AJC.com > Opinion > Opinion Talk > Archives > 2008 > March > 31 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USClinton suffers ‘campaign bubble’ syndrome
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
If you’ve been around politics long enough, you know that something very strange happens to people working in a tough political campaign. And that “something” may help explain what’s happening —- or not happening —- in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Working very long hours side by side with fellow believers in the cause, otherwise sane people can begin to lose a sense of perspective. An “us against the world” psychology begins to take hold, and over time their counterparts in the opposing campaign —- people who in most respects are very much like themselves —- come to seem the very embodiment of evil.
For those caught up in the struggle, the outside world falls away to the point that their entire lives and being are wrapped up in the campaign. And things that can seem small and insignificant to an outsider tend to get blown out of proportion by people living inside that little world.
If you pay any attention at all to politics, you’ve seen examples for yourself. When you see a campaign spokesman —- for example, James Carville —- overreact to some minor insult or misstatement by the other side, it’s easy to dismiss the outrage as calculated spin. But often, that’s not what’s happening. It is instead an expression of very real emotion, generated by living too long in the surreal bubble that a campaign often becomes.
I’ve seen that dynamic develop even in state legislative races, occasionally leading to petty violence between campaigns. But as the stakes get higher, so do the emotions and resentment, peaking in races for the biggest prize of all, the White House.
In part, that’s because the people working incredibly long hours for John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton aren’t just trying to get their candidates elected. They also know that their own dreams and futures are intimately tied to their candidate’s fate. They know that if their champion goes to the White House, they go to the White House too. They know if they lose, they will be frozen out of influence, respect, power —- all those things they hope to acquire.
Candidates know that too. They know better than anyone that they aren’t alone on the ballot, that their success or failure means the success or failure of a lot of other people who have invested in them very heavily. If they decide to leave a race, they make that decision not just for themselves, but for all the people who believed in them and worked so hard for them.
In addition, everybody with whom the candidate interacts on a daily basis shares the same little campaign bubble. They all drank the Kool-Aid, and they all liked the Kool-Aid. So nobody on the team wants to be the first to suggest that it might be over, that all that hard work and those long days have gone for naught.
Most of the time, the system saves them that trouble, because come Election Day, the voters render their verdict and that’s that. But presidential nominating races are different. In the primary system, there is almost always another Election Day down the road that might offer cause for hope, and the candidates themselves, not the voters, are forced to decide when to end it.
For several weeks now, even before the Ohio and Texas primaries, it had become clear that Clinton could not win the Democratic nomination, and nothing since then has changed that fact. Yet, surrounded by people who look to her for hope and inspiration, Clinton cannot bring herself to admit it.
Instead, she insists that the process continue, on the grounds that the people are sovereign and must be allowed to have their say. Then, switching gears, she also argues that once the people have had their say, the superdelegates have the right to overturn the people’s verdict in her favor.
Within the bubble in which she and her advisers live, that convoluted argument makes sense, because it is the only argument that allows them to continue. But most of those outside that bubble can see the argument for what it is, a fantasy born of breathing the fumes of the campaign bus too long.
Permalink | Comments (41) | Categories: Forum
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Willum
March 31, 2008 8:06 AM | Link to this
The tendency to see the other side, “people who in most respects are very much like themselves”, as evil is a classic example of what Freud called the narcissism of minor differences. And the way Clinton is shifting around rationales for staying in the race - some of them blatantly contradictory - is like Freud’s parable of the borrowed kettle: 1st excuse: “I never borrowed your kettle”, 2nd excuse: “it was already broken when you lent it to me”, 3rd excuse: “besides, it still basically works fine anyway, what’s your problem?”, etc.
Whatever one things of Clinton, one can’t help feeling for her almost tragic plight. For her to salvage a shred of dignity - and maybe a lot more - she obviously must bow out. And not to do so places her on exactly the same plane as Bush and an entire administration - and war - built this very denial.
