Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Obama chosen by acclaimation…
You have to hand it to the Americans (and particularly the Clintons). Their sense of political drama is sometimes faultless. Tonight Hillary Clinton followed up her cracking performance last night by proposing an acclamation of Barrack Obama as the Democratic candidate for the President of the US. It was enough even to get to the old Republican (Democrat-loathing) hacks at Fox News. It was a big play from Hillary, marrying her long term committment to health care and blue collar workers. Will it mean catharsis for the riven Democrats? Fox News thinks it so. Obama certainly needs a little Hillary in his tank, to get to the tough places that, so far, only Clinton has managed to penetrate.
Update: Mickey Kaus arch sceptic Dem tinks last night was good for his party. Wrth reading in tandem with this piece on Hillary’s speech the night before from Richard Adams: Hillary disarms her troops
Mick Fealty @ 10:58 PM
I would call Clinton’s approach “forensically aware” Her fingerprints won’t be on the knife in Obama’s back. But her endorsement was hardly ringing. It was tinkling
I wonder what mischief Bill will get up to tonight. It’s all about 2012 for Bill ‘n’ Hill.
If McCain he’s smart he’ll pick a women for VP.
Posted by on Aug 27, 2008 @ 11:29 PMCan’t say I agree Henry, but then perception is all and I can’t say I’m faultless in reading other polities. I’ve had McCain marked down as a conditional favourite up to now, mostly because Obama’s appeal is to creatives and digital natives, not the base.
Tonight, I might just be tipping the other way. But considering Obama is going the rest of the contest on his own, I’ll hold my fire another while yet.
Posted by on Aug 27, 2008 @ 11:38 PMI’d prefer Obama to win but more and more I think McCain will do it.
Bill didn’t exactly give him(Obama)a ringing endorsement yesterday.
Henry94, think you’re right about Bill & Hill having their eyes on 2012. Suits them fine if McCain elected.
Posted by on Aug 27, 2008 @ 11:51 PMMick
Either way it’s all interesting stuff. As for reading US politics I thought we would be looking at a Hillary Clinton V Rudy Giuliani election so I’m looking forward to further surprises.
Electing Obama would be great for America. But I’m not sure that having him as President would be so good.
Posted by on Aug 27, 2008 @ 11:55 PMSecond only to Ryanair the organisation most likely to get the chattering (wittering?) classes’ collective knickers in a twist is Fox News.
However because they dismiss Fox News as a vacuous propaganda machine of the Right they fail utterly to understand what is happening in US politics. I watch Fox News along with the other news channels, that is why I have been able to call this election correctly, I was the first here to point out that Iraq would be a non-issue, I did so as early as November last year.
Hillary’s speech was a classic example, after it finished CNN went straight to interview teary eyed delegates on the floor, asking the opinion of Democrat policy wonks and politicians. To a man and woman they all hailed the speech as a great unifying moment and therefore CNN analysts (and BBC analysts) immediately swallowed the party line, they did so because they wanted to do so and when it comes to Barack Obama they have lost all critical faculties.
Over on Fox on the other hand, they had somewhat less naive talking heads who know a thing or five about real politics; Brit Hume, Charles Krauthamer, Bill Krystol etc, now you might not agree with these men’s politics but they are at least honest and upfront and more to the point they can analyse a political scenario in two seconds flat. To a man they agreed that Hillary’s endorsement of Barack Obama was distinctly underwhelming. Underneath all the flimflam, she simply stated that the party needed to vote for Obama because he was the man on the party ticket, she offered no glowing recommendations about him and his character, then she went on to speak about the women’s movement and how it meant to her, finishing with a reference to a leading woman in the anti-slave campaign of the 19th century, the implication was clear (though not drawn out even on Fox); the women helped the blacks and now the ungrateful n*****s were getting uppity, she then finished her speech, to howls of adoration.
Hillary’s last chance was a floor vote, she fought for it reckoning she might just pull it off, when she saw she hadn’t got the numbers she “magnanimously” called for a vote by acclamation.
Don’t be fooled for an instant, Hillary wants Obama to fail, unlike the media echo-chamber Hillary and Bill understand American politics, they know that come 2012 they will be the only show in town.
But if all you listened to was the incestuous mainstream media, you wouldn’t know this, that’s why they’re scratching their heads in bewilderment at how Obama’s poll numbers are tanking. They remind one of the BBC people in the 1980’s who couldn’t understand why Mrs Thatcher kept winning elections, after all no one they knew voted for her.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2008 @ 12:50 AMDon’t quit your day job there Mick....
Obama’s unbounded ego, combined with his nearly non-existent achievements, may finally have led him over the cliff. That’s what Charles Krauthammer wonders: “Has He Lost His Mind?”
