#33)

by NorthernMonkey on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 06:14:11 PM GMT

Where Obama has been criticised, I've come back with counter argument, links and further information.

What is this? The marking scheme for GCSE Blog-writing!

I didn't bother reading the links because their hardly neutral - they've been chosen selectively. If I had more time, I could give you an entire dossier on what's wrong with Obama! But since I don't, I won't.


I didn't think your criticisms were valid, I think they bordered on the usual hysterical anti-Hillary rants that we see so often in the media, containing more prejudice than truth.


But yes, you're right - either Clinton or Obama will be a huge improvement on the incumbent.


[ Parent ]

Re: Obama or Clinton (#34)

by TonyHannon on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:08:11 AM GMT

That's very funny.

You must be a very perceptive Monkey - you think the criticisms were invalid at the same time as admitting not even reading them. It was even you who brought up the Economist article which went on make my point rather than yours...

Yet you're not perceptive enough to know that when making an argument, it's helpful to have facts behind you.

If you had even one informed point which was critical of Obama and could be backed up, you'd have made it. You haven't and have reverted to being dismissive and vague.

(and it's they're not their - a McGCSE for you!)

I think we're done. ;-)


[ Parent ]

Re: Obama or Clinton (#35)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:54:11 PM GMT

Sorry Tony, but throwing in a random clip of Obama propaganda does not constitute being factual.

Incidentally, the Economist article which you linked is not the correct one I was thinking of. The one I meant was the one which had the tagline "Hillary Clinton unveils a promising health plan". Since you are a lover of links (!), I've decided to attach it here for you.

You'll notice it has a nice little table included, which I've copied here:



I notice in the row marked 'Universal Coverage', in Obama's column it says "Not Quite". Pretty much sums up Obama's effort on health care. Clinton's ticks all the right boxes and the article points out that it's a huge improvement on her 1993 effort.


[ Parent ]

Re: Obama or Clinton (#36)

by TonyHannon on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:30:12 PM GMT

Thank you...see? Wasn't it worth the trouble?

The article also point out what I'm blue in the face telling you: "...The most important component of Mrs Clinton's plan is its universal mandate. All individuals will be required to purchase health insurance if they are not already covered, just as under a new programme in Massachusetts (and under Mr Edwards's plan)."
 
Mandating insurance is great news for insurance companies and a headache for penalising those who don't take out healthcare. There will either have to be penalties or the cost will have to come off people's wages which would be deeply unpopular.

Obama, I think correctly, focusses on reducing inefficiencies, portable plans, reducing costs and incentivising people to cover themselves with insurance that is adaquate rather than a "bare bones" cover which wouldn't be worth a bed pan or the piss in it by UK standards. It has the best chance of being passed in co-operation with hostile Republicans.

That's my problem with it. It's a valid criticism. Contrary to your claim, valid criticism is not solely down to drivelling mysogynists.

The FT article and Economist article also make the case against mandating the large number of healthy people without reducing costs. I happen to agree.

The "Obama propaganda" was actually a video of Bill Clinton. Clinton made the comparison (when you get to see and hear him do it - it's a fact!!).

If "not quite" is all you're read about the Obama's plan - perhaps you'll go on and actually read his plan on his website.

Careful mind - it's biased in his favour...


[ Parent ]

Re: Obama or Clinton (#37)

by jkitleft on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 06:35:12 PM GMT

Am I a misogynist for disliking Thatcher?


[ Parent ]

Re: Obama or Clinton (#38)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:18:59 PM GMT

The article also point out what I'm blue in the face telling you: "...The most important component of Mrs Clinton's plan is its universal mandate. All individuals will be required to purchase health insurance if they are not already covered, just as under a new programme in Massachusetts (and under Mr Edwards's plan)."
 
Mandating insurance is great news for insurance companies and a headache for penalising those who don't take out healthcare. There will either have to be penalties or the cost will have to come off people's wages which would be deeply unpopular.

But Tony, I happen to think that in a 21st century Western democracy, health care must be universal. We have universal health care in this country - would you be happy if a Conservative government here in the UK said we're going to scrap the current system and only have a system where people can opt-in into health-care? Presumably you must since you prefer Obama's system over Clinton's.


There are people right at the bottom of society who will not make the effort, for various reasons, to sign up to health-care if it is not already made compulsory for them. These will generally include the homeless, the mentally ill or the elderly who can get confused by the situation. In this country, all of those groups are covered automatically, under Obama's plan this will not happen.


[ Parent ]

Re: Obama or Clinton (#39)

by TonyHannon on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:37:16 AM GMT

That tells me you don't fully appreciate what we're discussing. We're talking about insurance and coverage - not provision.

Those on the bottom rung, the homeless, will benefit from neither plan - they'll still go to public hospitals.

For the rest - the 46m uninsured - being 'covered' is of little use when the coverage is abortively expensive. Being 'covered' on a bare bones plan is like not being covered at all.

We're not talking about the UK - we're talking about the USA. The two systems are so far apart as to be incomparable.

I do believe health care should be universal but it should be quality coverage - like we have with the NHS. Lurching to universal coverage in Hillary's plan will provide expensive inadequate coverage. It won't play in the USA. It will fail.

