OPINION

Hillary Clinton's Current Obama Drama

January 31, 2008
Aditi Nadkarni

The war of words between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton cannot escape the attention of any average television-watching, Internet-browsing individual whose job prospects, oil prices and taxes depend on the results of the forthcoming elections. The squabble between these two extremely able leaders in the run towards presidential candidacy is all over the media. Hence my own neutral disinterest in political affairs was recently altered by all the over the top, not to mention selective media coverage.

While not being excessively interested in political affairs, I am more appreciative of all the Democratic candidates in the run for president this year than I was in the previous election year. Being a liberal, the choice is easy. Anybody who has seen Hillary Clinton hold her own in a race that is perceived largely male dominated will respect her unless of course they have something against women in general. From her dealing of her husband's publicly flaunted infidelity to her dignified, yet unconventional tenure as First Lady, she has been the source of inspiration to many a woman. Most First Ladies are the epitomes of tradition and silently support their husbands as they lead the nation. Hillary, though a mother and always publicly very supportive of her husband, in no way appeared to be the woman "behind" the man and soon found her own place in the political world.

Barrack Obama, is as worthy of an adversary as Clinton could have deserved. He is a brilliant orator whose wry humor and determination jump out at the audience when he addresses a crowd, be it full of black or white potential voters; an extraordinary feat for a man who has now come closest to the prospect of being the only black president. He is the only African American currently serving in the Senate and a perusal of his biography indicates that he has a history of inspiring life experiences which any average American can relate to. Considering his ethnicity and the challenges that the sociopolitical construct creates for an African American man in politics, his accomplishments are as towering if not more as Hillary's many victories as a woman. As a woman, I find the endearing portraits of the Obama clan, with the two adorable daughters, somewhat reminiscent of my own family.

So having established that my own vote could've been in the favor of either of these excellent candidates, let me just say that Obama's current tactics upset me.

A close look at current news reports about the Clinton-Obama race will give the undecided voters a clear idea of Obama's tactics. "Clinton is divisive", claims Obama one day, "She is calculating" he alleges the next. I think we can all agree that in electing the president a voter considers political positions a lot more than such vague labels that smack more of ad hominem than anything else. Besides, lets face it, the way US diplomatic relations have been shot to hell in the past few years, "calculating" would probably be a welcome change. It is time for potential voters to review whether a super power wants a leader who is capable but whose entire campaign has been offensive rather than assertive. As much as I respect and like Obama and truly believe that he is a strong candidate, I do think he hasn't had the best "campaign strategy" advice. I constantly see reports and televised speeches where he invests a lot of time telling people why they should not elect Hillary but very little time establishing why people should elect him.

But here is what bothers me most. Senator Obama, though he does not need to, continuously fights his battles with Bill Clinton ignoring the fact that it is the Mrs.Clinton in the race and not the Mr.Clinton who we all love but is not the one in the debates. I silently will Obama to quit this strategy and wince when he brings up Mr.Bill Clinton yet again.

At the recent South Carolina debate, Obama constantly provided rebuttals to statements that Hillary had not even made. Surprisingly, when Hillary categorically stated that she had not brought up the subject of Ronald Reagan which Obama was debating, he meekly stated "But your husband did"

I was shocked and very disappointed at how that sounded. In a presidential debate where the candidates are defending their views and political stands, Senator Obama made the blunder of picking a personal battle. I wonder, if he would've considered it appropriate to pick out something Mr.Edward's wife had said during a debate. A spouse, no matter how important they are, (yes, even if they are a former president) are not the ones who should be addressed in a political debate of this stature.

It leads me to speculate if Obama is more threatened by the man campaigning for Hillary rather than the woman running the race where her spouse is merely a member of the cheering squad. How curious!

In an even more disturbing display, Michelle Obama, Barrack Obama's wife, at a Women For Obama event in Chicago is seen stating the following

"One of the important aspects of this campaign is role modeling what good families should look like. And if you can't run your own house, you cannot run the White House"

I found this claim not only a very absurd personal attack but also unfit for current times especially from someone campaigning for a progressive Democratic party candidate. This in my view, is a very distasteful move, which essentially places the blame of Bill Clinton's infidelity on his wife! What involves "running a house" or preserving a family? Tethering your husband to the bed post so he doesn't cheat or dealing with his publicly disclosed unfaithfulness with dignity? More importantly, a lot of good women run their houses and successfully raise children. Kudos to these capable and worthy homemakers but exactly how many of these good women have gotten close to running for the White House?

While I do not think Mr.Obama himself is a chauvinist, I do see a hint of well-disguised chauvinism in his campaign strategy. His constant need to address and criticize Bill Clinton's statements when in fact he is clearly in a debate with Hillary is a strong indicator. Bill Clinton, if we all remember, has already completed his term as president and is no longer in the running. He may be heading Hillary's campaign but how often does the campaign leader's views take precedence in a debate over the actual candidate's? So why would a candidate as good and as able as Obama feel the need to resort to such pettiness and pick a very public fight with his rival candidate based on what her husband says in media? Has he run of things to to say about her and is now going for the husband? I also wonder if this is an indication that he just views Hillary as the "wife" and hence voices rebuttals to Bill Clinton's public comments instead?

