Billary? Nyet

One can never predict of course, what events will loom in the future, nor guess what portion of the old Administration's advisors either candidate will keep.

However, as a "machine" politician, I would guess that with Billary there is less chance for changing directions than with Obama, and that includes the American proclivity to settle things with troops - which Mair carefully avoids mentioning.

The Clintons

As with the poster above, it has always surprised me how hatred and and anger there is in the USA towards the Cintons. What is the reason for this? The Bill Clinton presidency was very successful, with rising incomes, lowering debt and steady growth. They were even talking about paying off the national debt in the 2000 election. Instead, a Good Ole Boy was elected and the proof is in the pudding, wars, economic decline, debt, subprime and a massive currency devaluation.

So why hate the Clintons so much? Well, I have a couple of theories. Insiders they are not. Bill's roots are about a low as they get. Bill has a lot of that useless edumacation thang, which ain't much use when yer workin' skinnin' varmints. An Hillary don't know that a woman's place is on the bar waitin' to get picked up by a varmint skinnin' REAL MAN.

And ME2, "Billary" avoided doing anything with troops other than actual peace keeping and only when he absolutely had to.

Does one believe that the

Does one believe that the situation in the US will get any better who ever becomes the next President? I believe that John McCain and Billary are just as scarey as George W. Whoever becomes the next pres will only last one term and then get kicked out because he/she will be blamed for the huge economic mess that is going to dog their country for the next decade. All the candidates only talk about the economic mess peripherally. As George W's father learnt; "It's the economy stupid".

A Difference

Well, yeah. Do you think the George W. Bush presidency was the same as the Bill Clinton presidency? I grant you that if McCain wins, not much will change. But an Obama or Hillary Clinton presidency will be very different from that of Dubya's. The "they're all the same" argument is simply wrong.

Yes, there is a difference

Not being a young man, I have heard "do you think another person could have done better?" and I have especially heard it from my American friends.

The proof is in the pudding; America has experienced its largest decline in history since Bush Jr was elected. It's currency is worth half what it was. It's relative place in the world economy has halved. The national debt is now $9 trillion vs $5.5 trillion in 2000. The US government has gone from a surplus of $400 billion to a deficit of at least $500 billion, depending on how you count it.

The USA has gotten into an a war it cannot win based on cooked intelligence and no matter how many prognostications of "we are winning" are made, it is obvious the USA is not. 3255 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and at least another 30,000 seriously wounded. There are now more mercenaries in Iraq than soldiers and nobody knows what they are doing and how many have been killed.

I could go on and on but th Bush presidency has been a travesty. Clinton did better.

Ms Clinton

I fail to see how Mr Mair can claim Ms Clinton is experienced. Did I miss a previous Ms Clinton presidency? Didn't think so.

She voted for Iraq because she believed Bush. Nuff said.

Did I miss something

I thought it was Bill Clinton who was president from 1992 to 2000.

Was I wrong?

Furthermore, there's absolutely nothing in Rafe's little column to suggest he's done anything more than throw a few words at the screen.

Why, exactly, should folks want Hillary to confront McCain in November?

I think a case can be made - a very weak one mind you - but Rafe sure hasn't made it yet.

Maybe next week.

Oh C'mon Mopled

Say what you like about Clinton - he's no George Bush...it takes generations to stock a closet like theirs. Clinton is a one-generation wonder.

And, as for Obama, he's a very different animal - I hope he gets a chance to try and do things a little differently - he has a very different perspective and a much more nuanced view of the US in the world.

Whether he can overcome the inertia of the US system is a fair question - but to suggest that Hillary Clinton brings any personal experience to the job which qualifies her uniquely is nonsense - even if Rafe made that argument - which he doesn't.

Nightbloom could do a better job of promoting Hillary as a non-feminist feminist.

