The short answer is YES. The most recent USA today national poll with Clinton polling over 50 percent also singles her out decisively as the candidate that most embodies the democratic party principles, says enough to me that this is no longer a nomination race, but a coronation.
Iowa means little in this race due to the early super Tuesday on February 5. California and Florida will go early this year and will have the real weight in determining the nominee. The races are so close together that there will be no time to incorporate any momentum to carry into the next state. Perhaps the most embarassing thing is that I don't believe Barack will go to the convention with even the same number of delegates as Jesse Jackson had in 1988. If a candidate like Barack cannot exceed that standard, it speaks volumes as to the aad state of the Democratic party and of America as a nation. It tells me I'm not a Democrat because Hillary Clinton does not embody my principles. In fact, it is difficult to know whether the Senator embodies any principles at all. Yes, folks are cynical about politics in this country, and as the 2008 election will prove, they have good reason to be.
I thought I’d write this piece to expand a bit in hopes to give some additional points of view to those of you who are participating in online discussions on other forums. One of the things you rapidly discover is that even those amongst us who fancy ourselves as being critical thinkers are in reality part of the “left behind faction”. Nowhere have I found that to be truer than in framing the premise of the Iraq War resolution debate (should have been about imminence of attack and he capability to deliver WMDs) and the more recent question posed in the YOUTUBE debates about willingness to meet with enemy leaders of foreign nations. As the saying would go, Barack already has all of the thinking people supporting him; unfortunately he’ll need a majority to win..:-)
I think the Obama campaign has done an excellent job in turning this question back on Hillary. Framing the debate with Barack as the agent of change versus that of Hillary’s stay the course DC “old school” foreign policy is precisely the right thing to do. Bush-Lite…I like it as a criticism of her policy, although Wolfson spins it as a personal attack. I think that’s lame. Her pompus stale policies are certainly fair game in this discussion and I expect Obama to deconstruct them vociferously. Clinton’s initial attack was intended to dismiss Barack on the grounds of inexperience, a meme that has been replayed ubiquitously by many of the detractors of Barack.
If Barack made one strategic mistake IMNSHO, it was that he did not nail her in an earlier debate when asked whether he felt her vote on the Iraq war was a disqualifier for her candidacy for president. He let it go, in effect “no, no comment”. He should have served notice on her by cutting her off at the knees right then and there and talked about JUDGEMENT over experience.
I have been waiting for Barack to unload on the Hildabeast for some time now, and when he shot back at her about her failure to ask questions before they went to war, I jumped up out of my chair and broke my monitor screen by shoving my knuckles through the screen to offer Barack my hand in a highly animated gesture of approval.
The entire incident with the Pentagon was staged by the Clinton campaign. She made a big deal in public about requesting a withdrawal plan when protocol demanded she request that discreetly…a fact completely either glossed over or missed entirely by the press and online forum discussions. I’d have told the Hildabeast to go Cheney herself as well. Clearly this was her attempt to grandstand in the middle of conducting a Presidential campaign. Edelman the undersecretary Pentagon exploded on her (with the approval of Gates) and having achieved the desired caustic response the campaign leaked the response to the press. This sets her up for her act of righteous indignation about the terse response she received. She now does battle with the big bad wolves at the Pentagon. Now she gets to look tough and of course that fool Kerry, the one who she and Bill conveniently feigned support for in 2004 while stabbing him in the back so that Hillary is setup up for 2008, jumps to her aid to write some useless senate bill to require Pentagon briefings. Stuff it Kerry. You’re entitled to the information you requested, you’re just not entitled to broadcast the request on the six o’clock news. I’m certain the pentagon also has contingency plans to invade Canada. However, I don’t think they’d much appreciate being asked for them in the media, regardless to congressional entitlement as an oversight body.
The YOUTUBE question is prefaced by remarks about Anwar Sadat’s bold move to go to Israel (Circa 1977 btw and not 1982) to initiate peace negotiations with Israel, a move he made of his own initiative against popular support in the Arab world and without preconditions, a move that ultimately cost him his life via assassination in 1981, but a move that has lead to a peace between Israel and Egypt to this day. Given that introduction it should be obvious that the question first and foremost is about whether one is prepared to be BOLD enough to initiate discussion.
The without pre-condition means that there should be no requirement to reform your government, renounce nukes, etc…. whatever is the major source of conflict between the subject nation and our government at present. For instance, Castro should not have to promise free elections or the return of nationalized land and factories to their Batista era owners as many in the Cuban old guard elite community demand.
Barack’s answer was BRILLIANT and he answered exactly on point. This is confirmed by the author of the debate question as well as focus group and poll response. His answer showed his willingness to be bold, to take the risk in the interest of advancing the dialogue and perhaps securing the peace and with that security the lives and good will of the world community. That was the shot heard around the world.
The Hillary tripe about compromising he prestige of the Presidency is ridiculous. …Hell..when Chavez and Ahmadinejad can come to the UN and talk about Bush in highly insulting derogatory fashion, getting applause from a large majority of the UN delegates present and absolutely no rebuke from any of our Allies with regards to their remarks…I’d say the prestige of the US presidency has nowhere to go but up.
Any suggestion that there would be an open invitation to the White House is preposterous. Such meeting would take place on neutral territory perhaps at a regional summit as a side show where there are many other world leaders in attendance, and they have an informal private sit down. Of course there would be advance work done. As someone else put it, we don’t need to have it explained that one should put a shoe on before it is tied. It would not be for the purpose of negotiation, it would be for the purpose of face to face communication. There would be no set agenda other than nothing would be off the table for the purposes of the meeting.
