Well after blowing Hillary out 55 to 27 in South Carolina. Do you think this means he has a real shot on super Tuesday?
In my mind if he had just beat her with a small margin it wouldn't have meant much since he was expected to win but the fact that it was a rout will probably shake things up a bit.
I think he has a shot now but I have doubts about whether he can win or not.
I don't think the SC Democratic demographic is reflective of the rest of the nation, so the results are skewed, a little. But, he's definitely got a shot to win the Dem nomination. He'll have a much harder time in the general.
He's also gotten a sweep of new endorsements, from the SF Chronicle and Chicago Tribune, to Ted & Caroline Kennedy. And Bill's become a PR liability for Hillary's campaign lately.
It's entirely possible that Super Tuesday doesn't resolve the winner of the Dem primary. Maybe not the Republican one either.
yup--and after Super Tuesday a lot can happen. . I must say though that as a Democrat who was disappointed at what I had to choose from in the way of candidates both in 2000 and 2004--it seems like heaven to have two qualified people like Hillary and Barrack duking it out for front-runner status:)
I'm with you 100% robie2. I really like both and kind of still hope they run together. I voted for Gore and Kerry but never really warmed up to either of them.
I was out of the country in 2000 and didn't vote as I didn't like either Gore or Bush-- my vote in 2004 for Kerry was of the "anybody is better than Bush" variety. This year is soooooo different. I'll be voting in the Democratic primary tomorrow and still don't know if I'll vote for Hillary or Barrack. In fact I posted a hub about my dilemma which you can go read if you want-- I'm not quite sure how to post a link to it here or would do it.
Wouldn't it be great if Hill and Barrack would run together?? But it will never happen. Too bad.
It may happen if Hillary wins the nomination... and it would be a pretty balanced ticket too. Not that I in anyway like either of them but it would be a balanced democratic ticket.
I actually think they could pull it off, despite a sometimes rancorous campaign, by saying that, yes, they argued intensely about certain issues. But after 7 years of yes-men politics and groupthink-fuelled disaster, it's good to have a ticket where there is intense thinking and discussion about issues that really matter.
Like CP said, it would be a balanced ticket in a lot of ways. Older/younger, more traditional Democrat (Hillary)/"new" Democrat (Obama), etc.
And they're both from Illinois so maybe they'd appeal to Midwesterners, too.
It seems he is gaining in the polls and getting momentum... it should be fun to watch.
As a Democrat, I've been very disappointed with both Clinton and Obama. Call it "politics" if you like, but neither one of them would pledge to get the troops out of Iraq by 2013 at a recent debate (despite statements that they want the troops out earlier!) Neither of them would consider the "dream team" idea because they are young enough to look ahead four or eight years, even 12 years, to run for the top job again. I voted for Obama today, partly to send a message to Hillary that she should lay off the "politics" and speak "truth to power." How can anyone vote for any candidate who believes that Dubya isn't the worst thing that has happened to this country since Millard Fillmore?
2013 seems a resonable - even a prolonged - year to get out to me. That's 6 more years. Whew!
although not an american the rest of the world likes to take an interest in who will be running the worlds largest super power next and i've got to be honest with you i hope it is not obama.
He stands for so much: he talks that he stands for a change in history etc but what can he really do to 'look after' america? surely that is a more important question?
I know i sound like someone repeating what every other political onlooker is saying but i'm afraid it is true.
Who would you like to see win, Stubbs? I'm really nterested in a non-USA take on the election.
I am not American either.
They all look as bad as each other to me. But then, I think all politicians should be taken outside and slowly strangled to death with a wet, smelly dish cloth.
I have never known a single one that wasn't self serving.
Even these guys - why won't they commit to getting out of Iraq? 3 letters - O I L
No - I don't think it will make the slightest difference - they will all bow down to the corporations/oil companies/banks.
We have the same issue in the UK - 2 parties to choose from. The leaders are invariably self serving, already wealthy, well educated people who will go on to VERY well paying jobs afterwards and it's really hard to tell between the 2 parties. Democracy? I don't think so - when you only have 2 choices that are essentially the same.
I cannot see the difference between them. Can you?
