Friday, March 14, 2008
“Hillary’s hyperbole has not served her well…”
The US public may be getting exhausted with it; and two it’s getting incredibly destructive. In the case of the Democrats, (the only party still with a stand up fight going). Not sure how much the NI question of recent days are making but it rumbles on. Hearts and Minds discover (over half way through) that she did have meetings at the City Hall, but as Conor O’Clery points out, “this hyperbole has not served her well” Toby Harnden has the PBS link (5 minutes in), where she claims she was ‘instrumental’.
Update: Mamam has a sound grab from Bill’s defence of his beleaguered missus...
For me, the crux lies in this part:
“There is no doubt that I played a major role in many of the foreign policy decisions, I represented our government in more than 80 countries. I know that people are nit-picking, and this is a campaign and that’s fair, but compare my experience to Senator Obama’s and I think my experience is much more preparatory for the job that awaits”.
In truth, Hillary’s role was that of a public diplomat. Undoubtedly that was grist to the mill in her entry to the Senate. But, however she spins it, it was not executive experience. I doubt she plans to recant by St Patricks Day, but it may well disappear after Monday!
Mick Fealty @ 08:04 AM
“But, however she spins it, it was not executive experience.”
Indeed.
“Saying that Hillary has Executive Branch experience is like saying Yoko Ono was a Beatle.”
Posted by on Mar 14, 2008 @ 12:36 PM‘There is no doubt that I played a major role in many of the foreign policy decisions, I represented our government in more than 80 countries.’
Queen Frigidaire was neither elected or appointed with the advise and consent of the legislative branch to her decision making role. The representative aspect she alludes to is in modern history part and parcel of the role of ‘first’ lady and is generally seen to be superficial and ceremonial.
If her claims are true this raises a number of fundamental questions which require an answer. Amongst these are:-
1. Was she acting, especially with respect to policy decisions, in a way potentially contrary to the constitution and perhaps illegally?
2. Would a Hillary administration in effect be a Billary administration with Bill having a major role in decision with respect to either domestic or foreign policy?Posted by on Mar 14, 2008 @ 01:04 PMNorthern Ireland will not matter come November. The Republicans would rather not face Hillary -they stand a better chance of pulling a Gore on Obama simply through the Electoral College Vote (ECV).
Each State is assigned an ECV based on population. California gets 55, Texas 37, New York 31, Florida 27, Illinois 21, Ohio 20, Pennsylvania 20 and so on. There are traditionnally safe Republican States -e.g Texas , Alabama , Alaska , Georgia, just as there are safe Democratic States e.g New York, California, Massachussetts, etc . There are approx 12 swing States the most important being Florida, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania . Whichever party wins a majority of the swing States will get the most ECV’s and thus the Presidency .
Based on present polls traditional Republican States would have 216 Electoral College votes (ECV’s) Democrats 183 ECV’s . The 12 swing States account for 142 ECV’s .
If we look at the Democratic primaries as the Presidential Election - Obama would have 247 ECV’s and Clinton 273 ECV’s
When we subtract the definite Republican ECV States from the above Obama’s ECV’s would be down to 120 and Clinton’s to 202 . The reason why Obama loses out more here is because he won many of his primaries in States which Democrats have little hope of winning in November e.g Georgia, Alabama, Alaska ,etc.
When we look at the 12 swing States, again based on the Dem Primary results Obama would win 57 ECV’s and Clinton 85 ECVs . This would leave Clinton with 287 potential ECV’s against Obama’s 177.
On balance the Democratic party would do better to choose Clinton over Obama based on a purely ECV approach . For the above exercise I have assumed Clinton wins the Pennsylvania primary.
The States of Florida, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania with a total of 85 Electoral College votes between them will be absolutely critical in this election .
McCain’s men will hope to win in Florida , Ohio and Pennsylvania and that is probably all he will need to to do ‘steal’ the next election . It’s conceivable with Obama as candidate he could do a Gore i.e win the plurality of votes but still lose the Electoral college . With Clinton that looks less likely IMO.
