Archive for the ‘US Presidential Election’ Category
More on 42 days
Marshall Grossman’s post Electing Obama, the Supreme Court and American Exceptionalism in HuffingtonPost.com is well worth reading for his take on the importance of Obama’s candidacy. I was very struck by his comments on law, and his reference to James Harrington,
“To be sure the signers of the Declaration of Independence represented the enfranchised classes of Englishmen, but they also knew the difference between a republic and a kingdom and they understood the significance of a government based on a written constitution. Writing under a pseudonym in the Boston Gazette in 1774, John Adams both asserted the English origins of the new republic and its aspiration to something different when he famously quoted the English republican theorist James Harrington’s call for an “empire of laws and not of men,” strategically substituting the word “government” for Harrington’s “empire.” We have in the last seven years seen a sustained and often successful effort to replace that government of laws with something closer to the royal prerogative against which Harrington wrote in 1656.”
In Gordon Brown’s Britain, we are inexorably moving back towards that royal prerogative. 42 days is just one more step along that journey.
Stopping at nothing
Is there nothing that Hillary Clinton will not do or say to get the Democratic nomination? Obama’s was a measured reaction to her quite extraordinary remark that she was continuing to run because of what happened to Robert Kennedy,
“I have learned that when you are campaigning for as many months as Sen. Clinton and I have been campaigning, sometimes you get careless in terms of the statements that you make. . . And I think that is what happened here. Sen. Clinton says that she did not intend any offense by it and I will take her at her word on that.”
But we now have (see Clinton Camp stokes RFK Controversy by blaming Obama in The Huffington Post) the riposte,
“The Obama campaign … tried to take these words out of context,” Clinton campaign chairman Terence R. McAuliffe said on “Fox News Sunday.” “She was making a point merely about the time line.”
And so it goes on. All that is certain is that whatever rage drives her, she is showing herself to be a deeply flawed person. There has been much about her determination, and husband Bill has been railing against the way she is being treated by the media. Sarah Amos on ABC News (quoted in The Huffington Post) reported
“Former President Bill Clinton in South Dakota today delivered a harsh critique of how his wife has been treated during her presidential bid, telling the crowd that he has “never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running,” and that, “she will win the general election if you nominate her. They’re just trying to make sure you don’t.”
As it all starts to unravel, where best to throw blame?
Just what will Hillary not say to be President?
She may be a clever woman, but her judgement (or her speechwriters) is singularly troubling. Hillary’s latest argument, reported in The Huffington Post , is that there is some sort of equivalence between what is happening in Zimbabwe and the refusal of the DNC to count the Florida and Michigan primaries. As reported by Fernando Suarez for CNS News
Desperate to get attention for her cause to seat Florida and Michigan delegates, Hillary Clinton compared the plight of Zimbabweans in their recent fraudulent election to the uncounted votes of Michigan and Florida voters saying it is wrong when “people go through the motions of an election only to have them discarded and disregarded.”
“We’re seeing that right now in Zimbabwe,” Clinton explained. “Tragically, an election was held, the president lost, they refused to abide by the will of the people,” Clinton told the crowd of senior citizens at a retirement community in south Florida. “So we can never take for granted our precious right to vote. It is the single most important, privilege and right any of us have, because in that ballot box we are all equal. You’re equal to a billionaire. You’re equal to the president, every single one of us.”
She may want the nomination but it is remarks like these which should ensure that not only does she not get it but that Obama does not entertain the idea, which is gathering some steam, that she take the junior position on the ticket.
Viva Revisionistas!
This, from Jake Tapper’s Political Punch blog, is Bill Clinton explaining Hillary’s misspeaking
“She took a terrible beating in the press for a few days,” he said, per ABC News’ Sarah Amos, “because she was exhausted at 11 o’clock at night (1) and she started talking about Bosnia and she misstated the circumstances under which she landed in Bosnia. (2)
“Did you all see all that? And oh, they acted like she was practically Mata Hari,” he said — referring to the Dutch exotic dancer accused by the French of spying for the Germans and executed by a firing squad during World War I — “like she was making up all this stuff.
“And then the president of Bosnia said, ‘Well, it was quite dangerous when she came, there were snipers in the hills all around,’ (3) And then Gen. Wes Clarke, who was there trying to make the peace among the Bosnians, said ‘Yeah, it was dangerous, let me remind you three of the Americans who were on my peace-keeping team were killed because they had to take a dangerous road ’cause they couldn’t go the regular way.’
If that wasn’t bad enough, when Nancy Pelosi was asked about this, she referred to Bill Clinton having a “late night adult moment”. I cannot imagine to what she was referring. It certainly isn’t the sort of late night adult moment I usually have.
Jake Tapper’s subsequent post in Political Punch is excellent,
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was asked about former President Bill Clinton’s error-riddled defense of his wife, regarding her Hemingway-esque accounting of her 1996 trip to Bosnia.
“I can’t for the life of me figure out why the president would have said it except he may have been having a late night adult moment,” Pelosi told CBS’s Bob Schieffer, “but let’s leave it at that.”
Kind of harsh for a House speaker to say about a former president.
And ABC News’ Sarah Amos points out that Bill Clinton’s comments were hardly “late night” — having been uttered at 3 in the afternoon and again at 5 pm.
Somebody buy these Democrats some watches.
But then again, Bill Clinton’s late night adult moments usually took place in mid afternoon.
Bringing home the bacon
A postscript to my post yesterday on Balkan porkies. On the BBC News website this evening, a report about Hillary being pressed on her Bosnia claim, plus the video of her arriving in Bosnia. The camera never lies (unlike Clinton it seems)
Video shown on US TV network CBS shows the then First Lady walking calmly from her plane. Her campaign has said she “misspoke” about landing under fire. Aides to Barack Obama, her rival to be the party’s presidential nominee, argue she overstates her foreign experience.