By ron
March 31, 2008 8:18 AM | Link to this
Quitters never win-ever.Except smokers.
Ralph Nader's in it again. Ron Paul ran. So did Huckabee. And many other losers. None of them ever had a chance to be nominated. Hillary does not need to quit and add her name to this list.By get over it
March 31, 2008 8:26 AM | Link to this
It is also impossible for Senator Obama to win enough pledged delegates to claim the nomination. The span that separates both candidates is a small delegate lead and an even smaller popular vote lead. Stop trying to push Republican bully tactics by wanting Senator Clinton to step aside. She has just as much right to stay in the race as Obama. Not everone feels that an arrogant, self-absorbed, elitist, and racist like Obama is entitled to the nomination. There are millions of voters that have not had yet their voices heard. Shut up about it!!!
By GTJohn
March 31, 2008 8:30 AM | Link to this
You know, if you add up the votes for Clinton and Obama the way the electoral college works, Clinton would be well ahead. Perhaps the process should be changed and Obama should bow out. After all, it’s the electoral college that elects presidents.
By GeezGuys
March 31, 2008 8:34 AM | Link to this
I wasn’t aware the Democratic Party’s nomination process had been replaced by Jay Bookman’s opinion.
Why doesn’t Barack Obama drop out? He’s deluded if he thinks he will win the presidency. All his crowing about taking red states is just clucking now. You can bet people in Utah don’t dismiss his racist mentor’s “God damn America,” like the Limo Liberals of Jay Bookman’s world. Obama’s finished as a serious candidate. All he’ll do now is guarantee what no one else thought possible a year ago…The Republicans will retain the White House.
By Joyce
March 31, 2008 8:44 AM | Link to this
I most certainly agree with “Get Over It.” Sen. Clinton is what we have come to know as a “doer” not a “quiter.” She is strong, she is dilligent, she is RIGHT, she is savvy, she is well-educated, she is EXPERIENCED, she is the one we need to lead this country back to where it was before the Bush debacle. If some people would just let this alone and let it work to the end, we would have a legitimate candidate. But the pundits, the guys with the shows on cable who have an opportunity to speak their mind, and those who think they know what’s best for us, should just shut up. I get so tired of hearing their assessments of the race. I get so tired of hearing them say Obama has won it. They don’t know. They don’t have a clue where this is headed. People who want to vote should be allowed. Isn’t that what we have always been told. Go to the polls, vote for your candidate or else keep quiet if you don’t agree with the elected one. Same with the candidates who are running. Let the voters decide!
By DK
March 31, 2008 8:54 AM | Link to this
Another example of the typical political ignorance being shown in this election. Party elections are not a purely democratic process. Until the last couple of generations ago, people had little real influence over the selection of a party’s nominee. The reason that elections play a larger part in the choice now is opinion politics. If a candidate doesn’t win a majority of delegates, the party leaders and delegates will decide who wins. That said, what is not being said here (and a lot of other places too) is that while it’s true that Clinton can’t win the delegate majority, Obama can’t win a majority either. Florida and Michigan’s potential delegates are considered in the count that determines the majority needed. Neither can win this nomination on the first ballot without a large defection of committed superdelegates or absolute landslide victories in the remaining state (neither of which is going to happen). This will be a brokered convention because no candidate will win a majority, only a plurality. After the first ballot, the delegates will be free to vote at will. Gore may end up being the candidate, who knows. Obama supporters need to stop acting like he’s won this thing because he hasn’t. Democrats (on all sides) need to be real careful ripping at each other of we’ll be welcoming President McCain to the Whitehouse. Let’s let the process run its course.
By Utopiayes
March 31, 2008 9:04 AM | Link to this
Hiaalry had a chance to run an honest, respectful capaign. She chose not to. Hillary had a chance to plan beyond Super Tuesday. She chose not to. Hillary had a chance to run a financially responsible camapign and pay her campaign debts in a timely manner. She chose not to. Now its America’s time to choose and we are doing so in every primary race. We are choosing Barack Obama and a new breed of leadership and transparency for our nation. No amount of senseless flailing about and last gasps of political life by the Clintons is going to change that.
