PDA

View Full Version : Newsweek article: Is America Ready?


RVD
Dec 18th, 2006, 10:04 PM
A very long, albeit very interesting article about Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama's Presidential chances.
Apologies if this has already been posted.
__________________________________________________ ______

Hillary's hair and hemline won't be issues; her tough national-security approach and famous husband will.

http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/Newsweek/Components/Photos/Mag/061225_Issue/061216_ClintonObama_xtrawid.jpg

By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek

Dec. 25, 2006 - Jan. 1, 2007 issue - It felt like the twilight zone in New Hampshire. The calendar still read 2006, but everything about the surging crowd of 1,500 pumped-up Democrats and 160 ravenous political reporters screamed 2008. Here was Barack Obama, less than two years into his Senate term, making his first-ever trip to the state in mid-December, and his sold-out performance before a tumultuous crowd impressed even the most hardened political operatives—though Conan O'Brien joked it was just because New Hampshire had never seen an African-American before.

For decades, the joke there has been that no presidential wanna-be can win support in the fabled primary without meeting each voter one-on-one in his living room. But the 45-year-old Obama, some-times described as "post-racial," was in a category of his own. As his team began to peel away longtime Bill Clinton supporters—former Commerce secretary Bill Daley is strongly onboard and will likely be a senior adviser—the Illinois senator's presidential rollout was working so well in New Hampshire that it raised concerns he could be peaking too soon. The mania, his aides know, cannot be sustained at this level when the real scrutiny begins.

Full of praise for Hillary Clinton, Obama handled himself with his usual offhand baritone cool. He explained that the hype has "less to do with me, more to do with you." His curious audience, he noted, was simply saying, "We are looking for something different—we want something new."

The question is, how new? For 220 years, Americans have elected only white male Christians with no hint of ethnicity to the White House. Even Irish Catholic John F. Kennedy seemed like a WASP to most people. By the time of Rep. Shirley Chisholm's brief run in 1972, then Jesse Jackson's in 1984 and 1988, the country was comfortable with barrier-breaking on the campaign trail, but not yet serious about electing someone truly different.

No one knows yet whether we are serious now, and we won't find out for sure unless it happens. But the record of white males in high places has not exactly been stellar of late, and voters might be in the mood to try something historic and possibly redemptive. A black president in a country that fought a civil war over race might even prove cathartic. And a woman president would show the rest of the world that the United States is not a sexist nation. Whatever happens, the process feels uplifting. If neither Clinton nor Obama wins, it won't necessarily prove the United States is closed-minded. Their failure would likely be the product of their own shortcomings—or the emergence of one of the several white (and one Hispanic) male Democrats who still have a shot at their party's nomination. Early primary states are so hard-wired for upsets that many Democrats could find themselves circling back to the pale males.

CONTINUED (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16238556/site/newsweek/page/2/)

Sam L
Dec 18th, 2006, 10:30 PM
LOL pale males. I agree. It's too early for Hillarys or Baracks of the world.

Pureracket
Dec 18th, 2006, 10:37 PM
LOL pale males. I agree. It's too early for Hillarys or Baracks of the world.Sam,
Question: Do you vote in US elections?

slk45
Dec 18th, 2006, 10:40 PM
Another mindless media promotion of class warfare. Same old radicals, same old :bs: , new packaging.

Black Mamba.
Dec 18th, 2006, 10:41 PM
Dude isn't winning and I'll leave it at that. refer to Head of State

Steffica Greles
Dec 18th, 2006, 11:26 PM
I just hope that the best candidate wins and that the racial factor doesn't either advantage or disadvantage Obama. Although, unfortunately that is unrealistic of course.

I don't know enough about Obama to hold a view either way. As for Clinton, on one hand she seems to have the necessary experience, she is renowned for her intellect (which would be quite a relief after 8 years of Bush) and, of course, as a woman it would be a milestone for America. Although, as with Obama, I hope it is the policies she espouses which people consider and not something which she was pre-disposed to, such as her sex.

