- Ms Kaye is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Mary Carlisle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Prem Gill is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nancy Flight is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Justin Everett is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- John Westover is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nora Etches is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Edward Henderson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Bharadwaj Chandramouli is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Dean Chatterson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Marius Scurtescu is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Robert Parkes is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- James Murton is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Susan Doyle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Vincent Strgar is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Helen Spiegelman is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Subir Guin is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Kimball Finigan is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joanne Manley is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- David Leach is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
Obama, Clinton and Hot Air
Who's more likely to confront global warming?
Mobilizer vs. polarizer?
If we ignore global warming much longer, we'll face a world of perpetual disaster, so there's no larger question for presidential candidates than who is more likely to tackle it successfully. Although Obama's and Clinton's positions are similar, he seems far more likely to. The key difference is their ability to mobilize a grassroots base to demand that the necessary changes get passed.
If you look only at the candidate platforms, both Obama's and Clinton's are excellent. John Edwards was the first to come up with a comprehensive plan, but Obama soon did too, followed by Clinton.
Both Obama and Clinton focus on renewable energy in their speeches and ads, pledging major incentives and R&D programs for renewables, increased portfolio standards for utilities, and cap-and-trade systems with decreasing limits where permits would be auctioned off, not just given away.
Both support green jobs programs to benefit communities.
Both talk of continuing to tighten efficiency standards for buildings, vehicles, and businesses. I wish both took firmer stands against nuclear power and liquid coal, but either would offer a strong alternative to our current inaction.
Their programs are also both considerably better than that the Republican sure-to-be nominee John McCain suggests.
While McCain talks a decent line, especially compared to his numerous climate change-denying Republican colleagues, he equivocates far more on the critical details, supports considerably more modest carbon reduction standards, and this past December abdicated the chance to cast the critical cloture vote and end a Republican filibuster that blocked the recent energy bill's most important provisions.
Obama the mobilizer
Both Obama and Clinton get the urgency of the issue as much as any mainline American politician who isn't named Al Gore.
But I think Obama is far more likely to pass anything close to the legislation we need, because of his ability to mobilize ordinary citizens.
Clinton emphasizes her insider knowledge, her familiarity with process. But in a period when Republicans first prevented Democratic bills from coming to the floor, and then filibustered them if they did, she's mostly been unable to coalesce participants across the admittedly entrenched political divides, unless you count crossing the aisle to support a flag-burning bill or backing the Iraq war.
Her track record's no worse than other Democratic senators, but it's a record certainly matched by Obama (see sidebar).
The critical difference between Obama and Clinton is their potential to encourage ordinary citizens to speak out on the changes that we need. And that will be essential.
If you strip away the racial connotations, that's actually the core of the debate over Clinton's claim that LBJ was more critical to the passage of the Civil Rights Act than Martin Luther King.
For all that I loathe Johnson's escalation of the Vietnam War, he did stake his entire political capital and massive skill to navigate the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts through Congress -- even though he knew it would lose the Democrats the South for a long time to come. But without the massive citizen movement that put civil rights onto the nation's conscience and at the top of its political agenda, he'd never have taken these stands.
When you read books like Taylor Branch's wonderful history of America in the King years, it's clear how much both LBJ and Kennedy viewed the civil rights movement as a politically loaded intrusion on their other agendas.
Kennedy did all he could to pressure King and other civil rights leaders not to hold the 1963 March on Washington. But as the pressure kept building, they finally answered the movement's call and lent their moral support to it, just as Franklin Roosevelt played a critical role by lending his support to America's resurgent union movement.
Obama the exhorter
We Americans will need a similarly powerful massive movement now -- and ideally a president willing to nurture it -- to overcome the massive dollars and entrenched political clout of companies like Exxon/Mobil, Peabody Coal, and General Motors.
In that context, there's no comparison between the candidates.
Obama evokes the power of citizen movements in every speech he gives. He explicitly challenges ordinary citizens to see themselves as part of a lineage of change, with their own political participation following in the footsteps of America's most fundamental movements for justice. Obama evokes those roots when he talks of slaves and abolitionists who "blazed a trail toward freedom through the darkest of nights," and of "workers who organized; women who reached for the ballot . . . and a King who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the Promised Land."
