Comments on: Have American Elections Moved Beyond Race?

By: Bobby

Bobby — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 02:28:42 +0000

The real bias in the press is not for Obama, it’s against Edwards. This guy beat Clinton in Iowa, and Obama and Clinton got all the press. How can you run a populist campaign without any coverage. He got double the votes in Iowa of McCain, and far more than Romney，and almost double those of Huckabee in New Hampshire. Yet he gets less coverage than Ron Paul who can’t break double digits anywhere. This is the real travesty of the campaign.

By: eric

eric — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 02:01:20 +0000

i mentioned schumer because he is the other senator from new york. (big china-basher btw, wants to impose 27.5% import tax on china, bad bad guy)

ok. there probably wasnt a one. not one that i could think of anyway.
my point is, barack obama is too young and inexperienced. he needs more time in national politics. or the executive branch.

(i cant believe you let me have th last word on your last blog)

By: Josh

Josh — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 01:52:44 +0000

Point taken that she has some skills at the inner-workings of the Senate. I’ve heard that, although it’s difficult to quantify. At the same time it’s not exactly leadership, and if she’s saying that’s her big advantage over Obama, the claim is slightly dubious.

Schumer isn’t my favorite senator, but he’s also not running for president (and I like him a whole lot more after engineering the Senate takeover.

Name the last president with 10 years experience in the Senate. To my knowledge there has never been one, certainly not in modern politics.

By: eric

eric — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 01:12:43 +0000

1. obama got ethics reform through. and thats about his only achievement. clinton’s local record is not as impressive as schumer. clinton has done remarkable work in the senate in various commitees and subcommitees. the nitty-gritty of actual senate proceedings might not sound impressive taken on its own. the actual records of which im sure is public infomation but i dont really have time to find right now. but represents real work. something that obama needs to learn. im not saying that he is necessarly a bad person. but he needs another ten years in the senate before running for president.
2. well. wheres schumer? or better yet, where the heck is the rest of country?
3. her biggest accomplishment. like i said in 1, there might not be a single impressive thing to pinpoint. but she does real work. and that should count for soemthing. she’s also uniquely experienced in that she has been in the white house for 8 years and knows all the global players.

By: Josh

Josh — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 00:54:33 +0000

@eric

1. what is Clinton’s impressive international record? She talks about he record and experience, but the truth is that she’s MOSTLY been successful on local issues in NY, and has accomplished little to nothing. Obama got ethics reform through. Clinton did, uh…

2. the 20B was not pork. It was money to rebuild ground zero. And she didn’t follow through

3. Clinton talks about experience. What is her extensive record of success? Name her biggest accomplishment.

By: eric

eric — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 00:47:17 +0000

nyc might have missed out on the bacon. upstate new york did not. theres a reason the clintons didnt settle in manhattan where their daughter live. in any case, H. Clinton is much more about national and foreign policy issues than local ones. even if we were to argue about benefitting new york, her record, although not quite as impressive as schumer, is nothing to laugh at.

people who have any realistic fears about having a black president is not gonna vote for a democrat to begin with.
” if you have….”, isnt that more of reference to clinton’s popularity with the working class and obama’s popularity with dartmouth students and professors. ”
black is a descriptive word. not suggestive of racism.
and the point the quote was making is solid. so much of the hype about obama is hope and change. what is his record or experience on really making a difference for middle class americans? does he have a plan other than impressive stump speech. my friends in NH tell me that they are really moved by obama’s speech. is talk gonna be enough? hell, im not even american. but even i see the real problems of america needs to be fixed by someone who understands the issues and know the leaders of the world. not someone whose foreign policy experience consist of little more than going to school in indonesia more than 3 decades ago. honestly, do you even rememeber what you were doing when you were ten?
H. Clinton was a “goldwater girl” back then. it hardly seems to matter to what kinda of person or politican she is today.

By: Josh

Josh — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 00:26:20 +0000

There is a difference between believing in racist ideology and playing to other people’s fears.

That being said, I would love for anyone to explain how this:
“If you have a social need, you’re with Hillary. If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you’re young and you have no social needs, then he’s cool”
is not racist.

And incidentally, Clinton’s record of achievement is a total myth. What has she ever done. Remember that $19.8B in 9-11 funding she championed. NYC never got a lot of that. ooops.

By: eric

eric — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 00:08:59 +0000

people over analyze. the clintons are too liberal and too democrats to be really racist. but their impropriety in speech is put under the microscope. this has more to do with the vitriolic nature of politics than anything else.

there was a great NYTimes article about underrepresentation of lower-middle-class whites that tends to support the clintons. because they tend to turn down polling calls. its a much more acceptable explanation to everyone.
i do think that H. Clinton’s rare show of emotion helped her with women voters. and that explained her narrow winning margin.