Have a look at Andrew Sullivan's chop job if you like - at least it gives us something to talk about:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article3510778.ece

1. Isolationism 2. Hillary

1. I don't agree with Rafe's premise that the USA has suddenly become a lot more interventionist/militaristic under W.

I hope he is browsing these replies and has a look at "War Is A Racket."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

2. Hillary or Obama? They do have differences in their styles and backgrounds. There is the argument against the resumption of the Clinton psychodrama vs. the notion that Hill has had experience (second hand, but still close-up) with being in the Executive and trying to steer the ship of state, and that having a woman US prez is a historical opportunity.

I think the argument of merit is kind of irrelevant. The real question is, who can win for the Democrats? Pick the most electable person. The obvious choice is Obama, a galvinizing speaker who hasn't got Billary's scandals and whose opponents have to tread carefully on race/culture assaults. Obama has superstar qualities and has committed his public posture into being a peacemaker.

Hillary's fans have some good arguments, but her victory would go a long way to doing the unthinkable: keeping the War Party in power.

You must be joking.

Rafe, you've got to be joking. Americans would be "coming to their senses" by voting for Hilary?

Glib and forceful on stage as she is, on an intellectual scale, Hilary is clearly, as you admit, a "3". That you consider a presidential candidate with a robot-like, status-quo mentality as putting America into a "safe pair of hands", is appalling. "Safe hands" are exactly where America has been for the last 30 or so years, and look where's it's pushed them - to the brink of social, economic, and miltary disaster.

That Hilary Clinton, with her self-professed "35 years" of political experience couldn't see through the WMD lie, is merely one example or either her thick-as-plank political acumen-- or far more likely, her moral compass. Her voting record, according to many fine left wing critics in the States (you might consider reading some of them - Chalmers Johnston comes to mind), entrenches her kind of thinking and voting firmly in the right, big business, neo-con camp.

A "safe" American president, for me, would be someone the mirror opposite of what they've had in the past decades--not more of the same. "Safe" would be someone with pure common sense, moral integrity, a desire to see political, social, and environmental actions in the name of the public good and for peace -- not a warmongering, pandering to big business sycophant like Hilary.

(And, by the way, although Jimmy Carter made political mistakes, too, he's not "weird," he's a thoughtful and intelligent man. "Weird" is Bush, and Bush Sr., and, yes, the two Clintons, and yes, Reagan. That you compare Carter to Reagan, thus proving that you don't know the difference between "weird" and "intellectually independent of group-think" is expected from someone who used to be a politican and media commentator, himself. (And that's not a compliment.)

Off the top, Rafe that

Off the top, Rafe that column isn't up to your usual standard. You don't provide any reasons for preferring Clinton.

You also promulgate a number of pat American myths. The US has never been isolationist. Ever. They like to think of themselves that way, because it lets them believe their idealized image of the good ol' boy who only rouses himself for a scrap when someone does some form of evil against them. But as the history of Latin America, the Philippines, Japan and even Canada has shown, Americans will start wars and kill civilians in order to help their business interests. They've invaded countries throughout their history. Isolationism is really an argument for avoiding getting tangled up in European wars that would be a waste of American treasure.

Is your memory really that short? The Clinton presidency was a series of failures. Universal health care: failed. Preventing the Rwanda genocide: failed. Helping the former Soviet Union transition to democracy: failed. Instead they enabled the rise of the oligarchs and the plundering of Soviet resources, massive poverty, and the rise of a new strongman in Putin in response. Clinton bombed Iraq a number of times, once to draw attention away from the Monica Lewinsky scandal when it first broke. Clinton also took the lead in using NATO to bomb Serbia. He did absolutely nothing beyond assassination attempts through bombing to deal with radical Islamic terrorists. He did next to nothing to push a solution for Palestine, kowtowing to Israel at every turn. He continued a policy of disengagement from Iran. Under Clinton the internet stock bubble grew to enormous proportions, and burst just a few months after he left office. The vast majority of economic benefit went to the richest during the Clinton years. Real incomes for a huge proportion of the US public, particularly those with low incomes, actually declined during the Clinton years. NAFTA came about under Clinton, and it eviscerated their manufacturing base. I could go on. The Clinton years only look good, because he was followed by the worst president in US history. My dog would look good as the US president when compared to GWB.