But I do have my doubts. If she does run for President, why now? Why did she not make a run last time instead of John Donkey? And her canniness works against her somewhat, or at least it does in my mind. Her political savvy has seen her support the war in Iraq for what I imagine were expedient reasons, and I'm not exactly sure what she feels most strongly about. She seems to understand the American political landscape so acutely that she will not be drawn on anything for fear of scuppering her own chances. I have heard she is pro-choice, and abortion is a big political issue in America, but I rarely hear her passionately speaking out against the religious Right.

So before I back Clinton, not that it makes any difference as a non-American national, I would like to be clearer on what she stands for. John Kerry was an embarrassment for the Democrats. Another one could be disastrous for the party as a whole.

Wigglytuff
Dec 18th, 2006, 11:40 PM
please. americans dont vote for anything that isnt on primetime tv.

RVD
Dec 18th, 2006, 11:40 PM
One thing I think we can all agree on is that the 2008 Presidential election will be incredibly exciting.
:wavey: :wavey:

Steffica Greles
Dec 18th, 2006, 11:44 PM
One thing I think we can all agree on is that the 2008 Presidential election will be incredibly exciting.
:wavey: :wavey:

American elections always are exciting. I'm only 24 but I've followed them avidly since Clinton defeated Bush Snr in 1992. I sit up all night, just as I do for the British election results.

And I vaguely remember "Read my lips, no more taxes" in 1988.

jenny161185
Dec 18th, 2006, 11:48 PM
hilary for president!

Vlover
Dec 19th, 2006, 02:56 AM
It's too early for Hillarys or Baracks of the world.

When is the right time for America to discredit bigotry?:rolleyes: Why not NOW?

ptkten
Dec 19th, 2006, 03:41 AM
I don't care who wins, as long as it's a democrat :o

Seriously though, I think both have their plusses and minuses. Obama's going to run into problems with some of the things he's done in the past. He's admitted to doing cocaine and having sympathy with some radical groups in the past. It doesn't affect my support for him, but I can imagine some people in middle America will have questions, especially because he's a black man and many whites, unfortunately still have racial stereotypes. The major thing he has going for him, is he'll get a lot of grassroots support from Democratic voters who are growing tired of Hillary's reluctance to admit she was wrong on Iraq and the growing sense that he offers a way to bridge the gap between many of the racial, religious, and sectional divisions in the country.

Hillary also has problems because people perceive her, rightly or wrongly, as having a bitchy personality, and being too politically calculated. However, she has the experience and the credentials on both domestic and foreign policy issues to be very formidable. Plus, she will have money coming out of her ass and Bill's team of campaigners ;)

Also, you can't count out John Edwards, who has enormous wealth of knowledge on issues such as poverty and the environment, and also you can't count out some of the other yet unknown candidates such as Dodd, Biden, and Richardson, probably one of which will make a good run at it as history has shown us.

Whatever happens, the Democratic primary will be very interesting.

slk45
Dec 19th, 2006, 04:15 AM
When is the right time for America to discredit bigotry?:rolleyes: Why not NOW?

...Obama's going to run into problems with some of the things he's done in the past....doing cocaine and having sympathy with some radical groups...I can imagine some people in middle America will have questions, especially because he's a black man and many whites, unfortunately still have racial stereotypes....

Hillary also has problems because people perceive her, rightly or wrongly, as having a bitchy personality, and being too politically calculated. However, she has the experience and the credentials on both domestic and foreign policy issues to be very formidable. Plus, she will have money coming out of her ass and Bill's team of campaigners ;)

Also, you can't count out John Edwards, who has enormous wealth of knowledge on issues such as poverty and the environment, and also you can't count out some of the other yet unknown candidates such as Dodd, Biden, and Richardson, probably one of which will make a good run at it as history has shown us.