By lmadness
March 31, 2008 9:15 AM | Link to this
Jay - thanks for a thoughtful article … and in the comments section right on cue, some ‘living’ examples ;)
By Harry S.
March 31, 2008 9:17 AM | Link to this
HRC never had a chance to win in the general election, it would be impossible because she is the most hated woman in America, more than Martha Steward or even Jane Fonda. I know it is irrational and undeserved, but it is also a fact of life she and her supporters will have to accept. She would turnout the rightwing lunatic fringe in record numbers. Independents will not support her. Also, many of the primary votes she has received are from hard core republicans who have crossed over to vote in open primaries just to keep this mess going. Party leaders and the super delegates need to tell her the truth and she needs to do the right thing for the Democratic Party. She would make a great Attorney General or Supreme Court Justice, but she will never be elected to any national office, even Vice President.
By gttim
March 31, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this
Thoughtful analysis. I can certainly see what you describe. Sadly, most of the comments will not be as thoughtful.
Obama leads Hillary in the delegate race. It is almost impossible, and would pretty much take a miracle, for Hillary to overtake him. The superdelegates are falling his way. Nothing else matters. It does not matter how the electoral college would count up the votes. The rules were established, and that includes excluding FL and MI, and Obama is winning.
By NC Voter
March 31, 2008 9:50 AM | Link to this
I vote in NC and am thrilled to finally have an opportunity to vote for the candidate of my choice on May 6. There is no reason Hillary should drop out of this race until all the people have had a chance to cast their ballot. I hate the way the primaries are set up so that voters in the same late-voting states never get a chance to have an impact on a primary election. For crying out loud, let us have our chance to vote! If Obama wins the nomination, then fine, but let us have the opportunity to vote! I respect Hillary for not dropping out. She obviously believes that every vote counts, and thank goodness even Obama recently agreed that Hillary should not drop out. I will vote for Obama if Hillary doesn’t win the nomination, but I want a chance to vote for the candidate of my choice. I have been so turned off by people like Nancy Pelosi who are calling for Hillary to drop out before the election cycle is completed, that I don’t even want to be considered a Democrat anymore! I am not mad that Hillary might not win, I’m mad that they want to block me from voting just like the people in FL and MI. What is wrong with the Democratic Party leaders?????
By Richard
March 31, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this
As a Democrat who will probably vote for whomever the party nominates this summer, I am a little tired of the Obama supporters who continue to insist that Hillary Clinton drop out of the race. It appears to me that Hillary has a better chance of winning in November because she can win the big, important states that Obama seems incapable of doing. Also, the margin of votes [both delegate and popular] is so narrow that calls for Hillary to drop out seem nonsensical and obviously self-serving from Obama supporters like Jay Bookman. Finally, I can’t help but see a sad trend in asking a woman to step aside for a man — much like the suffrage leaders of the 1860s were treated when it came to a question of voting rights for black men as opposed to those for women. Although I doubt that Mr. Bookman and other Obama supporters really think in those terms, the whole idea of women taking a backseat in this day and age to any male is less than healthy for the Democratic Party and the nation as a whole. If Obama wins the nomination, he will almost certainly get my vote in November but not at the expense of denigrating a superior candidate like Senator Clinton by suggesting that she give a winning campaign.