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly demonstrated a remarkable ignorance of foreign affairs. She refers to fairly elected leaders like Hugo Chavez, and Evo Morales as dictators. She is extremely belligerent on Iran. She showed remarkable ignorance about the situation in Pakistan. But worst of all she voted in favor of going to war with Iraq.

What really shocks me though is the incredible naivety of the so-called experienced set. People who should know better because they lived it who selectively edit history. Why are so many people conveniently forgetting what happened with the Bill Clinton administration?

Hillary Clinton, Not So Good on Genocide

http://www.alternet.org/story/79019/

"The dazzlingly brilliant journalist, Pulitzer-prize winning author, and Harvard professor, Samantha Power, has been forced to resign from the campaign after she recklessly told a reporter that Hillary Clinton is a "monster."

In the pungently hypocritical game of American politics, this is just something outside the rules. Whether it's true, or not, matters little. Nor does it matter that the object of Power's derision has just finished spending millions on TV ads implying that Obama would be responsible for the countless deaths of millions of American children sleeping at 3 a.m. Tut, tut. Nothing monstrous about that.

Power was rightfully awarded the Pulitzer for her finely written and downright horrifying book A Problem From Hell which, in macabre detail, describes the calculated indifference of the Clinton administration when 800,000 Rwandans were being systematically butchered. The red phone rang and rang and rang again. I don't know where Hillary was then. But her husband and his entire experienced foreign policy team -- from the brass in the Pentagon to the congenitally feckless Secretary of State Warren Christopher -- just let it ring.

And as more than one researcher has amply documented the case, the bloody paralysis of the Clinton administration in the face of the Rwandan genocide owed not at all to a lack of information, but rather to a lack of will. A reviewer of Power's book for The New York Times, perhaps summed it up best, saying that the picture of Clinton that emerges from this reading is that of an "amoral narcissist."

Traces of Jimmy Carter

The United States is in constitutional crisis, and while it may look like a democratic process the money belies the truth beneath the celebration of the popular.

Methods of voting and the real problem of access has not been addressed, an executive branch that has thumbed its nose at the people and congress. Military ventures costing lives and livelihoods in the United States which are not supported by the "people". Negation and outright censorship of protest, silencing of opposition through litigation, must I go on.

Clearly a change from the present administration is most necessary, the problem here is the change for changes sake syndrome; furthermore it has a feel good component, Barack Obama proves what most say about the United States to be false, but in the end, its not about 2s and 3s but about class. Carter was the solution to Nixon, but the rest of the congress was not chosen that way. No matter your belief in "change" the inertia of the enabled elite does not. Class provides access to all the elements of power and self-determination that does not exist for the majority of the population.

Note that in no discussions have the issues of Cascadia been in play. We on this Northwest coast of North America need to demand attention from the Eastern establishment of class and privilege, be that Ottawa or Washington DC.

Best hope for America is still Dennis Kucinich.

And, the Clintons are not good for America or anywhere else in the world for that matter. Their connections with Wal-Mart and Monsanto are enough for me to dismiss them.

http://www.celsias.com/2008/02/19/an-open-letter-to-hillary-clinton-from-a-wellesley-college-alumna/

There is also the matter of the finger pointing at Canada after the events of 11 September 2001.

poor choice for president

How can any thinking citizen of the United States endorse Clinton for president? That 'she stayed by her man' shows a complete lack of judgement--if she is so lacking on that basic issue how can she be trusted to run a country. She should be confined to some southern backwater where such practices have been the norm for the last 200 years--but certainly not the White House.

Bring in the clowns

America, with all its addictions to war, power and money ....and oil is badly in need of rehab.

But instead of the US doing the real hard work of real change, (staring deep into the dark abyss of what they have become, admitting the corporate terrorism inflicted by their own military-industrial complex on much of the world....and changing that lethal behavior) they've opted instead for candidates like McCain, Hilary and Obama. Candidates that will provide an image of the kind of America they want, rather than the real substance and courage of action that deep change calls for.

