Whew, this presidential election has been a whirlwind of twists and turns. From Hillary losing to Obama, to McCain picking Sarah Palin as his running mate, and all of the other events in between. One event, though, especially sticks out in my mind, and that is the death of Tim Russert. A lot had already happened with the presidential election when Russert's sudden passing in June at the age of 58. Sometimes I wonder what he would have thought of all of this. While it appears that Russert supported Obama, it is a shame he did not live to see this historic election come to pass. I'd like to think, though, that Russert is smiling down at all of this chaos and relishing every minute of it.
While I was looking at the article regarding the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, I observed another article from MSNBC that says that, according to Hillary Clinton's campaign, Clinton has given her campaign over 6 million dollars within the last month. The article says that she has already given her campaign 5 million dollars. Is it tacky or weird that she is giving money to her own campaign? Shouldn't Hillary's people feel kind of ashamed that Hillary is loaning her campaign so much money. To me, it suggests that she isn't earning enough money through fundraisers and the like. Basically, it looks like not enough people are supporting Hillary financially, so she has to get dough from her own pocket. What do you guys think about this? The article points out that Hills is over 10 million dollars in debt. Thoughts?
Hey World, Obama won the North Carolina primaries, and Hillary Clinton has Indiana. MSNBC says that the race is already divided by racial lines. According to NBC News, an estimated one-third of all ballots were cast by black voters in North Carolina, and Obama claimed support from roughly 90 percent of of these black voters. As for Hillary, the report says, her victory among white voters was just as wide. Do you guys think that the primaries have become divided by race? Is it inevitable that the race is divided by race, so to speak? Or are there other issues involved?
Hey World, Politico.com reports that Hillary Clinton has six more states to go in the primary race against Barack Obama. The six states are West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota. According to the article, Clinton still may not be able to beat Obama despite having these 6 states left to impress. With the crazy turn of events in this race, I say don't totally rule Clinton out. She may be behind Obama, but she is not down for the count one bit. What is everyone else's thoughts?
Hey World, I just checked out an interesting article from The Washington Post on how some people within the Democratic Party think that Hillary Clinton isn't playing fair. They say that Clinton is positioning herself to be the poster child for white working class voters, while alienating Black voters in the process. These Black voters include some who had, according to House Majority Whip James Clyburn, supported Hillary's husband Bill Clinton when he was running for President. Clyburn also suggests that Hillary is trying to make Obama "unelectable" so she can run in 2012. This article has implications of the Democratic Party being divided over race, and there are also issues raised as to how far Clinton will go to outshine Obama.
I feel that the issue stems from how politics can divide a political party. I'm no political history buff, but it seems like it's been the first time in awhile at least that a party has two strong candidates vying for a nomination. It seems like usually, the majority of the party supports one candidate.
I am also not sure if I agree with Clyburn's statements. I feel like he is the Kanye West in this case, where instead of George Bush it's "Hillary Clinton doesn't care about Black people." I haven't seen proof that Clinton prefer's White voters over Black ones. Maybe that makes me naive, or maybe that makes me a person who isn't trying to jump into conclusions.
Hey World, Today is the day, the Pennsylvania Democratic Primaries. Of course, many know why today is so important, so I am going to analyze the day in another perspective.
A few days ago, Nora Ephron wrote a piece in The Huffington Post called White Men. She says that it stinks that we only have two choices for candidates, and because of this, Pennsylvania voters have to choose based on gender or race. Ephron says, "This is an election about whether the people of Pennsylvania hate blacks more than they hate women. And when I say people, I don't mean people, I mean white men." She implies that it is ironic that white men would have to choose to vote between a woman and a Black person.
Ephron does have an interesting point that I had never thought of before, at least not deeply. She says that it is the first time in history that white male voters will have to choose one of two candidates who are totally different from them. Usually, this is not the case. Ephron says: "...these last primaries will show which of the two Democratic candidates is better at overcoming the bias of a vast chunk of the population that has never in its history had to vote for anyone but a candidate who could have been their father or their brother or their son..."