In a world where the developing nations have all had a woman leader, the United States still deals with the insecurities of trusting even a strong and qualified woman with the role of Commander-in-Chief. If memory serves me right the Late Benazir Bhutto probably never had to face criticism from a rival candidate based on her husband's political beliefs. The same, I believe, can be said for Sonia Gandhi or Margaret Thatcher. In a time when women political leaders can stand up for their own beliefs and views, Obama feels the need to look past Hillary and direct his rebuttals at her husband. When was the last time that a spouse's political opinion was publicly debated? Even the opinionated Teresa Hines Kerry known for her controvertial statements was not credited with a mention during a debate between Senator Kerry and President Bush.

This election season, it seems, may end up not only being a presidential race but on its way to the finale could also finally provide unequivocal insights into the true role of women in the world's super power where superficial political correctness sadly does not seem to have penetrated the political framework.

In the SC debate that I described above, I was as put off by Obama's stance as I was delighted by Hillary's quick response to her husband's frustrating and misplaced mention during the televised debate. For a woman firmly establishing her very own, unique identity in a male dominated political arena, her response seemed apt:

"Well, my husband isn't here Senator" she snapped amidst immediate applause, "I am"



Aditi Nadkarni is a cancer researcher, a film reviewer and a poet; her many occupations are an odd yet fun miscellany of creative pursuits. Visit her blog for more of her articles and artistic as well as photographic exploits.
eXTReMe Tracker
Keep reading for comments on this article and add some feedback of your own!

Comments! Feedback! Speak and be heard!

Comment on this article or leave feedback for the author

#1
Obama loses jobs
January 31, 2008
08:16 AM

**(Ms. Obama, vice-president for external affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals, putting out feelers indicating she'd like to get some corporate management experience." As if working for a hospital that charges uninsured minorities 5.4 times as much for drugs as Whites with insurance isn't enough cold hearted corporate experience. Plus she cause hundreds to loose their 11.hr jobs she said to be more efficent)

In 2005, she was also elected to the board of directors of west suburban Westchester-based TreeHouse Foods, which calls itself the nation's largest pickle and pepper supplier. For that, she received $12,000 and $33,000 from a subsidiary.
On Nov. 26, it announced plans to close its La Junta, Colo. plant, a move that claimed the jobs of 153 workers, most of them Hispanic -- a big blow to a rural town with only 9,500 residents. The jobs paid a starting wage of $11 an hour, good pay for the area. I share the sentiment. Companies that pay top execs tens of millions a year while squeezing the little guys on the production line or in the back office are destroying middle-class America.
Which raises a question -- not about corporate values but about Mr. Obama's values. Specifically, while Mr. Obama bashes Wal-Mart, why does his wife, Michelle, make $45,000 a year serving on the board of a Chicago-area company that pays its executives a very hefty amount of money while laying off mostly minority workers in an economically deprived area, a company whose No. 1 customer is -- you guessed it -- Wal-Mart? In early 2005, Texas-based Dean Foods Co. spun off its processed-food subsidiary into an independent company, TreeHouse Foods Inc. Stock in Westchester-based TreeHouse began trading on June 15, 2005. Elected to its board of directors on June 6 of that year was Michelle Obama, who receives $30,000 a year plus $1,500 per board or committee meeting she attends. That totaled $45,000 in 2005, according to Mr. Obama's Senate ethics disclosure. Ms. Obama got 7,500 stock options this year, company filings show. At the current price of TreeHouse stock, she has a paper profit of about $60,000 on the options.
Reportable charitable to the Trinity United Church of Christ $5,000 and $11,315 AP




#2
Obama corrupt
January 31, 2008
08:16 AM

Obama's Relationship With Rezko Goes Back 17 Years. Obama Kept Contributions From Accused Fixer's (REZKO)Wife And Others ABCNews.com Analysis Shows the Campaign Still Hasn't Returned More Than $100,000 in
Obama is referred to in document which outlines case against Rezko
As Barack Obama is finding out, it's not as easy to dump politically toxic campaign donations as it might seem. For the third time in more than a year, Obama's presidential campaign announced this week it was shedding more donations tied to indicted fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko. Calculations by the media and Obama's own staff of Rezko's financial impact on his past political campaigns have been all over the map and shifting. In the case of Obama, public records don't make clear every Rezko connection. The records show that since 1995, $74,500 came from Rezko, his relatives or contributors listed on official disclosure forms as employees of one of his businesses. Rezko has not raised money for Obama's presidential campaign.