What a bunch of pompous bs! Nobody cares about gender or race in the elections; ideas are what matter. And the ideas of the above leftist ideologues will be disastrous for the economy and the safety of this country, which is why Democrats are always re-inventing themselves. When the voters recover from their media-induced stupor and the political hangover of 2006, they will reject the left as they always have.

ptkten
Dec 19th, 2006, 04:25 AM
What a bunch of pompous bs! Nobody cares about gender or race in the elections; ideas are what matter. And the ideas of the above leftist ideologues will be disastrous for the economy and the safety of this country, which is why Democrats are always re-inventing themselves. When the voters recover from their media-induced stupor and the political hangover of 2006, they will reject the left as they always have.

You criticize people being leftist ideologues, yet you blindly follow whatever conservatives tell you, which makes you ironically, an ideologue yourself

If you think that gender and race don't matter in elections, then you really don't have a clue

Wigglytuff
Dec 19th, 2006, 10:38 AM
Nobody cares about gender or race in the elections; ideas are what matter.

how are people this stupid not eaten by wolves? i mean really, any animal this stupid is a detriment to its species.

Kunal
Dec 19th, 2006, 11:41 AM
as it is mentioned above....either way...this will be a redepmtive and a cathartic decision....it bodes well for the US that these two ppl are in the fray for the race for President of United States

Pureracket
Dec 19th, 2006, 12:10 PM
What a bunch of pompous bs! Nobody cares about gender or race in the elections; ideas are what matter........ I'm hoping that you were able to recover with the remainder of the post. I kinda stopped taking you seriously after you wrote this.

slk45
Dec 19th, 2006, 02:36 PM
You criticize people being leftist ideologues, yet you blindly follow whatever conservatives tell you, which makes you ironically, an ideologue yourself Actually, no. It would make me a "blind follower." The ideologue advances his propositions without reference to reality.


If you think that gender and race don't matter in elections, then you really don't have a cluehow are people this stupid not eaten by wolves? i mean really, any animal this stupid is a detriment to its species.I'm hoping that you were able to recover with the remainder of the post. I kinda stopped taking you seriously after you wrote this.I know you can't comprehend that race and gender are essentially irrelevant politically -- except in your own narrow responses -- because you're all wallowing in your self-administered victimhood.

angele87
Dec 19th, 2006, 05:29 PM
I know you can't comprehend that race and gender are essentially irrelevant politically -- except in your own narrow responses -- because you're all wallowing in your self-administered victimhood.

I don't think it's so stupid to think that race or sex might place a role in the elections. During the last two elections, a President who doesn't believe homosexuals deserve equal rights, thus who doesn't believe homosexuals are 'equal', was elected. Once you accept that certain people aren't equal, are less than you, it's really not such a stretch to think another group is also unequal. The big step is deciding that we're not all equal, that we don't all deserve the same rights. Once you've decided that, it's really just a matter of picking and choosing who you're going to think is a lesser human being. So do I think America is ready? Unforetunately not. The more interesting question, imo, is which candidate would be more accepted; a woman or an African American?

roarke
Dec 19th, 2006, 05:46 PM
If Hilary or Obama is the democratic candidate, the Democrats will lose the election in 2008. Hilary will lose because she will be trying to overcome the sins of Bill which the right wing neo-conservative godless christian will use to erode her candidacy. Women will not vote for Hilary as women have their issues with a strong decisive powerful woman.