It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the Democrats by ignoring the primary ‘votes’ of Florida and Michigan will hand over the Presidency to McCain . Despite widespread dissatisfaction with the Bush administration the ECV is the hurdle which the Democrats have to leap . For all Mr Obama’s popularity among the political ‘newbies’ the ECV vote shows that McCain has more to fear from a Clinton candidacy than an Obama one .
Posted by on Mar 14, 2008 @ 01:20 PMIs Pat Buchanan running this year?
Posted by on Mar 14, 2008 @ 01:40 PMHillary can claim that she delivered Good Friday if Obama can claim he’s Black Irish. After all, his name is Barack Patrick Obama....
Posted by on Mar 14, 2008 @ 02:31 PMBen
Both claims are indeed true.
By the way go the whole hog its O’Bama
Posted by on Mar 14, 2008 @ 04:03 PMDo assure me that all those chucking in their two cents’ worth, here and on previous related threads, have read and digested the Media Matters piece.
It seems to give a more balanced view that has always been represented here.
Posted by on Mar 14, 2008 @ 10:10 PMCrat,
Are you sure its not Barack Buster O’Bama :)
I’ll get my coat now.Posted by on Mar 14, 2008 @ 11:34 PMposted by Kathy C
many seem busy making fun of Hilary’s claims...but what other First Lady spend so much time on the north? What is Laura Bush’s record? And at the time of the Good Friday Agreement and since...where has Obama been? As a Senator...Hilary has kept her door open to those from the North...what has Obama done?
Posted by on Mar 15, 2008 @ 02:26 AM>> ...where has Obama been?...what has Obama done?
He was no where near the six counties, that’s for sure!
A couple of links on Barack’s past (and present): The first about his pastor who married him and baptised his two kids; the second about his mum:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3555561.ece
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/us/politics/14obama.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp;S
Posted by on Mar 15, 2008 @ 02:37 AMMerrie what’s the point? First he was a wooley liberal now his pastor is too hardcore for you.What did the Pastor say about the U.S. that upset you?
Kathy C.
As regards G.erry’s F.eckin A.greement, I didn’t know you were a fan.Unlike Hil. he has not claimed the peace process as one his particular miracles (they are all in the future :) It’s like saying I did more in 1980 than you did because your weren’t born till 1981. It’s not a fair comparison. And it wasn’t ‘cause she loved the auld sod either it was to buy the Micks, and feck didn’t we go cheap.
Posted by on Mar 15, 2008 @ 03:27 AMO’Bama got elected in Illinois, which means he’s got a way with Richie Daley Jr. Sure, the kid isn’t who/what is father was, but it still means that our Barack knows how to work Irish politics!
Posted by on Mar 15, 2008 @ 03:53 AMThe following is adapted from a less-than-well-known blogsite:
I’ve just done a quickie with the Primary returns to date.
I listed out the 22 States (obviously including Florida) which the Democrats won in 2000, and must win in 2008 to deliver a total of 287 votes in the Electoral College.
There’s not much point in summing the “popular” vote, because of the different ways delegates are selected between Primaries and Caucuses. However, if I sum up the “Electoral College” votes for Clinton and Obama in these (for the Democrats) key States, I find:
Clinton 161;
Obama 98Obviously, that does not include Oregon (20th May) or Pennsylvania (22 April), or take account a re-run in Florida (i.e. Brooklyn-by-the-other-Beach). For what it’s worth, the last poll I saw for Oregon had Clinton up by 8%, and for Pennsylvania Clinton up by 19%: which would take Clinton to 189 of the 270 to win.
The fat lady ain’t even into rehearsals yet. Meanwhile, I cannot see why the mass ranks of punditry (not excluding our own dear Mick, judging from the slope of his keyboard) have been doing a Gadarene-swinish rush towards O’Bama.
Posted by on Mar 15, 2008 @ 03:02 PMMalcom losing the primary to your opponent in the same party does not necessarily mean losing that state in an election (unless one player gets so nasty that she manages to piss off half her own party including the House leadership).