Various media outlets have reported much larger numbers, though they haven't clearly explained their methodology. The New York Times has pegged Rezko political cash for Obama at $150,000, the Sun-Times at $168,000 and the Los Angeles Times at $200,000. Last weekend, a report by ABCNews.com suggested more than $185,000. The event at Rezko's home resembled a posh dinner party, complete with valet parking and catered dinner. Obama spoke after the meal, and told the crowd about how when he was still in Harvard law school Rezko, a developer, had tried to hire him. Obama staffers set up shop around the kitchen table, where they collected checks.

One donor at the event was Michael Sreenan, a former attorney for a Rezko company. Sreenan gave Obama $2,000 that night, but hasn't heard if the campaign now plans to give it away.

Still, Sreenan said he was baffled by the notion of giving money raised at Rezko's home to charity. "If [Obama] wants to give my donation back to me or let me give it to a charity, I'm fine with that," he said. "But I don't see how this makes a difference now -- the money still got him elected. And how do I know it's not going to a charity that's offensive to me?"

#3
clinton 2008 the real choice
January 31, 2008
08:17 AM

WE COMPLETELY SUPPORT SENATOR AND TWO TIME FIRST LADY HILLARY CLINTON!who has graciously with stood all the biased media attacks on a white woman, (wich is disgusting)the media fighting obamas battles for him because he has no substance and merit! she is HANDS DOWN the stronger candidate WHO IS ABLE AND PROVEN SHE CAN FIGHT THE BATTLES AND WILL GET THINGS DONE FOR ALL AMERCIANS NOT JUST BLACK VOTERS ( like obama camp)! Who else on earth has tolerated the unbelievable lies and attacks and spins then Hillay and still she fights on for the middle class, she takes her licks and keeps going un like obama who keeps hiding behind the likes of oprah and now old crazy guy teddy. Who cares what caroline says. She now has clout? for what?

The Kennedys have been nothing but disgraceful scandles in the last 25 years, relatives accused of murders, rapes etc and that gives the Kennedy name clout? Don't think so... Ted Kennedy is now go headed for a disgraceful end. The Massachusetts senator has been caught in a sneaky plot to kill a clean-energy project in Nantucket Sound. Seems he doesn't want to see wind turbines from his waterfront estate. "Don't you realize -- that's where I sail!" he famously said.
The Obama campaign has criticized Hillary Clinton's candidacy as another example of dynastic politics. But now that Obama is playing adopted son of the Kennedy clan, that argument falls apart. Kennedy mystique Is so much JUST hot air. OBAMA IS A JOKE

#4
Hell-No-Ry
January 31, 2008
08:28 AM

I actually agree with Obama's strategies. I think the writer of this blog mis-understands the meaning of 'calculating' in his context. Obama isn't referring to the ability to think, hes' talking about the ruthless win-at-all-cost attitude Clinton demonstrates. When he states she's divisive, he's talking about how she tries her best to break the Democrat party up. It's too bad people don't get to see the Clinton away from the Cameras. The one who treats all people who aren't rich, famous, politicians of equal stature, or family like dirt. Entire books have been written on her attitude, it's sickening.

I admit, I'm an Obama supporter (and I'm not even a Democrat). However, given the choice between Hillary Clinton or absolutely anyone else who is running for president.... Hillary would not get my vote regardless of her opponent. I'd re-vote for an impossible 3rd term for G.W.Bush before voting for Hillary.

#5
corporate serf
January 31, 2008
08:43 AM

OK, so summary of the post: Ms Nadkarni likes Clinton more than she like Obama.

Aditi, I'd imagine you would find this mutual mud-slinging between the leading (remaining) democratic contenders a part of usual politics if you were a little bit more detatched. In fairness to Obama, the Clinton campaign did unleash the dirty tricks department. The Obama campaign, by all appearances, is quite capable of dealing with that. The positive development (if you are a democratic party supporter) of this is come election time, both the campaigns will be well qualified to battle the republican election strategists. The potential negative is it might turn off the supporters of the losing contender; in that they will go out in fewer numbers in November.

BTW, what is your position on health insurance mandates?

#6
Clinton Supporter
January 31, 2008
08:52 AM

Hell-No-Ry,
"I'd re-vote for an impossible 3rd term for G.W.Bush before voting for Hillary."

BUSH ???????
You are not even a Democrat!, but you know why democrats support Clinton?

When democrats needed his support for congress, senate and local elections he was right there helping out local democrats. Were was he(Obama) ? in 04, during Carry-Edward election campaign.

#7
Aaman
URL
January 31, 2008
10:13 AM

Hillary betrayed her best interests by voting for the Iraq war

#8
AN
January 31, 2008
10:44 AM

Aaman: Just really quickly, you are correct...but on the other hand Obama was not a part of the US senate and one doesn't know what his position would've been. Moreover: Sen.Edwards also voted for the Iraq resolution. Sen.Kerry also voted for the Iraq war.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Now that it has surfaced that WMDs weren't in Iraq, the Iraq resolution vote seems like a mistake. But come to think of it, if the Senators would've voted against it and WMDs would've been found, they would've been called unpatriotic.