Before the primaries, some have speculated that Hillary Clinton will take Pennsylvania over Barack Obama. Ephron is suggesting, though, that if Clinton takes the state, it means that racist white males prefer a woman over a Black person. Perhaps Ephron is right about this and the rest of her argument, but is she generalizing a bit too much? I mean, I don't have any statistics regarding the numbers of White male Pennsylvania voters, but they are certainly not the only ones voting today, even though they may be the majority of voters. And even if Clinton takes the state, is it due to racist White males, or is it racist White females? And if white people vote Clinton over Obama, is it due to racism? Would we call it "reverse racism" if Obama was in Clinton's place and Black voters voted for him?
Geez, John McCain must be happy that he does not have to deal with this crap!
Hey World, I don't know about anyone else, but I wasn't all that offended by Obama's comments. I mean, I am not from a small-town. At a California fund-raiser, Obama said this in referring to Pennsylvanians without jobs:
"And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
On one hand, I could see where Obama was coming from. To me, he is implying that working-class folks tend to be religious, into gun culture, and they hate immigrants and trading with other countries. From my experience, some people who fit Obama's description are this way, but a middle-class or an upper-class person could be religious, trigger-happy, and xenophobic too.
I think that Obama may have been generalizing. It is a shame because Obama portrays himself as a representer of the everyman regardless of class, but of course there are those who will kick a person when he is down. CNN says Hillary Clinton was "taken aback" by Obama's statements, and John McCain said the comments were "elitist." Clinton and McCain are just happy no one is ragging on them. Clinton, especially, must be relieved that people have stopped talking about the Bosnia thing for awhile.
Even Obama admits that he didn't explain himself well, but it is true that people often turn to other sources when they are "bitter" or desperate. I'm not as sure about guns, but people often turn to religion. Also, Obama there are many points in history where working-class Americans hold anti-immigrant sentiments after losing their jobs.
Geez, give the man a break! And while you do, check out this Youtube video of Obama explaining his comments:
Hey World, I am looking at a New York Times article that talks about how Hillary Clinton had exaggerated her experience visiting Bosnia 12 years ago as First Lady. Before, Clinton had said that she ran from sniper fire at a Bosnia airport, but now she says it is the first time in 12 years she had told the story wrong. I mean, no disrespect Mrs. Clinton, but do you expect us to believe that you just realized that you were exaggerating? To be fair, maybe Clinton had lost her memory or something about the Bosnia event, but even if she didn't remember the details, she shouldn't have made it to be more than it was. Clinton did not have to say that she was running from sniper bullets. I mean, she is supposed to be the media-savvy, experienced politician that is aware how quickly something can be dug up about her, especially something untrue. It must have felt like a sniper bullet for Hillary after she had made that statement for the mainstream media to dig up video footage of her and her daughter, Chelsea Clinton, walking calmly from the airplane and even having the time to kiss a child. Yes, Hillary, talking about running for your life!
Again, in all fairness, Hillary may have simply forgot the exact details of that day. Some Doubting Thomases, though, find this difficult to believe, and I don't blame them. I mean, after 12 years you had realized that you have been saying the wrong things. At that, Hillary is now saying that she is exaggerating that it has been 12 years. It seems like she is even trying to make people feel bad for trying to find some sort of truth in what she is saying. Hillary says: “I was joking — I mean, you know, gosh, lighten up guys,” she told reporters. “Obviously I say millions of words every week. There is a lot more room for error when you are talking as much as I am talking.” Oh, talk about fighting words. I'm sure the mainstream media can find plenty of other instances of you making mistakes. Stop biting the hand that feeds you.
I think that Hillary is at a point where she is feeling frustrated because she can't say whatever she wants without someone checking the validity of it. She can't just exaggerate something without being attacked for it. I feel kind of bad for her and other politicians in that respect. They can't be like normal people and exaggerate and say statements off the record. It is at this point one must remember that politicians are human beings who want to have the opportunity to make mistakes like regular folks, but they have to remember that they aren't regular folks. They're political figures. This is the lot in life that they have chosen, and they need to stick to it, through thick and thin.