Obama explicitly calls for citizens to act beyond the confines of electing him to office. His campaign echoes this call by relying on volunteers to organize themselves, take their own initiative, and find common strength in connecting with each other. The campaign provides materials, talking points, and video images, and is extraordinarily organized in ensuring that every critical precinct gets walked and every key household gets called.
They learned the rules of the Texas caucus and Pennsylvania delegate systems, for instance, while the Clinton camp was reduced in the case of Texas to complaining and failed to file a full slate of Pennsylvania delegates.
Empowered grassroots
Yet Obama's campaign has also sacrificed a significant amount of control over precisely how their volunteers reach out once they're engaged. In my home state of Washington, operations were run for months by an entirely volunteer group that included several former Bush and Ross Perot supporters in key roles who'd been disillusioned by disasters like Iraq, and then inspired by Obama's words. Their Ohio volunteer phone script, for instance, offered a standard summary of issues to raise, but also explicitly encouraged volunteers to talk about their specific reasons for participating.
The campaign has also continually helped connect ordinary citizens with each other, consistent with Obama's years as a community organizer and then as a lawyer representing these same grassroots organizations. Because these new connections are created in a way that's likely to last past the election, they'll make these new participants part of an independent base for change that can both help Obama pass key legislation on issues like climate change, and press him to act more strongly when he compromises unduly.
No Edge in Getting Things Done
As a U.S. senator, Hillary Clinton successfully co-sponsored bi-partisan legislation to protect bonuses for wounded veterans and extend family medical leave for wounded soldiers, while introducing a still-in-process bill to improve mental health services for seniors.
In his four-year-briefer tenure as a U.S. senator, Barrack Obama secured major Republican support to pass a major transparency bill that publicly lists all organizations receiving Federal funds, how much they've received, and the purpose of their grant or contract.
He's passed another that provides resources to seek out and destroy surplus and unguarded stocks of conventional arms -- like land mines and shoulder fired missiles -- in Asia, Europe, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East.
And together with Minnesota Democrat Senator Russ Feingold, he played a key role in developing and passing a law that eliminated gifts of travel on corporate jets from lobbyists to members of Congress and required disclosure of bundled campaign contributions.
Even if you ignore his major achievements in the Illinois legislature -- like bringing police chiefs and civil liberties advocates together to craft and support a bill providing clear monitoring of police interrogations, and passing a bill extending health care to 150,000 state residents -- I'd say evidence of insider ability is a wash when comparing Obama to Clinton.
-- P.L.
Clinton polarizes
Clinton's campaign, by contrast, has been top-down and controlled from the start, giving local campaigners far less latitude. Initially, she was praised for keeping everyone on message and on a short leash. As her seemingly inevitable lead began to shrink, she's switched to attacking Obama's rhetoric and experience, dismissing his waves of new supporters, and in one recent ad, evoking Cheney-style fear tactics about who will be in the White House when the phone rings at 3 a.m.
As an entrenched symbol of loathing to the political right (in a recent Mike Huckabee speech, his lines attacking Hillary got more applause than anything else he said), and whom down-ticket Democrats are terrified of seeing head the ticket in conservative states, she's unlikely to build the overwhelming majority we need to help shift our economy's entire energy base.
I'd love to see America's climate change politics approach Europe's, where conservatives like East Germany's Angela Merkel have taken the lead on many efforts and even Nicolas Sarkozy just posed proudly with Al Gore after passing a major French climate initiative.
When I met the environmental minister from the conservative party that runs Denmark, she described taking visiting Republican senators together with climate scientists to see the melting Greenland ice caps. "You're a conservative. I'm a conservative," she said. "I don't understand why the U.S. isn't participating and leading on this issue."
But it hasn't. There wasn't even a handful of Senate votes mustered for the Kyoto Treaty. American oil and coal companies like Exxon/Mobil and Peabody have spearheaded the international funding of climate change deniers.
Americans' level of popular denial remains greater than for citizens of countries like France, Great Britain, and even Brazil and China, with the latter also passing more stringent automobile fuel standards.
Building on local progress
I see my fellow Americans making major local progress: More than 700 cities have signed the U.S. Mayors' Climate Projection Agreement. But we will only achieve the necessary national change if we get enough citizens involved to radically shift our culture and politics.