#9
Clinton Supporter
January 31, 2008
10:56 AM

Aaman,
Evan though, I am against the war let me tell you; It is good that she has voted for Iraq War because in Nov election opponent(republican) will use national security as a big issue. And Obama would loose.

#10
Aaman
URL
January 31, 2008
11:06 AM

The Iraq invasion was a mistake from the beginning, WMD or no WMD, as Edward Kennedy has maintained.

Consistency for consistency's sake, as Hillary seems to be applying, is foolish.

#11
smallsquirrel
January 31, 2008
11:55 AM

aaman, well, we all know that NOW... it's easy to see in hindsight.

but at the time, no one, even anti-war democrats, wanted to be labeled unpatriotic, unamerican or soft on terrorism at the time. even people like me who are across-the-board anti-war were not as stringently against this thing until it became clear that it was not about making american safe and there were no WMD.

we can all tell now what really happened, but that doesn't mean we hold hillary's feet to the fire alone on that one issue.

she has larger fish to fry. she is divisive. a lot of women do not trust her and think she let her husband play her publicly because she had political ambitions. I do not think she can pull enough votes.

#12
AN
January 31, 2008
11:56 AM

Aaman

"Consistency for consistency's sake, as Hillary seems to be applying, is foolish"

Absolutely, this I agree with. 100%

Nonetheless, my question (since this is a Clinton vs Obama discussion) is: We know Hillary's stance through the vote she cast. We know her mistakes and her follies. But how do we even begin to imagine what stand Obama would've taken at that time?

That being said: I'm not pro-Iraq war at all...in fact I absolutely loved reading Ted Kennedy's remarks about the war:)

#13
temporal
URL
January 31, 2008
12:01 PM

adi:

since you candidly admitted you were disappointed and shocked:

Surprisingly, when Hillary categorically stated that she had not brought up the subject of Ronald Reagan which Obama was debating, he meekly stated "But your husband did"

I was shocked and very disappointed at how that sounded.


am following the debates just a tad more closely...and bill is in full swing campaigning for hilary...(obama's wife also helps but she does not have the same magic or lure as bill)...

and bill and hilary play good cop and bad cop daily....not only that.....to muzzle and confuse obama strategists....they change the roles frequently...

so in essence obama has to respond to both of them in public....

(bill was chastised for bringing the race card in carolina and was chasised by party leaders)

let us see how they fare on big tuesday

#14
anonymous
January 31, 2008
12:21 PM

The media is so slanted on this one. The media keeps reporting how the Clintons will do anything to win. Every single controversy in this campaign ws created by the Obama Camp. It was not racist to say they it took LBJ to pass the civil rights ammendment. It was true that Obama praised the republicans as agents of change. it was true that Obama slashed out first by saying Hillary was on the Board of Wall Mart when he worked for Rezko. Yet the media insist it is the CLinton;s who will do anything to win. Jesse Jackson Jr. after Hillary' New Hamshire win that HRC did not shed a tear for the victims of Katrina. ie the mostely African American Victims. The comment by Jackson Jr. was outragious. Mr. Jackson is listed as a campaign manager for Obama. The media barely covered it or asked for a retraction Nothing Nada. Are they afraid to go hard after the minority candidate? I think so. Obama deal with rezko smells of down right corruption. Why doesn't the media ask why he got such a discount on the land transaction? Clinton atttack dog? I think the Press should be called putty cats when it comes to the Obama coverage. The Fairy tale comment by Bill wasn't so far off.

#15
blokesablogin
January 31, 2008
01:18 PM

I ought to confess that I emailed both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama that Mrs. Clinton ought to be president this term with Obama as Vice. And if Obama does good this time, we can always elect him next term as pres!! The 21st century can certainly use some "changes" in demographes in the White House. Politicians need to understand the qualities of a Sthitapragnya (the "stable" one). Hillary comes closer to that definition, even if she does come across as "cold".

#16
Ravi Kulkarni
URL
January 31, 2008
02:01 PM

What America needs is a revolutionary change, not a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton monotony. Because if you elect Hillary, monotony is what you will get. Hillary represents the vested interests as much as Bush and his ilk; I don't see any major changes on foreign policy, security or domestic economic policy either if Hillary is elected. America is headed for a certain disaster in the decades to come, and only a big change that Obama represents can alter the course.

In short we need two major changes: a personality that is not wedded to isms and likely to unite the country. Secondly a person that is not beholden to the same vested interests that brought about the current state of affairs in the first place. Unfortunately Hillary is not that person. Obama appears to have both the qualities. I am not sure Obama will do everything that is possible and needed, but I am certain that Hillary won't.