By mum
March 31, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this
Let the process play out. What has sickened me about this election cycle is that Democratice party is afraid of a fight. They want nothing better than to have an easy road into the White House. It is so hypocritical of the people who want Sen. Clinton to drop our because if they were running to win, they would never drop out before the end, if they believed there was the slightest chance that they could win. If she feels that she can pull it out, it’s the American way to let her try. I’m sick of people complaining about how Sen. Clinton is being nasty, obviously the folks complaining have never paid attenton to political campaigns before because this is a ‘lovefest’ compared to some in the past. Obama is untested so far, so this will let everyone see if he has a backbone because as the ‘experts’ are now saying, it is only making him stronger, because they all know, the Republicans know how to play politics. The problem is that she was never the preferred candidate for the Party so now they have the guy they feel gives them an easy road, they’ve thrown her under the bus, and so have many of her closest advisors. Everybody seems to want to back who they see as the guaranteed winner. Politics doesn’t create friends and people are only as loyal as the next job offer or big contribution. It’s all about personal survival. For those who think that Obama doesn’t have some real IOU’s to cash in if he becomes President, you’re deluding yourselves. It’s still politics as usual, just in a different spin. So, suck it up, and let Hillary her continue to run!
By Willnatl
March 31, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this
Hillary has won every major electoral state except Illinois (California, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas, Florida and Michigan). She has also turned out the Democratic base of voters, while unfortunately Barack has become the candidate for black voters, but can’t seem to tap into working class voters. Does the party dare nominate someone who can’t carry the major electoral states and who wants to disenfranchise the voters of Michigan and Florida? If Hillary can get the nomination it seems she’s in a better position to make a run than Barack. Hillary has repeatedly been ganged up on and beaten up by the good old boy network. It only makes her stronger and more determined. What’s so hard to understand about that?
By Lee
March 31, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this
Sometimes, in national and international politics you have to fight with a weak hand and against popular expectations. Hillary is doing a good job of that- far better than Obama would do in the same situation. It is easy to run from the front of the pack, and less easy to run from behind. But even those left behind need to fight on, beacuse political circumstances may change, and it is a long stretch until the convention. I don’t think Obama has ever fought a losing battle that he didn’t ditch instead of fight- Hillary has fought impossible odds and downright lies, and won agaisnt them, all her life, especially since 1990. This is a test of political will and skill, and Hillary is doing a much better job than Obama does.
By Dave
March 31, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this
The tragedy here is that the Democrat party has shot themselves in the foot. They are blind to the fact that there is a huge percentage of Democrats that are for Hillary but will not vote for Obama and vice versa. In a Democracy it’s all personal opinion. All the attacks on Hillary Clinton are about her personality, but no attacks on Obama for his obvious lack of experience. So he can write a speech. Big deal. That doesn’t run a country. Big ideals got us in the Iraq mess. I just don’t understand all of the people that say Hillary should bow out. Why? Because there is a faction that just can’t stand the Clintons. They want to see her fail. I own a small business. I was MUCH better off during the Clinton years. This Bush stuff has been a fiasco. Obama is going to make this better? I just don’t see how. I hope Hillary stays until the very last. It’s her life and money she has raised. I’m glad she is marching on. The people in editorials and newscaster who say she has no band behind her are dead wrong.
By Bill
March 31, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this
LOSERS, Dean, Kerry, Richardson, Dodd, Teddy,to name a few, all saying Hillary should drop out. Like anybody would consider thier opinion. Hillary Clinton doesn’t fit in that group at all. There are still people out there that deserves thier vote to be counted. Who are a bunch of has beens quitters to dictate to anyone. Wake up people, the blowhard racist that your backing may be elected, Then you will have some moaning to do. Prayer is still the most powerful weapon . God help us all. God “BLESS” America.
By jack Atlanta
March 31, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this
WHAT IS THE REAL PROBLEM FACING THE CLINTONS??