The Berlin folly—in English.
The Superbowl Halftime Show—without the game.
What’s the finish? Maybe Obama’s got Zhang Yimou to do the hidden-rope trick, and have him lifted, Beijing-style, to the heavens when he’s done. Will he reappear three days later at the Bird’s Nest?
Or maybe he’ll just do a Napoleon and coronate himself. By the time Napoleon made himself emperor, he had won the Battles of Lodi, of Arcole, of Rivoli, of the Pyramids and of Marengo. And had promugulated the Napoleonic Code. He had yet to write a single autobiography.
But of course, he was only Napoleon.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2008 @ 02:56 AMHF
reference to a leading woman in the anti-slave campaign of the 19th century, the implication was clear (though not drawn out even on Fox); the women helped the blacks and now the ungrateful n*****s were getting uppity, she then finished her speech, to howls of adoration.
I thought Hilary’s reference was to Harriet Tubman, who was black. If so, is the idea that Hilary somehow tried to imply “these ungrateful blacks are now getting uppity, despite that 150 years ago a celebrated black person helped other black people”?
That *does* seems a lot of cack, if so. But I didn’t get that from what I heard of it.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2008 @ 04:54 AMThe reference was to Harriet Tubman who was black. The Aussie who watches Fox News is clueless on US politics as is BfB. McCain is tied to Bush’s record and that is certain death. He is outclassed by Obama in every category. Obama is taking the high road, he could, for instance, mention that hero McCain spilled his guts to the Viet Cong, gigoloed Cindy while his wife was very ill. If you think Iraq will not be a major issue, you’re living in la-la land. The reason any really good Republicans did not run is that they knew after all the Bush screw-ups, it would be just about impossible to win this time. Barak Obama and Joe Biden will take it and it will not be close. Harry, you need to change the channel, the one you’re watching causes brain damage.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2008 @ 06:25 AMHillary emphasised Harriet Tubman’s gender and made no mention of her race whatsoever, the point was how great women were, if you couldn’t hear Hillary lining herself up for the vote by acclamation in 2012 you weren’t paying enough attention to Hillary’s speech.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2008 @ 06:27 AM“Barak Obama and Joe Biden will take it and it will not be close.”
Oh I do love a challenge, are you a betting man NY? Care to put a wager in who calls the result correctly, the retarded Aussie or the oh so clever New Yorker?
What do you say?
Posted by on Aug 28, 2008 @ 06:32 AMHarry,
It was the first reactions on Fox News I was going on, not CNN. But let’s not ‘future’ too much on this. Obama will have to ‘toughen’ his act, if he’s going to stand a chance of breaking out of the liberal cocoon.
They are all obviously trying to work hard on associating their ‘friend’ John McCain with Bush.
Bob,
No way. But I do intend to take a closer interest now the main game is in progress. And, speaking in my favour somewhat, I wasn’t that far off in 04, as I recall.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2008 @ 06:40 AMHF-
“Oh I do love a challenge, are you a betting man NY?”
Be very careful when making bets on Slugger. It can backfire ;)
I was in America for a couple of weeks over the summer and Obama was on everyone’s lips. I hardly heard mention of McCain. Talking to Democratic party workers in lil’ ole country towns, they expressed surprise that theretofore Republican-types were showing a strong interest and support for Obama. Barring any major incidents or the electorate getting cold feet over Obama’s novelty, a Democratic victory should be secured.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2008 @ 08:59 AMNone of these views are necessarily contradictory - Obama is doing better than any Democrat in living memory with guns’n’small government types in places like the Mountain West while struggling to solidify the lower-middle-class, white ethnic, base in places like the Northeast and Upper Midwest, people who think McCain actually looks like a Republican one could vote for rather than a religious fundamentalist freak.
I still think Obama will start cruising away once the debates start and the heavy advertising blitz starts; McCain has gone negative far too early. And while owning 10 houses doesn’t necessarily hurt, not knowing that you own 10 houses really does. If McCain wants to win, he needs to start thinking of really long plays, like selecting Lieberman as his VP.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2008 @ 09:41 AMAgree on the betting thing El Mat, but not sure it’s going to be such a shoo-in. The Clinton’s have either just worked a faint on Republicans, or Bill is now officially the mad old Uncle in the Democrat attic (with acknowledgements to Malachi O’Doherty for that great allusion).