Regards,

Ravi Kulkarni

#17
Nihika
January 31, 2008
03:05 PM

Given the number of direct and personal attacks Bill Clinton made on Sen. Obama leading up to the S.C. primary, I wonder that anyone can criticize Sen. Obama's rebuttals. In such a close campaign, if Sen. Obama cannot afford to let criticisms/ complaints by someone as prominent as the ex-President slide by unrefuted. Billary played good-cop/bad-cop in South Carolina. How well that routine went down with the voters there is for all to see. (Check out CNN's detailed exit polling for more.)

Also, why is it that only white men are allowed to vote based on issues? Why must the rest of us vote for the person who looks the most like us? I am not ascribing this sentiment to the author here, but to a lot of other feminists who seem to suggest that unless supporters the feminist cause vote for Hillary, they are somehow betraying women? Why does being a woman and a champion of women's causes make me unable to choose a candidate on grounds other than sex? Doesn't female emancipation mean exactly the ability to choose how I wish and not be accused of betrayal?

#18
commonsense
January 31, 2008
03:19 PM

SS:

""even people like me who are across-the-board anti-war were not as stringently against this thing until it became clear that it was not about making american safe and there were no WMD."'

it was quite clear right from the start how everything, including of course, patriotic emotions were manipulated, wmd or not. all this was covered by media such as The Nation, Harper's, The New York Review of Books, columnist Robert Scheer for the LA Times (since fired for being too critical) etc. etc., the mainstream media of course, not just swallowed whatever was fed to them, but actively colluded in manufacturing consensus (Judith Miller from NYT who was fired later etc. etc.) A re-play of the Vietnam War all over gain...Edward Kennedy, Senator Byrd (or Bird) and many others who are old enough to remember the catastrophic mistake of the Vietnam War were simply ignored and brushed aside as the propaganda machinery kicked in and shameless/successfuly exploited patriotism and nationalism for its own end. Pretty sad, but as they say, those who forget history...

In other words, Amaan is right on the money here! Even, perhaps especially thinking people, took leave of their senses when the self-righteous, calculating politicians exploited the real trauma of 911. The sheer waste of human lives, billions of dollars down the drain..heck no, lining many pockets...No 20-20 hindsight this! Just plain sad and sickening...

#19
Seema
January 31, 2008
03:36 PM

Ravi Kulkarni: That I think is quite a simplistic analysis and comparison of two candidates belonging to completely different parties. I just cannot imagine clubbing together the two candidates and address them as Bush-Clinton. Even when you say "vested interests", those interests for Clinton and Bush differ. Obama may be a change but will it be a good change?...what history do Americans rely on to predict that? He wasn't even a part of the US senate when some of the important votes on political issues were cast. So people can only take his word for all the positions and have no solid indication of his biases.

Nihika: what "personal" attacks did Bill make against Obama? From what I've read the Clinton's, strategic as they are, have always gone after either Obama's political views or his proposed strategies when he becomes the President. Calling his POA a fairy tale does not really count as a "personal attack". Also, nobody thus far, in media has suggested that voting against Hillary would somehow be betraying women so I don't know where that sentiment has its roots. I haven't seen any feminist propaganda in the media for Hillary endorsements. Even Oprah endorsed Obama for goodness sakes.

#20
Nihika
January 31, 2008
03:42 PM

Seema,

Perhaps you need to read more:

Clinton attacks on Obama: http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Obama_2.htm

Betrayal sentiment:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gCgISs8eK0lLEycpmsmwT8-lgMqQD8UFRQV01

#21
Seema
January 31, 2008
03:50 PM

Nihika: thanks for the links.

Read the article on the first link again. its not bill or hillary making the personal attacks against obama. its the "hillary camp"...meaning people from her campaign who she does not have much control over. the two incidents cited in this article are personal attacks made by michelle obama and senator obama themselves in person, not camp members.

as for the second article believe me its the first article i've read about any feminist view...amidst like a million others. i'd hardly call that a "propaganda"

#22
obama-edwards 08
January 31, 2008
04:39 PM

@ seema
if hillary cant control/manage her own campain, how will she run the country??
obama has proven till now that he is above all the personal attacks made by the hillary campaign.if there is anyone who can bring this country together it is Sen.Obama.

#23
Nihika
January 31, 2008
04:45 PM

Seema,

I don't recall calling the NOW statement propaganda. However, NOW is the most recognized face of organized feminism in the US. Your not having read the article in the past does not diminsh my criticism of it.

Also, thank you, Obama-Edwards 08, for making my point for me!

#24
Yo Mamma
URL
January 31, 2008
05:23 PM

What do you Believe in has to believe in President

#25
commonsense
January 31, 2008
05:34 PM

Ravi Kulkarni # 16.

Agree totally. Hillary, as Obama said, would be no different from Bush Lite...but then, Obama too would be constrained by the realities of washington's lobbyists...so, where is that third party? the system does not make it easy. poor ralph nader...