Actually, I can .I agree that politicians are just the tip of the iceberg and that the real decisions are made by powerful interests we don't see. That is an over simplification of course,but yes I think the strings are pulled everywhere by the boys in the back room...all over the world. The golden rule dontcha know--he who has the gold makes the rule
That said I do think the specific candidates can and do have an impact--particularly those with powerful personalities They really do change things--nothing is more powerful than ideas -- examples? Winston Churchill, Roosevelt( dare I include Hitler?) Wasn't there a big difference in the styles of Bill Clinton and George Bush as president? Is Gordon Brown a clone of Tony Blair?
I agree, Robie2. The individual who is elected definitely makes a difference; sometimes a "big" difference. In the U.S., Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John Kennedy made a huge difference in our history, and Bill Clinton, while not at par with those great men, did a good job with the economy. If anyone doubts it, just compare these men to George W. Bush, who, as one man (not counting Cheney and Rove), did more damage than any leader of a democracy in history. I won't take up space here listing his deficiencies. But, Mark, at the same time, what you say is also true. Big business and the wealthy of the world will be given deference by every politician -- but that doesn't mean it makes no difference who is elected..
I am not so sure. Most of these leaders you mention only really stand out because of their war time efforts or because they had a strong personality that reflected well on their country.
Winston Churchill for example was an aggressive drunkard - he was great during WW2 because he refused to back down, but he was out on his ear the moment we returned to peace time.
And really, what difference have any of these guys made ? What did JFK actually achieve? Clinton? Roosevelt?
I mean are there any long lasting, tangible benefits that they helped to create that were not then bastardized until they serve only the corporations and the banks?
Will having Obama or Clinton in power put an end to the occupation of Iraq? No - they have both refused to commit to that - why? because they will not get to power if they do - they need the HUGE amount of money they are both being given to run - By who? - the corporations and the banks and the petrochemicals and pharmaceuticals.
I don't care how they hide it - That's where the money to elect one of these will come from - then it's payback time.
Although, Clinton may not have done many great things. Think about it. Our government and economy was at its best during the Clinton years. He through away money into a non-existant war. He didn't put us into a recession. Clinton may have had some personal issues, but as for a president, I think he did a d*mn good job running the country.
I aggree with Mark, in the sense that the leaders that were mentioned by William are really only considered "great" because of their war-time efforts. But, Mark, the US really was at a height (to some extent) under the Clinton's reign.
I don't think that Obama has enough political experience to be president. He's barely been in Congress. I just don't think he's seen enough.
I personally, think that Hillary would be a great president. She's served her dues, so to speak. She's been in Congress for years. She was at the White House for 8 years. She's served her time. I think she could do it...
But, I don't think either Obama or Hillary will become president. I think no matter who wins the popular vote, the white guy that no one talks about will be the one who wins in the end.
I'm a cynic myself. But Roosevelt and Truman were not only great for the conduct of the war. Both men accomplished far more than that! Kennedy didn't accomplish much in terms of programs, but I don't think you can discount the way he and Jacqueline uplifted the country in Camelot style. I remember those days very well. Churchill may have tipped a few, but many great men have had their peccadilloes, as did Clinton. Bottom line: No one could have done a worse job than Dubya. No one is perfect, but it does make a difference who is at the helm.
Yes and no - despite the current poor state of the economy, the only part in real trouble is the low end housing market - other parts of the economy are quite happy thank you. There is a lot to be said for a low value dollar and there are many people very happy with the current state of affairs.
GW is not a good figure head though. At least Clinton could string a sentence together and got some respect as a leader in the World stage.
The "economy" is great for those who are already wealthy. But what really counts are those tens of thousands of veterans sleeping under bridges, the people who lost their homes and are struggling to survive, the countless homeless families, the elderly poor who are doing without needed medicines and are being constantlhy threatened with losing their Social Security, the children without proper health insurance and proper health care, the sick and handicapped who are being shuffled aside, the children who are saddled with underperforming schools, the poor kids who are stuck in gangs in the ghettos. Otherwise, the economy isn't so bad, right?
Hey, I'm with you. I agree completely - All I was saying is that there is a small segment of the population who are very happy with the current state of affairs. You know who I am talking about.
Thanks Stubbs and Mark for the "across the pond" perspective. Interesting that most Europeans seem to favor Hillary while Africans are thrilled with the Obama phenomenon--wonder about Asia and Australia? So you like Ron Paul ,Stubbs? He is an interesting character I agree, and speaks truth to power which I like.....but you are right--not electable.