Candidates that will look more progressive, while at the same time can be counted on to stand firmly, all three, in strong defense of the continued terror and imperialism of the military industrial complex. And stand firm they will in defense of the status quo - even firmer in the delusion of America the Good....bringing democracy to the rest of the world.

It's a superficial make-over job that will fool for awhile. None of the most lethal rampant addictions will be addressed but the vanity of a more progressive America will lift hearts and minds inside the US for awhile. Perhaps even outside.

It will look better for awhile.... a Black president, a woman president, a war hero....a public relations dream team.....with a largely co-dependent public hoping the easy way out will suffice. "Change" that won't jar too much. Everyone can keep on shopping. And war will always happen waaay over there where it won't disturb things much in la-la land. And the biggest unreality/reality show on earth can forge on.

Yaaaaaay, ding, dong, the witch is dead... GW is finally gone.... and we're Amerika the Good again. Easy. Peasy. Nothing to it.

Speaking about the deadly illusion of "quick fixes" by not honestly facing the power of our own addictions, George Carlin once said:

Sheesh, Raif. I had to read

Sheesh, Raif. I had to read this twice to make sure you weren't joking. Wonders never do cease.

Do you really believe the fantasyworld marketing slogan that the president is "the most powerful man on earth"? People like David Rockefeller or Evelyn de Rothschild have more power in their little pinky, the one that makes the presidential puppet dance. Obama's top "adviser" is Zbigniew Brezinski. Which of the two do you think will call the shots?

You say that the US has been involved in foreign wars "against its will". Glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read that one. It is simply depressing to think that someone of your experience could display such wilful blindness to the geopolitical realities on our planet. Or are we talking about different US's here?

"For the first time the United States of America was in an overseas adventure that could be sold as defending America against evil."

For the first time? How can you say that? Name me one act of US murdering aggression that wasn't sold in this way.

"Perhaps the most vexing and dangerous of issues involves the continuing and massive return of Russia to global sabre rattling."

Nonsense. The US spends more on the military than all other countries combined and as Chomsky notes, there's a reason for that. The most dangerous and vexing issue facing humanity is the incessant murder, torture, rape, and massacre perpetrated by the US. And the genocide will continue no matter who gets installed to lead the fantasy dwellers, especially when articles like this do nothing to enlighten.

US interventions in Latin America up to WW2

Rafe believes Latin America forced the USA to invade it more times than Germany or France ever crossed each other's border.

1846
The U.S., fulfilling the doctrine of Manifest Destiny, goes to war with Mexico and ends up with a third of Mexico's territory.

1850, 1853, 1854, 1857
U.S. interventions in Nicaragua.

1855
Tennessee adventurer William Walker and his mercenaries take over Nicaragua, institute forced labor, and legalize slavery.

"Los yankis... have burst their way like a fertilizing torrent through the barriers of barbarism." --N.Y. Daily News

He's ousted two years later by a Central American coalition largely inspired by Cornelius Vanderbilt, whose trade Walker was infringing.

"The enemies of American civilization-- for such are the enemies of slavery-- seem to be more on the alert than its friends." --William Walker

1856
First of five U.S. interventions in Panama to protect the Atlantic-Pacific railroad from Panamanian nationalists.

1898
U.S. declares war on Spain, blaming it for destruction of the Maine. (In 1976, a U.S. Navy commission will conclude that the explosion was probably an accident.) The war enables the U.S. to occupy Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines.

and... so on....

1903
The Platt Amendment inserted into the Cuban constitution grants the U.S. the right to intervene when it sees fit.

1903
When negotiations with Colombia break down, the U.S. sends ten warships to back a rebellion in Panama in order to acquire the land for the Panama Canal. The Frenchman Philippe Bunau-Varilla negotiates the Canal Treaty and writes Panama's constitution.