#26
Clinton Supporter
January 31, 2008
06:08 PM

Few points that I am concerned about Obama.

- I have heard about him but he has been in senate since 2004 only; not enough data.

- Can he win in general election. I am afraid behind that curtain true american white vs black mantality will popup.

- just in small political age that he has he has collected enough controversy. read this..

http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-NWS-watchdog24.article

And carl rove will twist every bit of that, on other hand what ever Clinton has is old news.

- Last Clintons Knows how to win against GOP. in last 7 general elections only Clintons were successful in beating GOP.

#27
Morris
January 31, 2008
06:08 PM

It appears that media is kind to Obama. They like to see Obama nominated. Once nominated that kindness will be gone and they will find all sort things against him. Whether Hillary or Obama my fear is Republicans are klikely to hold on to White House.

#28
commonsense
January 31, 2008
06:14 PM

Morris,

I fear you are right. It will be the republicans again for sure (ok, nothing is for sure in life!, but still it certainly shaping up that way). It is still possible though that folks may get fired up about Obama...the media does play a role, but sometimes their "punditry" backfires badly...

#29
commonsense
January 31, 2008
06:21 PM

AP report:

""President Bush's 2009 budget will virtually freeze most domestic programs and seek nearly $200 billion in savings from federal health care programs, a senior administration official said Thursday.

Overall, the Bush budget will exceed $3 trillion, this official said. The deficit is expected to reach about $400 billion for this year and next.""

Wow, what a kick in the ass for commonsense. Still hurts! Clinton promises to continue the same policies...

#30
Clinton Supporter
January 31, 2008
06:29 PM

If she winns primary, she will give great fight to GOP. Other wise GOP will be back.

#31
Ravi Kulkarni
URL
January 31, 2008
06:41 PM

Dear Seema,

I agree with you that the vested interests that have bogged down Bush are different from the ones that will slow Hillary, but only to a degree. The vested interests which I collectively call the establishment are the same irrespective of the party affiliation. They are smart enough to fund both parties. These interests consist of the usual suspects: oil, arms, pharmaceuticals, engineering, agri and so on. There is nothing much to choose between the democrats and republicans when it comes to making policies in this field. Of course it is not just the president who makes the policies, there is also the congress. But, if there is true leadership at the helm, then the congress can be made to toe the line.

To address many of the issues we need to make fundamental changes. Take economy for example. All the rate cuts are superficial bandaids which will come back to haunt us even more. There is a fundamental problem that nobody, at least at the leadership level, is talking. We have overdrawn the account and the income is no longer sufficient to take care of the expenses. This applies both to individuals as well as the institutions in this country. Who will bell this cat? I doubt Hillary has any great ideas, at least I haven't seen it.

Politically speaking there is a perception that lot of the republicans do not like her. Actually hate her with a passion is more like it. She comes with a huge historical baggage which is likely to be a insurmountable burden in all the upcoming battles with the congress.

On the other hand, people talk about Obama not having sufficient experience. I have come to believe that fresh blood with fresh eyes can do wonders. After all a president is not a lone person making all the decisions, there are a bevy of advisors. And Obama is not a symbolic ("Black") candidate; he stands on his own merit. Clinton has only four more years in comparison in the senate.

There is a fresh hope among the young people in this country. That hope is generated by Obama so he is more likely to get a true mandate to lead. In case of Hillary, it is likely to be a fractured one and the old battles will continue unabated on the hill. I sincerel believe he should be given a chance to lead.

Regards,

Ravi Kulkarni

#32
Othello
January 31, 2008
08:03 PM

Nihika is one of the most sensible posters in this thread.

I think attacking Obama was a political faux pas on the Clintons part. It was a move to somehow minimize his influence as inspirational speaker and to get him off his message around(Jan 21 MLK day), just when his campaign was picking up steam.
They had to do something.

If you can get him off message...talk about LBJ and describe the civil rights movement as only a dream/falsehope that only a president could make reaility, get him into a squabble about Reagan....you can get him off message and minimize his impact on the campaign trail.

It backfired and to make matters worse, Bill Clinton tried to minimize the results with a condescending comment saying "Jesse Jackson did the samething too". Playing identity politics, which could have been a fatal blow in Hiliary's AA support. Ironically Hiliary was leading in polls in this same demographic over Obama just in Nov of 2007 by 8-10 points. No one knows what effect the attacks had at swinging the votes.

#33
Chandra
February 1, 2008
11:55 AM

While the national vote is at about 50-50. The average blogger ratio is about 60-20 in favor of Obama.

A recent survey of democratic voters show that 51% of them believe that Hillary is being treated unfairly by the media. This alone I think is singularly responsible for her downfall.