William, I agree with you that anything is better than Dubya, and I do think that who it is makes a difference. However I agree with you, Mark, that the boys in the back room still run the show so whoever is elected won't have a snowball's chance in hell of really changing the system. That said I'll take Hillary or Obama who pledge to end the war in Iraq over McCain who says we are winning and need to stay--even if McCain is being more honest.
It's looking more and more like Obama will be the next president. Current Vegas odds are:
There are some significant differences between McCain and Obama which matter quite a lot to many Americans and which will matter also to other countries. However, it's true that both candidates believe in our free market system. However, the Democrats are considerably more in favor of regulating the market to ensure that it delivers honestly what's it's supposed to whereas the Republicans are less inclined to regulate. The Dems are more inclined to tax the rich and provide more comprehensive social insurance than the Republicans. But the greatest difference at the present time is in foreign policy--McCain has said he's prepared to stay in Iraq for 100 years if necessary and Obama has promised to start withdrawing immediately after he's elected. There is also a gulf between the parties on social policies such as abortion, minority rights, gun control, stem cell research, separation of church and state, sex education and science education in public schools and other areas.
Very interesting odds, Ralph --right on for the moment, but all could change very quickly. I wouldn't count Hillary out just yet. What a good outline of the basic differences between Dems and Reps too. I think it must be very confusing for people coming from a parliamentary system or another form of government to fathom our rather odd, hybridized system. Add to the mix a crazy quilt of state primary elections and caucuses and the fact that culturally and in many other ways there is as much difference between an American from New England and one from the deep South as there is between a Frenchman and a German--well it all gets very confusing I am sure. Oh yes, and each state has its own election laws and procedures as well.
I think the odds could change a number of times between now and November. Today's front-runner can be tomorrow's underdog in the blink of a spin-meister's eye. I haven't a clue whether it will be Hillary, Obama or McCain--and we still haven't heard from Bloomberg One thing is for sure. We are in a mess. Do you think if we asked the Brits nicely they would take us back??
Our system is just as bad. I was amazed to discover that the US does not have proportional representation. It can hardly be called a democracy when you have only two choices and can barely tell the difference between the two - UK and US - and we don't want you back
If Obama went against McCain Obama would win, if Hilary went against McCain, McCain would win.
That's a widely held opinion. There certainly are a lot of Hillary haters out there.
Re; proportional representation. At the 2004 election, I was in NY and was talking to a couple of German tourists. They were perplexed by our electoral college system; they said that in Germany, every vote is the same and whoever wins the majority of votes wins the election.
I explained that the US is structured with far more state sovereignty than most non-Americans realize, and, besides, our electoral college system (over 100 years old) is similar to the weighting of votes in the Council of the EU...which is only a few years old. I asked them why Poland has almost the same number of votes as Germany, which is more than twice as large. They didn't seem to understand what I was talking about.
The Treaty of Nice, signed recently by the EU, makes the ancient US electoral college system look completely equitable:
LOL - I never said it was better in the EU, or the UK for that matter.
I guess I just assumed that the US would be more equitable after seeing what happens in the UK and Europe - then I realized it was just the advertising - the land of the free and the brave is no more equitable than any other "democracy."
It's depressing when you actually come to realize how little difference you can make - and that's why so few young people vote - what difference does it make?
Sometimes, I despair - I can agree that it's better than some systems - but at the end of the day - the power stays with those who already have the power and it will never change.
It's the same the whole world over< see me singing that old music hall ditty> I agree Mark, the rich and powerful in any system call the shots and even as we hub away here on hubpages, backroom deals are being struck in the US, GB, the EU and a few other places. but I can't help liking to watch. It's a bit like being a cobra watching a mongoose
Mark! Come on, there are many other things that you can easily get depressed over beyond politics. What is the point of our existence? Why is there so much suffering? Why are our lives so short? There is no way we can "solve" these things either.
You know I am not a religious person at all (being an agnostic), but I love the wisdom of the serenity prayer:
There is a lot each of us, esp those of us living in developed countries, can do to live out our dreams. I'm also inspired by books like Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning, which suggests even those who seemingly have absolutely nothing can still assert value and power over their existence.
It's that wisdom to know the difference part that gets a little tricky LOL
LOL - I also enjoy myself. but this is a bit of a cop-out. And is really more about an internal attitude and doesn't really change anything other than your own perception. Don't get me wrong - I no longer dwell on these things and do my best to have a positive mental attitude.
But there are things I have seen in my lifetime - for instance - I grew up in Holland. When I was a kid, we used to skate on the canals because they froze over every winter - without fail.