1904
U.S. sends customs agents to take over finances of the Dominican Republic to assure payment of its external debt.

1905
U.S. Marines help Mexican dictator Porfirio Díaz crush a strike in Sonora.

1905
U.S. troops land in Honduras for the first of 5 times in next 20 years.

1906
Marines occupy Cuba for two years in order to prevent a civil war.

1907
Marines intervene in Honduras to settle a war with Nicaragua.

1908
U.S. troops intervene in Panama for first of 4 times in next decade.

1909
Liberal President José Santos Zelaya of Nicaragua proposes that American mining and banana companies pay taxes; he has also appropriated church lands and legalized divorce, done business with European firms, and executed two Americans for participating in a rebellion. Forced to resign through U.S. pressure. The new president, Adolfo Díaz, is the former treasurer of an American mining company.

1910
U.S. Marines occupy Nicaragua to help support the Díaz regime.

1911
The Liberal regime of Miguel Dávila in Honduras has irked the State Department by being too friendly with Zelaya and by getting into debt with Britain. He is overthrown by former president Manuel Bonilla, aided by American banana tycoon Sam Zemurray and American mercenary Lee Christmas, who becomes commander-in-chief of the Honduran army.

1912
U.S. Marines intervene in Cuba to put down a rebellion of sugar workers.

1912
Nicaragua occupied again by the U.S., to shore up the inept Díaz government. An election is called to resolve the crisis: there are 4000 eligible voters, and one candidate, Díaz. The U.S. maintains troops and advisors in the country until 1925.

and well again

1914
U.S. bombs and then occupies Vera Cruz, in a conflict arising out of a dispute with Mexico's new government. President Victoriano Huerta resigns.

1915
U.S. Marines occupy Haiti to restore order, and establish a protectorate which lasts till 1934. The president of Haiti is barred from the U.S. Officers' Club in Port-au-Prince, because he is black.

"Think of it-- niggers speaking French!" --secretary of State William Jennings Bryan, briefed on the Haitian situation

1916
Marines occupy the Dominican Republic, staying till 1924.

1916
Pancho Villa, in the sole act of Latin American aggression against the U.S, raids the city of Columbus, New Mexico, killing 17 Americans.

"Am sure Villa's attacks are made in Germany." --James Gerard, U.S. ambassador to Berlin

1917
U.S. troops enter Mexico to pursue Pancho Villa. They can't catch him.

1917
Marines intervene again in Cuba, to guarantee sugar exports during WWI.

1918
U.S. Marines occupy Panamanian province of Chiriqui for two years to maintain public order.

1921
President Coolidge strongly suggests the overthrow of Guatemalan President Carlos Herrera, in the interests of United Fruit. The Guatemalans comply.

1925
U.S. Army troops occupy Panama City to break a rent strike and keep order.

1926
Marines, out of Nicaragua for less than a year, occupy the country again, to settle a volatile political situation. Secretary of State Kellogg describes a "Nicaraguan-Mexican-Soviet" conspiracy to inspire a "Mexican-Bolshevist hegemony" within striking distance of the Canal.

"That intervention is not now, never was, and never will be a set policy of the United States is one of the most important facts President-elect Hoover has made clear." --NYT, 1928

and....

1929
U.S. establishes a military academy in Nicaragua to train a National Guard as the country's army. Similar forces are trained in Haiti and the Dominican Republic.

"There is no room for any outside influence other than ours in this region. We could not tolerate such a thing without incurring grave risks... Until now Central America has always understood that governments which we recognize and support stay in power, while those which we do not recognize and support fall. Nicaragua has become a test case. It is difficult to see how we can afford to be defeated." --Undersecretary of State Robert Olds

1930
Rafael Leonidas Trujillo emerges from the U.S.-trained National Guard to become dictator of the Dominican Republic.

1932
The U.S. rushes warships to El Salvador in response to a communist-led uprising. President Martínez, however, prefers to put down the rebellion with his own forces, killing over 8000 people (the rebels had killed about 100).

1933
President Roosevelt announces the Good Neighbor policy.

1933
Marines finally leave Nicaragua, unable to suppress the guerrilla warfare of General Augusto César Sandino. Anastasio Somoza García becomes the first Nicaraguan commander of the National Guard.