What astonishes me is that she is prepared to go to the lengths she has, surely knowing that every statement will be subjected to the minutest scrutiny. And what exactly does “misspeak” mean? A facility for telling porkies clearly runs in the Clinton family.
Balkan porkies
An interesting post in The Full Feed from Huffingtonpost.com about Hillary Clinton and the danger she said she had found herself in in Bosnia. Well, it now appears that she “misspoke” about the immediate dangers she faced. A more accurate word might have been “lied”. Here goes,
An aide to Senator Hillary Clinton acknowledged on Monday that the New York Senator “misspoke” about the immediate dangers she faced when, as first lady, she visited war torn Bosnia. Howard Wolfson, Clinton’s chief spokesperson, said on a conference call that “it is possible in the most recent instance with which she discussed this that she misspoke, with regards to the leaving of the plane.” Later, he was more certain: “On one occasion, she misspoke.” But Wolfson insisted that the first lady’s visit was indeed perilous, as supported by “contemporaneous accounts” in the press.
In recent weeks, Senator Clinton has sought to bolster her national security and foreign policy credentials by highlighting the role she played in Bosnia. “We came in under sniper fire,” she recently told the press. “There was no greeting ceremony. We ran with our heads down, and were basically told to run to our cars.”
This is what Team Obama reported
Bosnia:
Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that “Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn’t hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage.”
And Mary Ann Akers (aka the Sleuth) in the Washington Post had an equally telling post Sinbad unloads on Hillary Clinton in Washingtonpost.com. (this was before Howard Wolfson fessed up on the candidate’s behalf to the Balkan porkies). According to the actor, the “scariest” part of the trip was wondering where he’d eat next. “I think the only ‘red-phone’ moment was: ‘Do we eat here or at the next place.’” I would have thought wondering what Hillary would do or say next was probably a close second.
Shrewd Bill is still Slick Willy
A fascinating column from Clive Crook in the FT today, on Bill Clinton’s play of a joint Clinton-Obama ticket. After setting the context (Obama ahead in elected delegates after Pennsylvania but not enough to settle the nomination), he comments
This swirling uncertainty is the context in which Bill Clinton’s recent claim that a Clinton-Obama ticket would be unstoppable must be understood. It was an extremely shrewd political manoeuvre. It asserts a presumption, nothing if not bold, that Mrs Clinton is still the senior partner. It nominates Mr Obama as the Democrats’ presidential candidate in 2016 – and he is young enough for that to make sense. And it issues a summons, cynical as this may be coming from the Clintons, to party unity. This way, the Clinton campaign is saying, the party can come together, front both its favourite candidates (two for the price of one, three if you count Bill) and maximise its general election prospects.
Trouble ahead
Another win for Obama, this time in Mississippi, but the real news is the increasing bitterness in the contest for the nomination. In a year when there is everything to play for, and a great deal to lose, the Democrats seem hell bent on tearing themselves apart. An excellent analysis of the current stae of play in Economist.com, looking at why the scrap is getting uglier, and what the future may hold,
A campaign that degenerates into name-calling and mud-slinging will hurt Mr Obama more than it does Mrs Clinton. He has campaigned on messages of “change” and “hope” so he faces an unenviable choice in the long run-up to Pennsylvania. If he lets the Clinton team fling the brickbats without retaliation she may set the tone of the campaign. But respond in kind and his message of a new politics is tarnished. Even though he is behind there in the polls, Pennsylvania cannot come soon enough for Mr Obama.
For Clinton, what is at stake is no less than the redemption of Bill’s presidency, and her campaign is his by proxy. In part this is why Obama is so attractive, as he offers a real break from the tarnished past. All this however is mere gaming; the real battle will be with McCain.
Tiptoing through Hillaryland
I caught the report of Barack Obama’s response to the ludicrous play by the Clintons (for it is now clear that there are most certainly two of them in this nomination race) that Obama should join the Clinton ticket as the junior partner. Whether it is Hillaryland or Wonderland, who knows. Obama’s point, that he is currently ahead on delegates, was well made, but the race for the nomination is getting nastier by the day. James Forsyth in Coffee House just one of many posts on this today. Even better, Mary Fitzgerald in First Drafts yesterday
Andrew Sullivan’s lead piece in the Sunday Times yesterday — “The Clintons, a horror film that never ends” —picked up on an idea that has gained swift currency in the past week: that Hillary Clinton is not just cold, calculating and impersonal, but she is in fact a creature of the Undead.
Amen to that.
Still all to play for
We are still waiting for the fat lady to sing. An excellent analysis in Economist.com on the Texas and Ohio Primaries
What next? The nomination will go to the person who can amass 2,025 delegates. Before Tuesday Mr Obama led in the delegate count, but neither candidate would have been able to reach the magic number without superdelegates. That has not changed. So the campaigns now have to work out how to woo the superdelegates. Mrs Clinton can point to a victory in a state like Ohio and say that she can swing it to the Democratic column in November, but Mr Obama can point to his big success in Virginia and make a similar argument. Right now it seems that Mr Obama will be able to claim a lead in raw popular votes, but Mrs Clinton can point to her successes in primaries to Mr Obama’s successes in caucuses. The race between Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama will continue, and some Democrats will regret that. But Mrs Clinton has undoubtedly earned the right to be there.
It will be a long fight through the early summer, and the outcome is uncertain. Meanwhile John McCain has the Republican nomination, and George Bush’s endorsement (with the obligatory photo opportunity in the White House Rose Garden). McCain may need this to burnish his conservative credentials, but my bet is that that photo will appear in Democratic campaign ads in due course. Would you really want to be linked to the least successful US President in living memory (and that list includes both Nixon and Carter).
View George Wilkinson's profile