Contrast this with the Hildabeast who would require concessions to placate Israeli, Cuban-American or other stateside factions, and one can clearly see that all she is peddling is a failed Bush and establishment foreign policy. Imagine if Eisenhower had agreed to talk to Ho Chi Minh, if Bill Clinton who quite frankly gets poor marks from me for his lack of vision of foreign policy, had talked to Katami ( a moderate Iranian leader), if Clinton hadn’t been compromised due to his sexual indiscretion by the Republican congress by backing the Iraqi Liberation Act ( injecting regime change into US foreign policy---a concoction of the neocons suggested to him in a letter by Rumsfeld) or if Bush had talked to Iran when he had the leverage and their offer to talk on the table as we were poised to invade Iraq, how many lives could have been saved and major conflicts avoided. Instead we got the nutcase Ahmadinejad elected to replace Katami in response to our nutcase Bush. Imagine the number of lives that could have been saved by BOLD world leaders, not worried about their image or prestige but more concerned about advancing world peace.
Friends,
As much as I would like to say otherwise and see this man elected President, he simply has no realistic chance to win the democratic nomination.
Barack cannot defeat a Clinton…a Bill Clinton that is. That and the female dynamic within the Democratic Party are the precise reasons Hillary will win. The Republican Party is too weak and the Democratic Party too self interested to respond to Barack's candidacy. It is certainly not that Hillary is well suited for the Presidency. To the contrary, she is precisely what this country does not need at this point. From the moment she takes office the democratic agenda will be dead on arrival..simply because Hillary is so divisive. There is nothing in her background that proves she has the experience or temperament to be the President at this point in history. No demonstrated ability to lead on the issues. People should not confuse her experience with battling scandal and personal controversy with the experience needed to be an effective President. That kind of experience diminishes the Presidency, not enhances it. No ability to marshal thru healthcare as evidenced by her incompetent handling of the healthcare initiative during the early Clinton Presidency. Her term in office will be extremely divisive and will be a catastrophe not only for America, but for the Democratic Party. Have a look at what Bill’s presidency did for the party. Ask Al Gore about those Clinton coattails. Have a look at the power shift in Congress and the growth of the GOP leading to the election of George Bush and the ushering in of the NeoCons and the constant state of acrimony during those glorious golden 90's. Have a look at the triangulation and political calculus of Hillary Clinton as tutored by the infamous Dick Morris and played to a tee by Bill Clinton. I shudder to think what would have happened had Hillary used that same faulty calculus to guide her actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We see what happenned when she applied it to the Iraq war. That faulty calculus would have lead this country to nuclear war with the Soviets had it been applied in the Cuban Crisis. The question was never whether Iraq had WMD. The question should have been whether Iraq could deliver and/or transfer them to a terrorist group and whether or not they pose an imminent threat to the US. Clearly the answer to those questions was a resounding NO. Iraq had never shown any desire to deliver WMD or to attack the US. On the other hand, Iran had plenty of history of WMD possession, use and a stated desire to attack the US through terrorism and had already attacked a number of US interests and killed hundreds of Americans.
All is not lost. I can see goodness out of this disappointment. The state of affairs is such that the next President will preside over the cleanup of the mess left over by George Bush. I don’t want Barack’s legacy to be affected by some of the unpopular decisions that will need to be made to clean that up. On the other hand, an equivocating Hillary will not be the best to handle this kind of situation either. I also see the Middle East getting out of control as a result of our withdrawal from Iraq. So Hillary will be tested real well. And she will quickly shoulder the blame of the Middle East mess. I predict that Congress will be under republican control by 2010 and she will not deliver universal healthcare or any other major democratic initiative.
Barack should leave the Senate in 2010 and run for Governor of Illinois at his first opportunity. Under no circumstances should he accept a VP bid or campaign for Hillary Clinton. As for me, I will be leaving the Democratic Party the day they declare Hillary the nominee. The presidency is out of Barack's reach at least until 2016. Even if Hillary is one term, she would poison the public appetite for Democratic leadership until at least that time.
That's the way I see it. I'm just not seeing Obama 08 and quite frankly I'm trying to minimize my emotional loss by getting more objective now that I see the handwriting on the wall. Barack is not outclassed but he is certainly out matched against the former President and their campaign infrastructure. The Dems can put lipstick and a Pig and send it to the Whitehouse..more power to them. They just won't get my help.
Bottom line, can Barack erase Hillary and if so, how? Nice guy politics ain't gonna get it done. National polls show Hillary with a double digit lead. Granted anything is possible up until election time, but the fact is that Hillary has remained strong throughout these initial months of the campaign. Barack has to rise above Hillary by casting doubts on her ability as a potential presidential candidate. He needs to take command with Hillary on the stage. He is not going to be a VP to that empty dress. Barack is not polling well in the Black community and quite frankly the young demographic is not terribly reliable in terms of a turnout. I hope they prove us wrong. Somebody needs to find the majic formula to tell the rest of the black population in the US that it is perfectly okay to vote for a black person for President. At one time blacks may have found it necessary to fight for the confederacy. I think its safe to say that in this election they can disabuse themselves of that notion.
I personally see little way that Obama overtakes Hillary in the primary. Obama/Gore alliance in the primaries could be very powerful. Denver could be electric under those circumstances. Al Gore has a chance of making a good run. If so, he is the only candidate for which Obama should consider taking the VP slot. He either wins, accepts Gore's VP or runs for Govenor of Illinois in 2010.
I'd be interested in hearing some FRANK discussion of Obama's chances and possible strategy going forward. God knows I want this man to win, but I get the impression that most are too stupid to realize the opportunity.
NOrm