"The Nicaraguans are better fighters than the Haitians, being of Indian blood, and as warriors similar to the aborigines who resisted the advance of civilization in this country." --NYT correspondent Harold Denny

1933
Roosevelt sends warships to Cuba to intimidate Gerardo Machado y Morales, who is massacring the people to put down nationwide strikes and riots. Machado resigns. The first provisional government lasts only 17 days; the second Roosevelt finds too left-wing and refuses to recognize. A pro-Machado counter-coup is put down by Fulgencio Batista, who with Roosevelt's blessing becomes Cuba's new strongman.

1934
Sandino assassinated by agents of Somoza, with U.S. approval. Somoza assumes the presidency of Nicaragua two years later. To block his ascent, Secretary of State Cordell Hull explains, would be to intervene in the internal affairs of Nicaragua.

1936
U.S. relinquishes rights to unilateral intervention in Panama.

1941
Ricardo Adolfo de la Guardia deposes Panamanian president Arias in a military coup-- first clearing it with the U.S. Ambassador.

It was "a great relief to us, because Arias had been very troublesome and very pro-Nazi." --Secretary of War Henry Stimson

okay...

I'm calling it at WW2 for the sake of brevity (badda-boom)

So obviously Rafe's got a point, the US was very isolationist. Just wanted to heed the words of their first president and be left alone.

Lucky Hillary!

Hopefully this endorsement will help hillary after the flurry of superdelegates pledging their support towards Obama.
This article does not seem to argue why you endorse Hillary over Obama? Not really an endorsement at all as much as is a discussion of why this an important election?

OBAMA ALL THE WAY! no question

Yeah but why, Rafe?

I can't figure out why you think Clinton is better than Obama. All we get is Clinton may be a 3 and Obama only a 2. Why? Experience?

I think you just like her because, like most comentators, she's getting old (60, Obama is 46). Not that there's anything wrong with that - but age alone does not guarantee a good presidency.

Presidents over 60 when they took office included a few good ones, in my book - Jackson, Truman, maybe John Adams. But also some duds: Ford, Eisenhower, Taylor, GHW Bush, Buchanan, Harrison, Reagan.

Poly Sc 200

I agree with most of the sentiments expressed by Cynic. I cannot believe that Rafe would deprecate our political system, with all its faults, in favour of what we see down south. Money talks in the US of A, and it is money that has controlled the presidency since before and after the time of Eizenhower. I think, Rafe, that you were just trying to stir up a little controversy to see if you still had our attention.
Cheers

Hillary Clinton

Rafe, you're taking a real beating here. And undeservedly so. Apparently most posters don't take the time to figure out what you're talking about.

Somehow they've got the idea that you would elevate Hillary to the status of Goddess of the Universe. If they listened beyond their own prejudices, they would hear you saying that she's the best of a bad lot, not that she's the saviour of this world.

For all that she has done incorrectly, apparently even to the forgiveness of her husband's philandering, she is deemed to be incorrigibly 'wrong wrong wrong.'

And racism is not just discrimination directed against someone who is 'black' like Obama, but includes discriminating against someone because she is not. Otherwise the polls would not say that four of five blacks are in favour of Obama.

I thought well of Obama until he commented on TV that as President he would confer with other leaders, including the "President" of Canada. Since then, his appeal to me has lessened.

McCain would be mainly concerned, like Dubya, with "not losing" another war, ignoring the very real domestic problems of a military-industrial complex gone berserk. Besides which, his choice of a Vice-President is of much more import than for either Democrat.

Finally, polls which ask not who would make the best President, but which candidate would most easily beat the others, show McCain topping Obama, but Clinton topping McCain.

Rafe is vindicated therefore in hoping Hillary gets the nod, which will thereby benefit Canadians the most.

Well Rafe, I agree with you.