This will take independent efforts like the 1Sky Coalition, the nation-wide StepItUp rallies that preceded it, and the campus organizing that produced the 6,000-student PowerShift conference last November.
Whoever wins, we'll need to mobilize more, not less, to see the changes we need. But on an issue this overwhelming and potentially terrifying, we'll need leaders who can help inspire people to take the leap of faith of acting whether or not they know their actions will succeed. Because as Jim Wallis of the religious social justice magazine Sojourners has said, "Hope is believing in spite of the evidence, and then watching the evidence change."
If I look at both Obama's record and his campaign, I see someone who understands the critical role of citizen movements and works to build them as a force capable of creating major change. That's what we've needed to address the major challenges of the past. It's what we'll need to address this ultimate crisis we've created through the combination of technological inventiveness and short-focus blindness.
The Clintons may have spoken out against the Vietnam War when they were young, but they've been hedging their bets and distancing themselves from citizen movements ever since. We need a movement-building approach for global climate change -- and for all the other crises America's next president will inherit from Bush's disastrous reign.
Related Tyee stories:
- The Impossible Will Take a While
Learning from Desmond Tutu and other joyful, courageous makers of a better world. - Sorry Obama, Blame Canada
Did we sandbag a US candidate? A novel idea! - Why I'm for Clinton
As US stumbles in risky world, she's our best hope.
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
- BC snuffs out AirCare test program
- AFN national chief Shawn Atleo to launch re-election bid
- Citizens group releases video to fight undead Bill C-30
- Conservative MP says he might vote against budget, then 'clarifies' his position
- Genetically modified plants won't take root with councillors in Richmond, BC
- Hundreds at Vancouver rally to support Quebec students
- Could Fort Mac become an eco-tourist hotspot?
- Rick Hansen's Man in Motion anniversary tour concludes in Vancouver
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Who Mowed Down the Premier?
- Canada's Economy, Deconstructed (by a 12 year-old)
- Death in Remand: a Tyee Inquiry
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
- Bill C-38: the Environmental Destruction Act
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Death In Remand: 'A Gut Feeling'
- Bias in BC's Pesticide Decision? Follow the Bouncing Verbs
- The Ethics of Addiction Studies
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
- The Ethics of Addiction Studies
- Bill C-38: the Environmental Destruction Act
- Alberta Fills Pipes with Corrosive Denial
- Bias in BC's Pesticide Decision? Follow the Bouncing Verbs
- How Our Immune Systems Exaggerate Fear
- BC biotech company seeks approval for GM apple
- What's Behind BC's Doors?
- Double lung recipient dances on Ellen show
- ISS astronauts grab DragonX space capsule by the tail with Canada Arm
- Metro Vancouver gas prices peak at record levels
- Ottawa posts $9-billion deficit in March despite pledge to avoid spending spree
- BC phases out AirCare to focus on fighting bigger vehicle emissions
- Tsunami senors to be dropped into deep sea off of Vancouver Island
- Student groups file court challenge against Quebec protest law
- ...while on the streets, pirates and ninjas put aside mutual animosity to join student protests
33
Login or register to post comments
uvicrepresent
4 years ago
its true
"the urgency of now" as Obama often says (quoting MLK) is why Obama is the only appropriate choice in November. As Paul has articulated so well, Obama can mobilize, engage and inspire people in a way Hillary will never be able to do. He has already demonstrated this. Even here in Victoria, a group of "Canadians for Obama" has emerged. A testament I think to his unique ability to actually foster widespread change through engaging people at the grassroots level.
I was hoping this piece would appear here! good to see! Keep up the goodwork paul.
Skywalker
4 years ago
Oh really.
"The urgency of now" is just rhetoric; part of the message box. It may be urgent for a candidate but I have heard nothing specific because Obama knows that the U.S. economic engine relies of the status quo. He can't risk his chance at the white house so he is just using words that sound good.
The same screaming fans follow every new celebrity with a spin conductor.
ME2
4 years ago
Overheard
Let's see now....we got Grants for R&D, Green Jobs Programs, Obama as a reincarnation of Martin Luther King, probably lots of money for "Action" groups, and EXXON MOBIL et al as the clearly identifiable enemy. Sitting ducks, I'd say.
Yup, looks like we got a mooovement here, alright. So what else do we need? Oh yeah, PR. How about just using the same old? It usually works....Hmmmm, lets see now....Yeah, I see this column by a guy name of Loeb - try this..
