Barack Obama is an extraordinarily gifted politician who has tapped into an electrifying current of energy for CHANGE. The momentum from Iowa is giving him a bounce — a big bounce — in New Hampshire.
But it is hyperbole to call momentum a “tsunami.” Obama is a phenom, but let’s not elevate him to a “Movement.”
A few months ago, people were complaining that Hillary Clinton was “inevitable.” No one is inevitable, least of all the winner of the Iowa caucuses. Only one Iowa winner has gone on to become president, far as I know.
Time out for a reality check. Barack Obama and John Edwards offer inexperience and change. Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson offer experience and maturity.
- John Edwards is 87 percent ambition and 13 percent populist rhetoric. He deserves credit for calling attention to the fading of the American Dream. We owe him for highlighting the divide between privilege and poverty. But sorry, he’s not going to be president, not now, probably not ever.
- Barack Obama is 93 percent charisma, and that starts with C and that stands for CHANGE. The other 7 percent is naivete. Where Edwards would unleash anger in a society that is divided along lines of class, race, education and access to health care, to name a few, Obama would paper over the divides. Obama appears destined to be president, and maybe it will happen this year. Or maybe he will be secretary of state or ambassador to the United Nations.
- Bill Richardson is 85 percent resume (and it’s a great resume) and 15 percent humor. He advocates removing all U.S. troops from Iraq in a year. Maybe one of the winning candidates will heed his advice. He would provide good ticket balance in terms of personality and geography. Richardson for vice president.
- Hillary Clinton is 75 percent brains, 22 percent experience, and 3 percent fairy godmother. Everything she said at Saturday’s debate, and everything I heard from her on Sunday and Monday, sounded just right to me. Maybe she’s not flashy enough to be president.
Let the voters of New Hampshire have their say. I think the Democratic nomination will not be decided before super-duper Tuesday, Feb. 5. Too bad Maryland votes on Feb. 12. Or maybe Maryland will get to be the tiebreaker. You can’t predict these things. At least I can’t.
Those are my opinions, and I’m sticking with them until I change my mind. — Bernie Hayden
5 Comments
January 8, 2008 at 12:48 am
Don’t forget Hillary’s 50% favors she owes to the corporations and special interests who supported her.
January 8, 2008 at 10:47 am
It could be decided before February 5, but I just don’t think Obama’s got it locked up yet, even with a win today. Sure, history and the odds are in favor of an Iowa/New Hampshire double-winner, but we’ve still got essentially a national primary on February 5, and the Clinton machine is well-organized (with James Carville waiting in the wings), backed by Bill Clinton’s star power (which will have more bite in “left-coast” type of states), and Hillary’s not yet gotten down-and-dirty with political attacks on Obama (who might not be here if it wasn’t for Jeri Ryan!).
January 9, 2008 at 10:19 am
January 9 2008
At this time their is to much confusion in the
election. We must be reasonable . The Obama surge
is emotional. The people want change. In my opinion
yes we all want change, however the right kind of change. We must have a president with experience.
Obama does not have the experience.
I would prefer Clinton over Obama. She has the
knowledge and the experience.
Thank you
Carmine Boccassini
January 9, 2008 at 11:21 am
Change Is About Policies Not Speeches or Symbolism
Edwards has better policies for substantive change than either Clinton or Obama. Symbolism and speeches is not enough.
(1) While I find Obama inspiring especially when giving speeches, he has the worse plan of the top three contenders on healthcare and Edwards has the best. The best approach is expanding Medicare to cover all citizens which none of the top contenders currently support. Edwards comes closer than the other two top Democratic contenders. Edwards has a history of evolving his policy positions when educated by activists and experts with better ideas. Of the top three Democratic candidates, Edwards is the most likely candidate to eventually support Medicare For All. Obama’s plan does not get us to universal healthcare and definitely leaves large corporations with excessive control of healthcare policies in America.
(2) While Obama always opposed starting the Iraq War, he would not get us out of Iraq as quickly or completely as Edwards. Clinton has not been a leader on this issue in the past or today.
(3) On trade issues, Obama is far friendlier to the so-called “Free Trade” approach than Edwards. For example, on the recent deal with Peru both Clinton and Obama supported the “Free Trade” deal while Edwards opposed it. These “free trade” deals all serve corporate interests and are devastating the earning power of working class Americans.
(4) Compromising with Bush Republicans on policy sounds good as a sound-bite but is not likely to work. Obama cannot unite all Americans behind a common set of policies and still be an effective agent of change. The Republican in the House and Senate oppose all the change ideas supported by the vast majority of Americans. Over 70 percent of Americans want universal healthcare but the Republicans like our current, inefficient, unfair, corporate-controlled healthcare system.
Any compromises with corporate Republicans on the healthcare issue will mean making the changes more inefficient, unfair and corporate-controlled! The same idea holds with trade policy, media consolidation, campaign financing, environmental protection, energy policy, global warming, taxation, labor laws, etc.
The only effective approach to change will come from confronting corporate Republican forces, fighting them and winning. This is the Edwards approach. It is the FDR approach to real change. It was the path to Social Security under FDR and Medicare under LBJ. It is not the Clinton Approach. It is not the path advocated by Obama.
While Obama would make a good Vice President on an Edwards ticket, he is not the best agent for change on the Democratic Presidential ticket in 2008. It was unfortunate that Senator Lieberman played a mentor role to Obama when Obama was first elected to the U.S. Senate. The independent Senator from Connecticut is out of touch with the core values of the Democratic Party when it comes to change on many issues. The Lieberman influence will need time to fade before Obama will really be ready for the top of the Democratic ticket or to act as the real leader for policy change in America.
Written by Stephen Crockett (Co-host of Democratic Talk Radio http://www.DemocraticTalkRadio.com and Editor of Mid-Atlantic Labor.com http://www.midatlanticlabor.com ). Mail: P.O. Box 283, Earleville, Maryland 21919. Email: midsouthcm@aol.com . Phone: 443-907-2367.
Feel free to publish without prior approval.
January 22, 2008 at 4:35 am
Someone please enumerate for me Mrs. Clinton’s experience. Are we including her years as First Lady? Are we including those eight years in the White House?
There is currently an email going around joking about how Deanna Favre will take over as quarterback of the Green Bay Packers since she is married to Brett Favre. The gist of the joke is that her qualifications to be QB are similar to Hillary’s qualifications to be President. The punch line is that the pastry chef also has 8 years of “experience” in the White House.
So getting back the enumeration…
How long has Mrs. Clinton served in an elected position? I believe it is about 6 years. Is that correct?
Barack Obama, on the other hand, served 7 years in the Illinois Senate prior to being elected to the U.S. Senate, where he has served 2 years so far. So that would be 9 years in an elected office to Mrs. Clinton’s 6?
Am I missing something, or does Senator Obama actually have more experience in office than Senator Clinton?
I’m just saying…