Posted by on Mar 15, 2008 @ 04:21 PMlatcheeco on Mar 15, 2008 @ 03:21 PM:
That was not my argument.
As for your last observation: unfortunately, the contest is increasingly being depicted in terms of which is more-readily affronted: the black minority or the the white-female majority.
Of course, if you take an exclusively-Obama line, you can use the race issue to deny the likes of Geraldine Ferraro First Amendment rights.
Posted by on Mar 15, 2008 @ 04:50 PMGeraldine Ferraro revealed herself to be a politician from another era… sometimes in politics you just can’t speak the truth. On a more current note, Bill Clinton, a man of remarkable talent, proved that potential doesn’t necessarily lead to delivery. Sure, he was light years better than the current (and previous) lot, but a level assessment of the candidate didn’t pan out in terms of his record as President.
So, for the current part of that.... Many people seem to be tilting toward Obama because he comes without all the baggage that Hillary has. He looks and leads forward without, for instance, a “he said she said” about what happened on an ancient trip to Northern Ireland. Americans seems to be still weary from the wrenching years of Republicans ripping any and every way they could at the Clintons, and from the slash and burn politics of the Cheyney Administration. Obama is untested, but that also means a new page for America. Hillary is a woman, yeah, but one with a lot of political mileage that the Republicans are eager to review and the democrats aren’t. Hillary has many good values, but that’s not the same thing as accomplishments. If her White House years count as accomplishments then Bill Clinton becomes co-President and the wheel revolves backward instead of forward. As an observer, I’d prefer some new rhetoric. Besides, Obama can’t help but be better than what they’ve got now, so I’m prepared to declare him a success already. Yours in opposition to the dynastic Presidency, Ben
Posted by on Mar 15, 2008 @ 05:19 PMMalcolm,
If the race is being depicted in those terms it wasn’t accidental and Obama does not benefit from it because Blacks are around one in ten of the electorate. Ferraro was using race to wind it up (in the party of civil rights).That is expected from repubs. and thats why Hilery booted herPosted by on Mar 15, 2008 @ 05:24 PMAlong with the link already quoted on another thread giving George Mitchell’s opinion (and knowledge) on HIllary’s role:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/10/eveningnews/main3923206.shtml
Bill Clinton also says that her role was not just a “cheerleader”:
Posted by on Mar 15, 2008 @ 05:49 PMEverything I’ve been doing with the figures confirms the substance of Greenflag on Mar 14, @ 12:20 PM above. In other words, in the “winnable” Democratic States, Clinton seems a better candidate than Obama. I was intrigued by Greenflag‘s approach, but the reason for my previous post @ 02:02 PM was because I was staggered when the differential showed.
What I find perturbing is that too many correspondents and contributors are taking at face value what is coming across from some US sites. For example, I have seen the DailyKos site mentioned here. What I have not seen is that some of its long-term writers have broken with Kos:
I’ve been posting at DailyKos for nearly 4 years now and started writing diaries in support of Hillary Clinton back in June of last year. Over the past few months I’ve noticed that things have become progressively more abusive toward my candidate and her supporters.
I’ve put up with the abuse and anger because I’ve always believed in what our on-line community has tried to accomplish in this world. No more. DailyKos is not the site it once was thanks to the abusive nature of certain members of our community.
I’ve decided to go on “strike” and will refrain from posting here as long as the administrators allow the more disruptive members of our community to trash Hillary Clinton and distort her record without any fear of consequence or retribution. I will not be posting at DailyKos effective immediately. I will not help drive up traffic or page-hits as long as my candidate – a good and fine DEMOCRAT - is attacked in such a horrid and sexist manner not only by other diarists, but by several of those posting to the front page.