"But on an issue this overwhelming and potentially terrifying"...and..."the truth is clear: people cause global warming and people must fix it immediately…"
Yeah, that's a real good start, I like the "terrifying" bit, and the "immediately" hits em hard. Good themes. Needs a bit of fleshing up of course, but that's never a problem......
Booker
4 years ago
Action
I don't know whether Obama has the chutzpah to move on this issue, but I think he's probably the most likely of the three remaining presidential candidates to do so. It is the most important issue of our time and when the Fall presidential campaign begins we can expect global warming to be one of the top three topics. There will be some serious organizing by environmental groups to make sure this problem is addressed by the nominees of each party in the lead up to the November election. McCain would be hopeless, and Clinton probably ineffective. That leaves Americans with Obama.
Fiat lux
4 years ago
With bank deregulation,
With bank deregulation, politicians and governments, on the advice of their economists, gave unlimited licence to big business for global control, through the use of imaginary capital as weapons of colonization, collectivization and enslavement.
This is what globalization is really about. Now big business controls all governments and if they don't follow orders, they just pull the carpet and the plug.
We can talk about democracy, politicians and elections till we're blue in the face, but very few people know that the real PM of Canada, for over 20 years, has been a little guy by the name of Tom d'Aquino, who gives the orders on what his gang wants to have passed.
And now we have the "proto Parliament" of the North American Competitiveness Council,including Tommy's gang of CEOs,
giving orders to all 3 NAFTA governments, so it won't make much difference who gets elected in either country.
But then, this has been the long planned purpose of the FTA, NAFTA, EU, SPP, NAU, et al, from the beginning.
Will people ever wake up and realize how the world is being enslaved and destroyed with this idiotic propaganda of "prosperity and wealth creation"?
Wealth can not be created, only taken and costs can not be cut, only transferred.
Global warming is one of the transferred costs of "wealth creation", and theft, into the pockets a special interest power elite.
There can't be wealth creation without transferred costs, so the crime wave against humanity and the Earth will carry on, regardless who, or which Party gets elected.
Now tell this to the economics professors in our universities and watch them go into convulsions of horror.
Ed Deak. Big Lake.
alda
4 years ago
who's more likely?
Answer: None of the above
While Obama's speeches make prettier window dressing than the others, nothing truly important will change because he's as strangled by the corporate apron strings as the rest of them. (Fixing the problems with Cap and trade? R and D? These are weak ideas, and those who propose them as be-all solutions are weak thinkers.)
What North America needs isn't further research and thus new, troublesome technologies, but to enact strong legislation to encourage, subsidize and/or mandate the following -- WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW:
=serious regulated, consistent monitoring, severe management and accounting penalties, and debilitating shutdowns against industrial waste and emissions
=railways & trolleys
=wind farms, solar and geo-thermal energy
=compressed air cars & electric bikes
=bike lanes
=plastic bag & pesticide bans
=passive solar building codes
=organic food
=etc.
Everything else is just empty rhetoric, that I, for one, am sick to death of. Talk talk talk talk talk.... ad nauseum talk.
nominalis
4 years ago
Obama and Clinton barely
Obama and Clinton barely mention "green" politics but I guess some people tune-out anything that's not idealistic planet-saving rhetoric.
This article seems like it was written by one of those children in "the new green classroom", taught that single issue politics effectively describes the real world.
American politicians don't pander to the "green" vote like the bleating "euro-hippy" style mouthpieces we have in Canada. Most likely it's because they want to distance themselves as far as possible from Ralph Nader, the so-called "green" candidate who's little more than an election spoiler who seems bent on handing the keys to the Whitehouse to whatever whack-job the Republicans run.
Frank
4 years ago
Huh?
Yes, because its Nader's fault that people will happily vote for him instead of being forced to vote for the two parties they don't like. Every red-blooded American knows that if you don't like being forced to vote for someone you don't like you're not a real American and you should go back to Canada.
That's what we need in Canada too, less in the way of electoral options. Having more than two parties with almost identical platforms just makes voters selfish and leads to bad electoral outcomes.
nominalis
4 years ago
There's a big difference
There's a big difference between offering another choice and spoiling an election. Mr Nader had his say, made his point, and when it became obvious how few cared about his message he should have thrown his support to one of the frontrunners like any serious politician would. Nader's a toy candidate for a toy party.