I still think the Reps have the better machine and so far on head to heads, McCain is the more real of the two. If you don’t buy the Obama dream, he’s not that easy a sell. Some of this will come down to the Dem’s voter registration schemes and whether these new voters will actually turnup on the night. Feels suspiciously like giong after the bird in the bush since there aren’t enough birds in the hand.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2008 @ 09:46 AMAgree on the betting thing El Mat, but not sure it’s going to be such a shoo-in. The Clinton’s have either just worked a faint on Republicans, or Bill is now officially the mad old Uncle in the Democrat attic (with acknowledgements to Malachi O’Doherty for that great allusion).
I still think the Reps have the better machine and so far on head to heads, McCain is the more real of the two. If you don’t buy the Obama dream, he’s not that easy a sell. Some of this will come down to the Dem’s voter registration schemes and whether these new voters will actually turnup on the night. Feels suspiciously like giong after the bird in the bush since there aren’t enough birds in the hand.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2008 @ 09:46 AMBetter call Sammy than, I think, Harry’s on selecting a woman. That target has moved on. In the bag so to speak. Taking one or more of the mountain states, is of symbolic rather than strategic significance. But if he actually pulls it off, then the one in real trouble will be McCain. And the Republicans in general.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2008 @ 09:50 AMSomeone said an I think they are right that if were McCain’s heart making the choice it would be Lieberman but it will have to be his head.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2008 @ 10:04 AMWhat about Condaleeza Rice for VP? Too tokenistic?
Posted by on Aug 28, 2008 @ 10:24 AMHarry - I’ll bet you ten quid.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2008 @ 11:13 AMNew Yorkers get this way when their Yankeess are in the tank....<cackle>
Posted by on Aug 28, 2008 @ 11:21 AMObama’s thugs are trying to shutdown the ad being run on his close association with the terrorists Ayers. They can’t refute the truth, so they are trying to muzzle a free organization. These socialist bastards are out of touch and will get their due. Silent majority is perking up. Of course the clown show convention isn’t helping them.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2008 @ 11:28 AM“Obama’s thugs?” What are you smoking?
Barack Obama never had any type of “close association” with Ayers - it has been blown out of all proportion.
The man who has muzzled free speech in America isn’t Barack Obama, it is Bush and the closet autocrat Cheney who pissed all over American rights and freedoms and ran his side-show in contempt of the Constitution.
After years of Bush and co screwing up the economy and alienating allies and enemies alike, your average “socialist bastard” will seem like the messiah compared to the crooks and liars Americans have been forced to endure.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2008 @ 12:23 PMmac
“forced to endure” by voting for them......still, we all know that the Democrats think the “average” American is an ignorant red-neck and that’s why they elected GWB on two consecutive occassions.
Barack Obama = Jimmy Carter Mk. II
Posted by on Aug 28, 2008 @ 12:45 PMHarry, you are being too clever for your own good. Hilary’s speech could not be interpreted as anything other than an endorsement of Obama.
“Barak Obamaa is my candidate and he must be our president.”
Obama tonight will steal the show and set the scene.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2008 @ 01:14 PMLook I know I’m a cranky old conservative git but you have to admit that you’d need a heart of stone not to laugh at the Democrats. Faced with a wide open goal all they required was Hillary to step up and give the ball a slight tap into the back of the net, instead they pick the Obama wunderkind and he’s hefted the bloody ball right up into the east stand.
They’ve chosen a candidate who is somewhere between the Manchurian Candidate and Chauncey Gardiner (google it). A lad who was once a “community organiser” (anyone?) and who outside of a few years in the Illinois senate has never actually had a proper job, a fellow whose primary achievement has been to write two books. About himself. He’s an empty suit with a messiah complex.
His entire resume is wreathed in mystery, some very basic simple biographical details that Clinton or McCain or indeed anyone here could answer in a second seem to be obfuscated in ambivalence and ambiguity;
Where were you born? Have you any documentary evidence to prove it?
What is your full name? Have you ever used any other name?
Have you always been a US citizen? Where you ever a citizen of any other country?
How many brothers and sisters do you have? Do you know where they all live?
What religion are you? For how long have you practised this religion? Did you ever practise any other religion?
Have you ever associated politically with racists, communists or terrorists?
Obama has based his entire political career on his personality yet to ask even such basic questions about his personality will see you howled down as indulging in “smear tactics”. Why? If he can answer the above questions clearly and honestly why should he not do so?
Of course the beauty of Obama is that he is the gift that keeps on giving. Not having learned his lesson from Berlin he will be addressing the adoring masses from a Roman Imperial style dais tonight, complete with mock up of Air Force One on the field to add to his ludicrous display. He really doesn’t get it.
Just watch McCain’s poll lead move into double digits. Then it’s Hillary in 2012.
Dewi, you’re on, good man!
Posted by on Aug 28, 2008 @ 01:49 PM