What I am looking forward to is the spectacular explosion of the Obama Presidency which I am quite confident will happen. The indicator is simple- Visit his web-site and read his actual policies. They donot show either judgement nor insight. I meet such managers on a regular basis. When they talk you are stunned, they are bloody brilliant. But when it comes to execution.....God bless us all....

Isn't it also ironical that

a. George Bush as a Governor worked very closely with democrats in Texas

b. Promised that he will never be involved in nation building

c. Promised to reduce the size of the Government and deficits

Obama, through his lofty rhetoric promises to unite washington and US image across the world. Does he know what that means?

- Will he be willing to retain the Bush tax cuts? No

- Will he be willing to reduce the size of the Govt? No

- Will he be balanced vis-a-vis Israel? No

- Will he sanction all the monarchies and thugs in the middle east? No

It is great to promise vagueness but when it comes to actually implementing the agenda, nothing is going to change...which is why one will only be disappointed by expecting too many things from him.........

#34
Chandra
February 1, 2008
12:06 PM

Repubs can dream of coming back to the white house. It is not going to happen. It has nothing to do with Obama and Clinton. It is to do with electoral college votes.....A total of 10 states are in Play. 7 of which are Repub and 3 of which are Democrat. Irrespective of which democrat contests, a larger number of voters are likely to vote on election day and a larger proportion of repubs are likely to stay at home. Mcain is the new Dole...God bless him....I expect the democrats will snatch Ohio-20, Co-9, IA-7,NV-5,NM-5 a total of 46. Assuming that the Repubs will grab Mi-17, Wi-10 = 27 (Highly unlikely), the Dems will still end up with 270 and Repubs at 268. However, I expect that the Dems will win 300-238......irrespective of Clinton or Obama

#35
Chandra
February 1, 2008
12:12 PM

and by the way.....i donot expect any southern states to come in play if Obama contests....Obama is too liberal for them...

#36
Morris
February 1, 2008
06:07 PM

Chandra

I am not sure what you mean by coming back to the White House. They are there now Bush being Repub. It is possible that Obama or Hillary can lose to the Repub nominee. Do not underestmate their election fighing skill.

#37
Drunken Noodles
February 2, 2008
05:29 PM

@ Seema

Whatever should you fumble your rebuttal should be subtle Cause he who lives in the upper room is never gullible

#38
temporal
URL
February 3, 2008
04:09 PM

#35:

chandra south is the key...do not under estimate its potential power

look at the results from the past five elections...the winning team won the south (in addition to east west and northeast...)

#39
Chandra
February 3, 2008
05:09 PM

T

Actually I dont think anybody has become president without winning a few in the south since 1956 (Eisenhower).
However,in 2000 Gore would have won the elections without winning the South, all he had to do was to win Ohio or Florida. The fact of the matter is that the margins are huge in the south and therefore the dems will have to expect a massive swing to win a few electoral votes . One can however assume some states in the mountains and the mid-west to swing blue.

#40
temporal
URL
February 3, 2008
05:14 PM

chandra:

but he did win (ohio for sure) ;)

in 2000 Gore would have won the elections without winning the South, all he had to do was to win Ohio or Florida.

and was "robbed" by the neoconzix "reach"

#41
Chandra
February 3, 2008
06:58 PM

T

He lost both Ohio and Florida.

http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/OH/frameset.exclude.html

The point i was making is he could have been President without winning anything in the south. I expect the same for the Dems this year.

Unless of course the republicans do something really stupid or the economy goes to the dogs.....


rgds

#42
temporal
URL
February 3, 2008
07:49 PM

here is one for florida;)

http://www.gregpalast.com/florida-by-the-numbersal-gore-won-florida-in-2000-by-77000-votes/

ohio was decided by one vote in the supreme court;)

#43
temporal
URL
February 3, 2008
07:53 PM

here is one for florida;)

http://www.gregpalast.com/florida-by-the-numbersal-gore-won-florida-in-2000-by-77000-votes/

ohio was decided by one vote in the supreme court;)

#44
temporal
URL
February 3, 2008
07:54 PM

and the apology :

These led to an apology from Associate Justice John Paul Stevens for the behavior of the 5-to-4 majority of the Court in the matter of Bush v. Gore. Loser Bush then brought on undeclared wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the greatest deficits in our history and the revelations that the policies of an Administration that--much as Count Dracula fled cloves of garlic--flees all accountability were responsible for the murder and torture of captive men, between 70 percent and 90 percent of whom, by the Pentagon's estimate, had been swept up at random, earning us the hatred of a billion Muslims and the disgust of what is called the civilized world.

#45
commonsense
February 3, 2008
09:12 PM

I know I'm hallucinating, clamouring for a pie-in-the-sky before I die, but we need a third party...