I also agree with sayblade. If Americans had wanted change they would be backing Kucinich. Obama cannot win on slogans alone, but thats all he has. If he gets the democratic nod, then the party will have shot itself in the foot for the 3rd time in a row.
Obama the "liberal" solidly backed by John Kerry and the Kennedy clan. Give us a break. Hilary has a chance to win the presidency. Obama will go down like Johm Kerry. And these are desperate times. The US economy is going in the tank. Mr.O has been bought and paid for too, but he is far more desperate and far less self sufficient than the others. Hilary the 3 would be better than McCain the 2, but Obama's a 1. If he wins the nomination, he'll lose the presidency.

"Change" again

This is a very informative thread, esp James Burn's excellent breakdown of Bill Clinton's questionable actions as President, and Frank's exhaustive recounting of Yankee aggression in the Americas in pursuit of the Monroe Doctrine, as expanded to legitimise its economic imperialism in the Americas.

As the most propagandised people in the world, however, few Americans would believe that there was anything the tiniest bit wrong with the "interventions" Frank listed - even if they knew about them.

And I think such is the case with Billary, too. She's been fully indoctrinated with flag-saluting from infancy to successful politician. Raised with a silver spoon in her mouth, and having profited considerably in her business dealings, you can bet she isn't about to "change" much, other than a few tweakings.

Ask ANY American. He'll assure you there are only two systems in this world - Communism and American-style Democracy, and the first doesn't work :-)

On the other hand, Obama has had the opportunity to look at the US from the outside, and just perhaps might not be as wedded to conventional US orthodoxy as is Clinton.

He'd be a fool to show any heavy leanings in that direction right now while he's looking for votes, But if it is real "change" that is needed, it's my guess he's the best bet.

Hillery

Hillary lost me when she declared in the US media after 9/11 " the terrorists came from Canada, everyone knows that" ???. She really dropped to the bottom when she jumped into bed with Bush and supported him and his war in Iraq. I could go on but it would take to long and bore to many people. This lady couldn't run a lemonade stand let alone the US.
Ralph Nader was absolutely right when he said both the Democrats and Republicans are like a two headed snake. Both are rotten to the core and Hillary is up to her armpits in cahoots with the power brokers at the top.
Obama is certainly seen as someone who appears to have rekindled hope in many Americans that he can pull the US out of the toilet it is in financially and diplomatically and let them once again be proud to be American. Hillary is just one of the same old tired crowd of shysters that have had their way for far to long.

Having never cared much for

Having never cared much for Hillary Clinton after she voted to support Bush and company in their criminal war in Iraq,in the face of abundant evidence that it was a sham, I dislike her even more and here is why.

She has revealed in this campaign a willingness risk sacrificing the Democratic party to further her personal ambition.

I was around in 1968 (I am from the US) and saw what the Democratic Party did to itself with a brokered convention.

Hillary Clinton has attacked in an unprincipled fashion the competence of Barack Obama. He on the other hand has displayed restraint and concern for the future of the party.

Her lack of any apparent sense of concern about the larger issues and her focus on herself as being the only answer to the problems the US faces, reveals a frightening lack of scruples.

If she achieves this Pyrrhic victory the Democratic party will deserve the same fate for allowing it. Then perhaps their will be a window of opportunity for a third party in US politics.

No substance, either with Clinton or her supporters

Well... so? There's nothing in Mr. Mair's editorial to provide good reasons why Clinton is better suited to this job than Obama.

We can hardly forget the stream of denunciations from Ireland this last month at the crass nerve that Mrs. Clinton had to take even the slightest credit for the peace settlement in Northern Ireland. Similar anger is welling up for all the work Mrs. Clinton hasn't done that she is no claiming for herself.

One by one, her claims to experience are being proven false. If you want a true test of experience for a senator, the United States is quite fastidious in their record keeping.

If you want to see what I mean go online and search for all of the bills that Hillary Clinton has authored or co-authored since her election to the US senate. Then, go search for all the bills that Barack Obama has authored or co-authored in his mere two years. What you see should be reason enough to write a detraction.

Please Mr. Mair, see the evidence of "experience" before making such bold statements.