Then, again, one can find the same view from Andy Ostroy:
They want to squash the opposition. They are narrow-minded and intolerant of differing viewpoints. They engage in censorship. They are sanctimonious and holier-than-thou in their political preachings. They frame issues that result in wild accusations of unpatriotism, racism and divisiveness. Their arrogance and sense of entitlement knows no bounds. Republicans, you say? No. We’re talking about Progressive Democrats supporting Sen. Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election.
Why do I not need to know which way the UK Press (especially the Murdoch brands) will go? That’s no reason for more enlightened souls to be taken in the same way.
Posted by on Mar 15, 2008 @ 07:35 PMMalcolm: I agree. There is a long break between voting at the moment and in that time maybe the US electorate will become more aware of Barack’s background. He is now more forthcoming on his association with Rezko (who is facing corruption charges) and apparently Rezko had much more involvement in Barack’s political campaign(s) than previously admitted.
With regard to his association with the Minister, here is a comment from the Wall St Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120545277093135111.html?mod=opinion_main_commentariesA more humourous comment about Barack’s current response to incisive questions is from Slate:
http://www.slate.com/id/2186324/The New York Times has a photo album showing family shots of Barack with his maternal grandparents and others, his wedding, and one with his father.
So with all this information coming out on Barack’s background - bit by bit and good and bad - by the time Pennsylvania votes the US will understand Barack more and be able to make a more informed judgement of his suitability as a president, whether he is really “messianic” or just another politician; whether he can bring about “change”; and if he can bring about “change” it is of the sort the US wants or needs. Maybe some of those hysterical, fainting supporters will have calmed down too!!
With regard to Hillary, I gave links on another thread of research which showed how pathological some Hillary haters were. Everyone is used to her being hated by many in the media. Someone noted the intense commitment of her supporters when she won Ohio. These supporters were mostly older women - women who are old enough to know what crap the media can serve up and wise enough to make their own judgement.
I don’t know how many independents and liberals make up the US population, but blacks are around 12% (there are more Hispanics) and women are around 50% of the population. Let’s say less than half of those support Hillary, but I am pretty sure that her percentage of women is more than the other two groups put together.
Posted by on Mar 15, 2008 @ 10:02 PMWould you vote for someone who belongs to this church for 20 years?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUbUBTlmAiA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Prhnc2fxAzg&feature=related
Is it only Whites who can be racist?
Posted by on Mar 15, 2008 @ 10:23 PMCrataegus
The people of NI can easily recognise Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr Think Rev Ian Kyle Paisley on his pulpit, cursing his political opponents.
Wright looks pretty white to me.... Maybe that’s the part of his ancestry which makes him so clearly racist :-§
Posted by on Mar 15, 2008 @ 10:42 PMMerrie
Indeed there are similarities hopefully some are now able to see more clearly how offensive and obnoxious our local variety has been to many fellow citizens.
On the Obama subject I really do not believe that anyone attending and donating to such a church for 20 years would not be aware of such rantings.
At the very least you have to question his judgement if not his integrity and it does tend to dent the Mr clean persona that he is astutely crafting.
If he wins the Democratic nomination I cannot envisage how he can win with this sort of background and possibly being called by Rezko. It is an utter mess. Apparently his popularity has dropped 8 points.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2008 @ 03:19 AMMerrie,
the guy grew up black in America and is old enough to to remember Jim Crow. I know his job suggests that he should just make up with his persecutors get on with it the way you did but maybe he doesn’t have your strength of character. As for trashing your first minister how disloyal?
Using Bill Clintons testimony to help you prove Hilery saved Ireland might not be the best tactic given his record on testimony. Maybe Bill wanted a cheerleader :).Your support of Hillery sounds just as passionate as those who support Obama and you live in Ireland. Every test he gets by the next test is the most crucial. Explain to me how if Hilery has managed to screw her own party and campaign up (the greatest test so far of her leadership abilities) she will be a great president when half the country is republican.Posted by on Mar 16, 2008 @ 05:08 AMMalcolm I’m still not convinced on the college argument but then again I always regarded math as the devil’s sentences :)
Posted by on Mar 16, 2008 @ 05:15 AM