Holland has not seen the canals freeze in more than ten years now - And both the US and UK "authorities" will stand there and argue and argue that there is no such thing as climate change and our lifestyle has nothing to do with it if there is such a thing. And allow the corporations to spend millions producing "factual scientific reports" that refute the whole idea.
The problem is, we have a whole generation growing up having great difficulty sorting the facts from the BS - and those that do see it are labeled "conspiracy theorists" and "trouble makers."
I still go and sit my the nearly-devoid-of-edible-fish ocean and enjoy the view though. But my wife is scared to eat Tuna.
It's not a cop-out at all, although I agree with robie2 that the tricky part is exercising that wisdom part. I'm not suggesting that we all stand idly by and do nothing; I'm saying beyond what each of us can do individually there is no use in getting upset about things that we have no power to change.
Re: global warming. I think this is due to the fact that the British tradition (of which we still are, despite getting rid of you over 200 years ago ) is one of deep skepticism of authority. No matter who is in the White House, you are guaranteed to have at least 50% of the country hate him and think everything he says is bullshit. We can not ever agree on anything, and actually I think that's one thing that makes our tradition great. We've gotten used to moving things forward when we have a 50.1% majority
That said, I think the domain of conspiracy theorists and troublemakers are those who refute global warming. Most Americans and most Britons believe that global warming exists and that it is the result of man's activity. Even GW Bush, who is in complete hock to the petroleum industry, has come around. Sure, there are and will be skeptics, but who said the presence of skeptics prevents you from moving forward? The fact is that the majority can often get things wrong, like we did with the Y2K bug, that emboldens the skeptics. Other skeptics, like oil company executives, have obvious interests in holding positions contrary to the popular view.
I also remember the Dutch lamenting that they haven't had an Elfstedetocht (sp?) in decades - I had really wanted to see one and I think the winter of 2002-2003 got pretty close.
No, I guess it's not a cop out. I was thinking more that people tend to ignore the problem rather than just not let it bother them - and sometimes it can take years of frustration before you actually realize that there is nothing you can do about it There's just a big difference between denial and wisely accepting you can do nothing.
Dutch spelling LOL - I lived in Scheveningen - it took me 2 years to learn how to pronounce it. I haven't been back to Holland for years, but they froze just about every year when I lived there as a child. The last time they froze was 1998, and the last time they ran the Elfstedentocht was in 1997
Agreed. The first step is at least getting educated and it seems like most don't even bother to do that. Understanding the basics of major issues is in the realm of possibility for anyone with even a partially-functioning brain.
I've been to Scheveningen (and I think that was the town name that the Dutch used during WW2 to determine if someone was a German spy or not, based on how they pronounced it) - it was an unusually hot day and we went to the beach there. The water was still too cold to get into but the beach atmosphere was fantastic!
The Clinton's will NOT leave the stage quietly and I dread that they may steal the election from Senator Obama.
It has taken me a while (3 general elections) to come to the same conclusion. I am English - we do not have proportional representation, and I have seen PM after PM feather their own nest at the cost of the taxpayer.
Makes you wonder if it's worth voting - I have 2 parties to choose from, and I can barely tell the difference.
I will accept that it's better than some systems, but democracy, it's not.
Three general elections?! I haven't participated in the bi-annual rituals for over 40 years - - And haven't missed much except upset stomachs.
by Credence217 months ago
The Constitution requires that an eligible candidate for president must be a naturalized citizen. That means born in the U.S. or subject jurisdiction, or not born on AMERICAN soil but either parent is an American...
by Superkev3 years ago
I would say that the odds are that Hillary Clinton will run for President in 2016. I don't think her ego will allow her to do otherwise.Now to my mind, the moment Hillary announces her candidacy it will be a forgone...
by pennyofheaven5 years ago
Some might say that Jesus was the most influential person in religious history and I realize this is debatable. He still remains glorified by many.According to American thinker, Forbes magazine annointed Barack Obama as...
by ahorseback12 months ago
Sounds kind of racist to me , It just reminds me though that racism plays a huge part FROM the positions minorities too . 90 percent of Black voters voted for Obama , proving racism...
by Peter M. Lopez9 years ago
Texas & Ohio: Obama or Hillary?
by wetbaknproud5 years ago
A bold move like that would bring many benefits and no negatives. We know the Clintons are the dirtiest players in the game (in a good way of course)and that's what might be needed to keep the white house and the senate...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.