G West
4 years ago
how so nominalis?
Seems to me the idea of a democracy is that you vote for the candidate and party that most nearly agrees with your own philosophy and approach.
I'd like all the folks who condemn Nader to explain why one of the best men in America isn't in and hasn't been able to get any traction with the Democratic Party.
I think that fact says more about democracy in America than anything.
Nader has principles - no place for someone with principles in American traditional politics.
Sad but true. The people playing with toys are the guys and gals who dismiss Nader without looking at what he's actually saying.
I'm more interested in serious people than 'serious' politicians - in fact; I have had my fill of politicians...period.
Frank
4 years ago
nominalis
So being as the NDP and Greens have no chance of being elected they should just throw their support to the Libs and disappear?
How will change ever occur if no one ever challenges the two main parties?
It won't. And that is why people don't like Nader, because they like the Democrats and Republicans tailoring their policies to those voters that might vote either way.
Anything that threatens their flank, be it a Nader or a Perot or whatever has to go.
Forcing people to vote for one of two parties that look pretty much the same is not democracy.
uvicrepresent
4 years ago
this site is need of some
this site is need of some younger readers, or rather an injection of optimism perhaps? Some readers who aren't mindlessly cynical, late 50 somethings, now sitting at home all day playing on their new laptops because the buy-out they took from their ex-employer has given them too much free time. sorry haha. you know i love you.
It is certainly easy to be cynical in todays world and when the state of world political/business climate is so disheartening. But come on. Read some of Barack's books and you'll discover someone who is not simply a "politician" in that negative sense so many of you seem subscribe to. For change to happen hes got to win. And to win he got to walk the right line. You know to much enviro talk will have him unjustly framed as a danger to the economy or some crazy "liberal" kos reading nutjob. And if he does win, and if the dems continue to have control of the house he'll do great things. He understands how far far behind we already are.
G West
4 years ago
uvicrepresent
That's pretty funny.
The most cynical people I know are 20 somethings; they've been told all their adult lives no job is secure, they won't ever have a pension and voting is a waste of time.
I think it's the same in the States and I agree Obama seems to have gotten some of them out of their lethargy for a while - but the stupid US system of checks and balances will turn him into little more than a sweet talker within a couple of years.
You should read your history - it has happened before. The liberal gains from the New Deal weren't solidified until the 60s and by the mid-70s the right wing was mobilizing the grass roots too take them back in the slow marginalization of the last 25 - 30 years when all the benefits of an efficient economy have been showered on the top 5% of taxpayers.
Who can blame the cynics - they have the past on their side.
If you think for a moment that Obama is going to have an easy time of it with a supreme court picked by fiscal and constitutional conservatives you really DO need to do a lot more reading.
You might start with Neil Macdonald's report on the NAFTA kerfuffle and what it did to Obama in Ohio - you can find it on the CBC website - I won't insult you by posting a link.
In Canada it's the oldsters who believe in hope and change - not the youngsters.
James Burns
4 years ago
Well there is some hope at
Well there is some hope at least with Obama of there being the beginning of change. A lot will depend on the composition of the US congress, and even then there will be all kinds of pork in whatever initiatives are brought forward.
I'm skeptical, however, of real wholesale change on Obama's part. Not perhaps because of a lack of desire on his part, but more due simply to the inertia of the system he'll be a part of. On the other hand, the US is likely in for some severe economic shocks, and as Naomi Klein is ready to point out, it is during that kind of crisis that people are more open to accepting real change. Given the likelihood of economic calamity, I think it's even more important that Obama, over the other candidates remaining, get into office. Then at least there is the possibility he will try to steer the US in a progressive direction, instead of the hopelessly belligerent direction both Clinton and McCain have demonstrated they would take things.
Frank
4 years ago
uvicrepresent
Young and optimistic people are too busy working the drive-thru so they can afford to buy the latest X-box game to come here. :-)
And if you read Chretien's book you'd have trouble thinking our ex-PM had anything to do with writing it. That's the problem with books by politicos, they just don't mean much.