#46
Chandra
February 4, 2008
12:46 AM

T

arre baba...ye kya cut paste kiye ho aap? :-)

Well, i dont know about Florida. I mean, it was depressing at that time but if one recalls the campaign that Gore ran, it was embarassing to say the least. Bush campaigned very well in 2000. He had an outstanding record then - he won two terms as Gov in Texas, was promising change in washington, staying away from nation building, cutting deficits and most importantly he came with an outstanding reputation of having worked with the Dems in Texas. We know what he did once in Govt. That is what wil happen with Rajneesh Obama :-)

#47
Chandra
February 4, 2008
12:50 AM

Common Sense

We dont need a third party, we just need the Govt to mind its own business. We need a Govt that prepares the poorest to particpate in the Global eceonomy. On all the other things the govt counts to nothing ;-)

#48
temporal
URL
February 4, 2008
01:05 AM

chandra:

only yesterday i made a reference to my fickle memory...but really....it ain't THAT fickle!

the 2000 elections were stolen by the republicans

(ok no cut n pastes - but just run your own research....read up on the new american century)

the neoconzix saw they could implement their agenda better through dubya

and when you do your homework on the new american century you will see for yourself how many of them were eased into the dubya administration and maneuvered this (record holder of the lowest IQ of all US presidents) president into the iraq quagmire and in this lame duck year they nearly succeeded to drag US into iran as well

(somebody in the pentagon "released" the study that said Iran never had a nuclear programme to release the air out of the neoconzix driven baloon)

khair, do your homework:)



#49
Chandra
February 4, 2008
02:14 AM

T

I have read about this across the Internet but am not sure what to believe or what not believe. Personally i believe in the political process and the reality is that John Kerry ran a poor campaign in 2004 and lost.

McCain will have to find a Titanic boat (vs Swift boat) to sink the Dems this year

#50
temporal
URL
February 4, 2008
02:30 AM

chandra bhai i have not said anything about 2004 ---- yet:)

khair all that is water under the bridge

iraq is bad enough

let us hope haliburton is denied the opportunity to rake in more billions in iran

and let the new administration sort out iraq

#51
Chandra
February 4, 2008
06:37 AM

I think Iraq has improved substantially since gates and petraeus took over. Rummy was an ostrich. I expect significat improvement by the end of the year. However, one cannot say the same wrt Iran. They are spoiling for a fight.

#52
commonsense
February 4, 2008
04:41 PM

Some Noodle wrote:

""Whatever should you fumble your rebuttal...""

rebuttal? a double kick on the ass?

#53
commonsense
February 4, 2008
05:08 PM

Some Noodle wrote:

""Whatever should you fumble your rebuttal...""

Or does rebuttal mean, sticking a new one on after it is damaged by a kick?

#54
commonsense
February 4, 2008
08:30 PM

Some Noodle wrote:

""Whatever should you fumble your rebuttal...""

Totally confused! Do you mean if I fumble my butt?? What does that mean?? If you do it, please stop fumbling with my butt...no iffs or butts...

#55
Drunken Noodle
February 4, 2008
10:36 PM

Life, is nothin but a dream, so peaceful and serene
Unless you're bein evil then you on the devil's team
Well I receive what you want to believe
But soon you'll have to sew those bad seeds
Please, any man can ask, to get a pass
or a cleansing of sin to grant another chance
Perhaps another glance of the light at the end of the tunnel
Talk to the coach or break out the huddle
Whatever should you fumble your rebuttal should be subtle
Cause he who lives in the upper room is never gullible
As you survey the syllables and sentences
The question that I'm merely tryin to pose is as simple as me sayin

#56
commonsense
February 4, 2008
10:52 PM

Oops, the noodle is drunk!

#57
Aditi Nadkarni
February 4, 2008
11:28 PM

commonsense: Drunken Noodle, out of lack of originality, is quoting lyrics from OutKast's Church :)

Drunken Noodle:

To quote Outkast (I love em too) yet again:

"You need to git up, git out,
cut that bullshit out
Ain't you sick and tired of having to do without
And what up with all these questions?
As act as though you know somethin I don't.
Do you have any suggestions?"

In short: If you can't stay on topic.....EXIT=>

...you get the drift.

:)

#58
drunken noodle
February 5, 2008
02:09 AM

Heads up! Heads up!
Here's another one!
And a - and another one
OOHHHHHHHH!!!

Yeek yeek woop woop!! why you all in my ear?!
Talking a whole bunch of shit
That I ain't trying to hear!
Get back ! You don't know me like that!
(Get back !! You don't know me like that!!)
Yeek yeek woop woop!! I ain't playing around!
Make one false move I'll take ya down
Get back ! You don't know me like that!
(Get back !! You don't know me like that!!)

#59
commonsense
February 5, 2008
02:41 AM

to quote allen ginsberg ("howl", of course)

I have seen the best minds of my generation
Destroyed by madness

#60
Chandra
February 5, 2008
06:31 PM

See this interesting Obama video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzFOOcEQtP0

Add your comment

(Or ping: http://desicritics.org/tb/7197)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.






Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!