Hey World, I am thinking about the revelation last week that BIll Clinton and Reverend Jeremiah Wright have met each other before. So far, it does not seem as if it is negatively affecting Hillary Clinton's campaign. On one hand, it isn't surprising that no one is making a big deal about it because it is only a picture of Bill Clinton and Wright shaking hands. It doesn't meant that there is anything to reveal. I recall a comment someone had made on a website that basically said so what if Clinton and Wright had a photo op together. It doesn't compare to Obama knowing Wright for 20 years, and it also doesn't compare to Wright marrying Obama and his wife, Michelle, as well as baptizing both of their daughters. In my opinion, I would agree. The Clinton picture doesn't compare to Obama's history with Wright. On the other hand, why was Bill taking a picture with Wright? According to a Huffington Post article, the picture was taken on September 11, 1998 at a White House Meeting of religious leaders. The Post article stresses that Wright is not just any man of faith, but "...a prominent pastor on the American scene " and that Trinity Church "...is a major Chicago institution." In this way, the Huffington Post is providing a background on Wright for those who didn't know much about him. I know that I am being a devil's advocate, but some may think that the Post is being biased by doing this. Why does the Huffington Post need to provide a background on Wright? Is it to keep right-wing conservatives from attacking the Clintons and even Obama about the whole Wright thing? Just putting it out there.
It is also important to note when the picture was taken, it was during the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal. According to the Post article, Bill Clinton had told Wright and the other men of faith that he had "repented." Another note about the photo op is that it was taken on September 11, 1998, and three years later was the infamous 9/11, namely 9/11/2001. I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the coincidence. Maybe its because the situations are different, but you would think that the mainstream media would make some sort of connection. Oh well!
Hey World, As a political blogger and a native New Yorker, I feel like I have to respond to the Eliot Spitzer situation. This is eerily reminiscent of the former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey's scandal a few years back, but not as juicy. I mean, what's more appealing to a gossip's ears, a married, high-profile politician involved in a prostitution ring, or a married, high-profile politician who has a secret gay lover? You all decide. But more importantly, what are some of the implications of the Spitzer scandal. According to Politico.com, Spitzer could have become the first Jewish president of the United States had it not been for this scandal, or at least that is according to Spitzer supporters. If you ask most people, the chance of Spitzer becoming president is unlikely, regardless of the scandal. Why? Well, you see, to be considered president of the U.S., it would help to be liked by people, something that Eliot Spitzer is not very good at-namely, being liked. Hillary Clinton is not going to support him, even though she is a Senator representing New York, because Spitzer is in favor of giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, something which I personally think is a stupid idea that takes focus away from the larger issue of making illegals naturalized citizens. Obviously, Clinton also would not be dying to support Spitzer because she is a presidential candidate with an image to maintain. Besides Hillary, Spitzer has plenty other enemies with his abrasive political style. The big question that is on everyone's mind is whether Spitzer will resign or not. It seems that he probably will be forced to resign not only due to the shame of the scandal, but possibly because of the hypocrisy of it as well. The hypocrisy, namely, of a public figure like Spitzer who often criticizes other people getting his just desserts.
Hey World, A quick update. Barack Obama leads in the Wyoming Democratic primary against Hillary Clinton. According to CNN, the percentage is 58 percent Obama, and 41 percent Clinton. Voice of America News says that Obama is leading by 61 percent to Clinton's 38 percent. The presidential candidates are deadlocked for the Democratic presidential nominations. Right now, Clinton and Obama are competing for 12 delegates in Wyoming, and 33 delegates in the Mississippi primary on Tuesday. It goes to show you that is the reason why some people LOOVE politics: because it is unpredictable. Earlier this week, Clinton was on top of the world with wins in Ohio, Rhode Island, and Texas, but now things are starting to suck for her again. This race is so unpredictable. John McCain must be sighing a sigh of relief that he doesn't have to go through the crap that the Democratic candidates have to go through. It's easy street for him, at least until the time leading up to the general elections.