If in 2006 we cannot vote one black person into congress from the South I can't see the entire nation voting for Obama. White people in this country are nihilistic to an extent as they would rather vote for a white person with the potential to destroy the country than for a black person simply because he is black. It wouldn't matter to them that he may be what the country needs at this time. Of course I will hear a lot of denials that my statements are too broad and I cannot include all white people and that may very well be true. However percentage wise the few who would doesn't even stand a chance. White people like to fool themselves into thinking that they truly believe everybody is equal so they sometimes go overboard in trying to prove it by kowtowing to the so called "threatening black person", but at their core there is that belief of a god given right of superiority that they all embrace.

timafi
Dec 19th, 2006, 05:59 PM
well Rudy won't win shit anytime soon
he split with his wife
got another one
had gay roomates
pro choice
pro civil union

jenny161185
Dec 19th, 2006, 09:45 PM
I think Its really interesting I dont know much about american politics etc but I just think with all the hype and with her background, is hilary not a favourite to take the whitehouse??? and I think women would voted for her, sure some women dont take to high powered decisive women but many do and admire them

Vlover
Dec 19th, 2006, 09:54 PM
What a bunch of pompous bs! Nobody cares about gender or race in the elections; ideas are what matter. And the ideas of the above leftist ideologues will be disastrous for the economy and the safety of this country, which is why Democrats are always re-inventing themselves. When the voters recover from their media-induced stupor and the political hangover of 2006, they will reject the left as they always have.

You are one heavy "kool ade" drinker. I don't think it's poosible to recover from your stupor because you obviously overdosed. RIP!:tape:

quasar
Dec 20th, 2006, 12:21 AM
I wonder if some people feal smarter insulting others, or they just get a kick out of it. I basically disagree with everything postulated by slk (except that ideas are what SHOULD matter), but that doesn't mean I should lean towards a roaring rampage of epithets to manifest my non-conformity with his postulates.

Going to read the linked article now...

Cheers, Merry Xmas and Joyeux Noel, all rolled into one,

Carlos

Black Mamba.
Dec 20th, 2006, 05:01 AM
I wonder if some people feal smarter insulting others, or they just get a kick out of it. I basically disagree with everything postulated by slk (except that ideas are what SHOULD matter), but that doesn't mean I should lean towards a roaring rampage of epithets to manifest my non-conformity with his postulates.

Going to read the linked article now...

Cheers, Merry Xmas and Joyeux Noel, all rolled into one,

Carlos

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: I haven't seen postulates used in a sentence in so long. Thanks for the memories.

Wigglytuff
Dec 20th, 2006, 05:34 AM
Actually, no. It would make me a "blind follower." The ideologue advances his propositions without reference to reality.


I know you can't comprehend that race and gender are essentially irrelevant politically -- except in your own narrow responses -- because you're all wallowing in your self-administered victimhood.

well, i actually realize that you are really only a detriment to the species if you breed so as long as you dont have children you can be as stupid as you see fit, as long as you dont harm someone who actually could help the species by doing something like say driving drunk.

Wigglytuff
Dec 20th, 2006, 06:06 AM
I wonder if some people feal smarter insulting others, or they just get a kick out of it. I basically disagree with everything postulated by slk (except that ideas are what SHOULD matter), but that doesn't mean I should lean towards a roaring rampage of epithets to manifest my non-conformity with his postulates.

Going to read the linked article now...

Cheers, Merry Xmas and Joyeux Noel, all rolled into one,

Carlos

interesting now if you only had 25% as much respect for dead children as you do for slk and then maybe you would not be so compelled to make fun of them.

:shrug: :shrug:

quasar
Dec 20th, 2006, 03:53 PM
Sigh! Here we go again...

If you notice, YOU are the one being disrespectful to your fellow denizens of this planet, not me. I'll not indulge your desire to spin the facts with oblique, out-of subject references. Fact of the matter is, I appreciate people and treat them with respect, whereas you, as clearly exhibited in this thread and many others, definitely don't.

(If you carry a chip on your shoulder, have anger management issues or whatever, try to work it out instead of hiding behind a computer screen and insulting people at random. That's really not only disrespectful to others but to yourself as well. If you want to achieve the moral high ground you're so fond of spousing, stop preachin' and start behavin').

Cheers, Merry Xmas and Joyeux Noel, all rolled up into one,

Carlos

alfonsojose
Dec 20th, 2006, 05:52 PM
Condi for president :p