The USA is a million miles behind us in this regard - I believe Obama's plan is more sensible. I believe he'll get it through congress. I believe it's a far greater step to acceptable universal coverage.

Go back, if you want, to promises made before presidential elections and you'll see almost every Democratic healthcare plan claimed to attain universal coverage and it has never ever happened because its delivery was ill thought out. Hillary's plan is impressive but flawed in that she can't deliver - she, who Republicans unfairly despise, she of all people can't deliver.

Why do you believe universal coverage is an end in itself when the coverage is inadequate?

That's where we disagree. I'm not repeating myself again - the last word is yours my Northern friend.


[ Parent ]

Re: Obama or Clinton (#19)

by jkitleft on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 10:18:07 PM GMT

NM, I have a problem with Hillary because of her spouse's triangulating politics. Before you say she is her own woman, how would you then explain the experience issue? She says at some points that she is an independent woman, at other stages she was central to her husband's administration. That administration purported many right-wing values, but she has seen her way to take credit for its successes, and distance herself from Bill's (policy) failures. However, this election process is turning me from an idealistic Obamaite, into a sober Clintonite. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Obama or Clinton (#20)

by NorthernMonkey on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 03:10:23 AM GMT

jk, I'm sure 'President Obama' would end up pursuing various right-wing policies too, since that's the nature of American politics. You're not going to see either Obama or Clinton fighting to abolish the death penalty or ban handguns for example as it isn't possible in America right now to do this.

President Clinton would have loved to have pursued more progressive policies but was sadly thwarted many times by Congress (six years out of eight were in control of the Republicans). Hillary tried to introduce universal health care but Congress thwarted it. Bill Clinton tried to end Don't Ask Don't Tell but Congress forced a compromise. But the Clintons did successfully implement many progressive policies and kept the economy strong and stable.

In many ways, I'd say Hillary is more left-wing than Obama, particularly on health-care. Universal health-care is a must for me, and Hillary is now the only candidate left who will provide it. I also find her stance on foreign policy to be mature, strong and sensible. Also Hillary doesn't seem to be as willing to compromise with the Republicans, and for me, that's a good thing.

We all know that Hillary's a tough lady and I think if the Democrats want to win they need to elect a tough cookie with no possible skeletons left in the closet (since the media have attacked her for years). Hillary has already experienced the worst from the media where as McCain and Obama still have a lot worse to come.

I want to see a Clinton-Obama ticket - the perfect combination of strength and optimism, and an unbeatable ticket which will see the Democrats back in the White House.


[ Parent ]

Re: Obama or Clinton (#23)

by jkitleft on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:25:09 PM GMT

Actually, Clinton CREATED  Don't Ask Don't Tell. And, as I've argued with many beforehand, it is no use saying 6 years of Republican Congress, because he persued right-wing causes beforehand. Three words: Ricky Ray Rector.
Second, Harry Truman, one of the U.S.'s greatest Presidents, had a Republican Congress to deal with, but did not persue triangulating politics.


[ Parent ]

Re: Obama or Clinton (#24)

by bigpapi on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:24:01 PM GMT

To compare a Republican Congress under Truman to a the Republicans today is meaningless; in Truman's day the Republicans were the progressive party, supporting civil rights, etc.

The Democrats were concentrated largely in the Southern states, and were the party of segregation - remember Strom Thurmond was a Democrat before running for President as a Segregationist.  It maybe apocryphal, but Lyndon Johnson is said to have commented when signing the Civil Rights Act in 1965 that he was signing away the South for his Party for a generation - given that Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Bill Nelson (Florida) and Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor (Arkansas) are now the only Democratic Senators South of the Mason-Dixon line, he may have had a point!


[ Parent ]

Re: Obama or Clinton (#27)

by jkitleft on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 04:58:25 PM GMT

Bigpapi, I am aware of some 'African-Americans' and also Progressives, who vote Republican because of the Democrats' history. I am aware of the Solid South: the George Wallaces and Strom Thurmonds of the Democratic Party, and I am aware of the Olympia Snowes, the Susan Collins, the Lincoln Chaffees, the Jim Jeffords of the Republicans.


My point was merely, that Truman did not resort to triangulating politics.


[ Parent ]

Re: Obama or Clinton (#25)

by NorthernMonkey on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 04:23:41 PM GMT

jk, President Clinton tried to remove the ban on homosexuals in the military in 1993 but Congress (and the military) would not accept this. Instead they forced the compromise - Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which whilst still repulsive, is an improvement on the old situation.

It was quite radical for Clinton to try and pursue this in 1993 given that we only scrapped the ban in the year 2000.


[ Parent ]

Re: Obama or Clinton (#28)

by jkitleft on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:26:18 PM GMT

It was radical, and I know he tried to end it, but my point was that the process created Don't Ask, Don't Tell. You mentioned that Clinton could obviously not abolish the Death Penalty, (we'll have to wait for the Supreme Court's view). That is correct. But her husband used the death of a lobotomised prisoner to gain the New Hampshire primary. He also extended the death penalty beyond measure. This is a small segment of his triangulating politics


[ Parent ]

Re: Obama or Clinton (#31)

by lastword on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 05:12:02 PM GMT

Me too.  Hillary would make an excellent Vice President!


[ Parent ]

Obama or Clinton | 39 comments (39 topical)