Booker
4 years ago
art of the possible
I agree. In a first-past-the-post contest of two you can't scare the middle away. I'm not interested in an ideologically pure candidate who isn't going to ever do anything. Obama is practicing the art of the possible. The crazies can't be allowed to win again -- we don't have that luxury.
uvicrepresent
4 years ago
GWest
Thanks G west. The irony in this response is that I cant really write one because of too much reading believe it or not. And, also kinda funny, I did see that Neil MacDonald Report on NAFTA mailed to me via Paul Rogat Loeb's (the guy who wrote the article above) email server! haha. Interestingly enough, I must go right 12 pages on the subject of NAFTA and labour and agriculture. But first I'm going to go hit up MacDonalds and grab the new Guitar Hero 3! soo good!
ttyl
lynn
4 years ago
Of monsters and such
I think this article is just a bunch of generalizations with no research of voting records, actual candidate behavior when it comes to policy, etc.
I'm tired of the Clintons, I find Hilary uninteresting and I truly don't understand why any woman would want to represent the monster that the American military-industrial complex is. For the record, I don't think Hilary is a monster ( I can imagine the outrage if anyone dared to call Obama that) but I do think Hilary can be ruthless. Her close friends have all remained loyal to her and she and Bill seem to have raised quite a natural and endearing daughter. Those things don't happen by chance. So I don't think she is the anti-christ she is often made out to be.
Strangely, Obama and his wife seem much like the Clintons when it comes to a marriage intertwined with heavy political and presidential ambitions. As I've said before, I find Obama and Hilary are political twins when it comes to policy. He's just more charming in the presentation of it. As to the article's focus on mobilizing the forces....Why not just hire motivational speaker/guru Tony Robbins and forget the political circus if that is all real change is about?
As for Nader, he is only running because the Democrats are not the democratic party of change they pretend to be. Used to be called having the courage of your convictions. And good on Mr Nader for having more than most.
By Matt Gonzalez, Nader's running mate:
http://quartz.he.net/~beyondch/news/index.php?itemid=5413
Frank
4 years ago
lynn
Great link, interesting read
G West
4 years ago
I agree
Thanks Lynn
James Burns
4 years ago
Not so coded Clinton Campaign Racism 1
Well, with Geraldine Ferraro's remarks on race, and Obama's "advantage" because he's black, the Clinton campaign's tactics of race baiting are becoming crystal clear. Here is a good article from the Huffington Post on the issue:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/geraldine-ferraros-ugly-_b_91075.html
And here is an excellent comment from a reader of the NYT (in fact a far better summation than the rather poor reporting of the Times)
Here is what Ms. Ferraro’s comment appear to argue: (1) that Sen. Obama has few or no outstanding qualifications to be President; (2) that Sen. Obama’s black supporters vote for him only because he is black; (3) that Sen. Obama’s non-black supporters are only motivated by trying to show that they are not racists; (4) that Sen. Obama’s supporters of all colors dislike Sen. Clinton solely because she is a woman; (5) that white men and all women are being discriminated against by black men and their accomplices in the media; and, that (6) all women are being discriminated against by black men, guilty white people who want to assuage their misplaced guilt, and their accomplices in the media. All of this appears to me to appeal to target groups of potential Clinton voters: (a) persons who feel that blacks get unfair advantages in American society and (b) persons who feel that discrimination against women is a more destructive force in our society than racism. The main (a) target group is white workers who are disappointed by their jobs and income and are prejudiced against blacks ; while, the (b) target group is women who view men and paternalism as the source of their disappointments and frustration and feel entitled to some recompense. The message gains additional traction with members of group (b) who are prejudiced against black men.
(continued)
James Burns
4 years ago
Not so coded Clinton Campaign Racism 2
(continued)
— Posted by Owen Scott, III
Booker
4 years ago
Obama's Advantage
Ah that paragons of privilege, the African American Male. I'm sure black men across the country are thanking their lucky stars for all the advantages they have in the U.S.
Ferraro should crawl back under her rock, and Clinton should completely ban further similar comments from anyone who works for her.
This extended cat fight is playing right into the Republican's hands.
Frank
4 years ago
Edwards
Edwards should have stayed in the race. He wouldn't have to advertise or even do much in the way of campaigning. After all, the Dems award seats on a percentage basis and Edwards probably would have picked up enough to prevent both the front-runners from winning it outright.
Once it gets to the convention floor Edwards just might have been able to pull it off as a compromise.
The fact that he's the only one I like is unimportant :-)
G West
4 years ago
Thanks for that James
A very astute and, sadly, accurate comment.
I've tended to do little more than cast a cursive glance over most of the Times' comment boards - I may have to reconsider.
Hillary's comment about Ferraro's musings was, I thought, pretty interesting too.
Like her tepid acknowledgement that 'as far as she knows' no one has shown Barack to be a Muslim, her 'condemnation' of the former vice presidential candidate's remarks lacked a certain - shall we say, sincerity.
I would think that by now the Clintons have more or less alienated the Black voting population in the United States for the foreseeable future.
As you say Booker, the Republicans must be holding their breath - Clinton as the candidate would be an answer to their most fervent prayer.
James Burns
4 years ago
She lost the black vote
Oh if Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee she will not get the black vote come November. That's gone now. Gone for good. They will stay home. Blacks in the US are intimately familiar with race baiting and coded racism. They live it every day of their lives in the US. That the Clintons would take this tack with the first black person to have a real shot at becoming president, and who has done his best not to make race an issue in his campaign is truly and profoundly despicable. Yeah the Clintons haven't just burned that bridge, they've nuked it.
There is also now no possibility of Obama becoming VP on a Clinton ticket. Not after this. It would look shameful.
The irony is, without the black vote, Clinton can't win. A Republican certainly can, but not a Democrat. Democrats need that constituency even though it's only 13% of the total vote. To be honest, I have a hard time wrapping my head around the truly colossal stupidity and selfishness of the Clintons. With this turn of events, the best thing the Democratic party could do is to have the superdelegates come out in favor for Obama in a desire to unite the party.
What a mess.
Booker
4 years ago
Delegates
All this bloodletting, and Clinton really can't win the nomination. Her delegate deficit is too great, including superdelegates.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/12/12839/7964/922/475044
I agree with Frank that it would have been great if Edwards had stayed in the race. His money dried up, and it's all about fundraising in U.S. politics.
lynn
4 years ago
Edwards
Once it gets to the convention floor Edwards just might have been able to pull it off as a compromise.
The fact that he's the only one I like is unimportant :-)
My sentiments exactly, Frank. I wish he hadn't withdrawn but his wife is not well so he may have other considerations to take into account.
Booker
4 years ago
Ferraro "resigns"
from Kos:
And it's clear as day, given their refusal to ask for Ferraro's resignation, that the Clinton campaign is as complicit and pleased with Ferraro's words as they are with her media strategy.
There is clearly a backlash building against Clinton's tactics, and her campaign is going nowhere.
PacificGatePost
4 years ago
VAST FEELING OF DISCONNECT
Clinton is fighting an impossible fight. The wave carrying Obama to the White House is deep and wide. Even Obama may not fully comprehend it.
http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/02/obama-social-phenomenon.html
.... and neither will McCain. The feeling of disconnect is too pronounced.
Frank
4 years ago
Hillary loses a super-delegate?
$80,000 on "girls of the evening"? Holy crap!
One can only imagine the number of carbon credits he could have bought with that money instead which would have given him a fuzzy warm feeling inside :-)
At least Hillary's beau didn't have to take out a second mortgage...
I wonder why his wife stayed beside him? What did he say, "Honey, I made a mistake, over and over and over..."
Frank
4 years ago
Osama, the other anti-Christ
While on the subject of US politics, remember those "captured Iraqi documents" that would prove Osama and Hussein were spending weekends together shacked up and planning the destruction of everything we love?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080310/wl_mcclatchy/2875005
As Gilda Radner put it, "never mind".
Orion Carrier
4 years ago
Where's the backup for this argument??
I usually enjoy Raif Mair's posts, but while the American history lesson presented an interesting slant on American isolationism, I didn't notice any support for Mair's argument, to speak of, that Hilary would be better than Obama. In fact, I noticed little said about Hilary or Barak whatsoever, other than some unsupported 2's and 3's bandied about.
As far as I'm concerned, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. Or changing nothing austensibly "because we should be realistic" and expecting a different result. Welcome to Clintonism.
Every politician makes mistakes, even sons and wives of former presidents. Barak will make them too. Will his mistakes mean he was the wrong choice, but Hilary's mistakes not?