No doubt, they both suffer from what some have called TDD (Trust Deficit Disorder). But, they have turned into Twiddle Dumb and Twiddle Dee! Hillary grossly overestimated her ability to have the nomination sewn up by February 5, 2008; she failed to plan strategies for the caucuses (i.e., Iowa); she failed to successfully plan a southern strategy; she will tell a whopper when she feels it will benefit her short or long term – but, was caught in a big one for all to see in her ‘Bosnia Tale’; she grossly overestimated Bill’s ability to garner votes; and underestimated his gaffes (South Carolina being his worse). AND NOW … Hillary is not paying her bills! Folks, this really gets to a character issue. If she will stiff arm the ‘little guy’ on the road, what on earth will she do with taxpayers if she goes back to the White House?? Lastly, Hillary’s vetting process is in dire need of review. How did she bring on Maggie Williams as her campaign manager (with her – Maggie — serving on the board of the now bankrupt sub prime lender Delta Mortgage)?? Her poor judgment is now on display for all to see, and it is not a pretty picture!
What the Clintons will have to live with for the rest of their lives is the CAUSE OF THE LOSS LIES CLEARLY AT THEIR FEET! THAT WILL REALLY BE TOUGH!!
By old91A10
March 31, 2008 11:28 AM | Link to this
Hot air!
There are nine voters in my family who call and correspond with each other frequently. We are seven Democrats and two Independents with over 320 combined years of Progressive voting. We were spread all over the map during the early days of the primary. Three have yet to vote in their state primaries, and two are in a state with the primary denied. At this moment, three are for Clinton, four for Obama, and two undecided. Are any afraid McCain will win under any circumstances? No way!!!! Do any think that one of our candidates should withdraw now, barring some, yet to be, devastating revelation? No way!!!!
Except that we support different candidates, until now, we were all in agreement that we would be voting for whichever candidate our (un)Democratic Party nominated. Now, we are all p** about the behavior of our party, and wondering what punishing signal we can send to the pigs at the top. Personally, I’d like to swat that a**hole Dean across the nose with a rolled up newspaper, and rub it in the mess he left in the middle of my living room.
And then we see Leahy make his call. What’s the problem Pat? In a state with a total population of 608,000 and over 189,000 voting in the primary, and with both Obama (the winner) and Clinton each far exceeding the total Republican primary vote, is Leahy trying to convince me that he won’t be able to deliver his state in the Presidential Election? Well, if that were to become the case, then he has been lying to himself and to us about the actual support the Democratic Party and a particular candidate has in his state, or he is lying to us about being an effective Politician.
How are we to repair the damage caused by this war, the gluttony at the top, our ignorance of the disadvantaged, the putrid behavior of the fourth estate, etc., if we do not have our vote and voice?
By meg
March 31, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this
To Mr. GeezGuys - Limo liberal Jay Bookman? Have you ever seen the 30 year old rust-bucket he drives? I love it!
By Joe in PA
March 31, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
And yet again the dysfuncional Democratic party is finding a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Start thinking with your brain and not your hearts and often unrealistic ideals. The Republicans are a master of the political game and they are winning yet again.
If Hillary is the nominee McCain wins. Period. To do so the superdelegates will be ignoring the will of the people that the Clinton supporters are arguing need to be heard. They have been heard and it’s over unless they are ignored. And passing over a black candidate who has the legitimate lead will depress Democratic turnout and Hillary will greatly increase a relatively apathetic Republican base to vote against her. Recipe for disaster folks.
The argument that Clinton won the big states is invalid because it’s predicated on the belief that it means Obama can’t. He has to beat McCain in those states not Hillary. And btw Hillary lost Texas, Obama won.
By mum
March 31, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this
Well, now, until Obama started to garner support, NOBODY thought anyone but Sen. Clinton could be the nominee. Blacks didn’t support him until they started seeing others supporting him and then they climbed on board, the Party did the same. Gore lost because he was afraid to use the fact that he was a part of a very successful 2 terms of Bill Clinton, you may not have liked Bill’s personal choices, but I would like to hear from people who didn’t do well during those years. You don’t run away from a successful record. President Eisenhower conducted a very public affair, but I don’t see people talking down his presidency. Unfortunately, you only have to look at TV and print to see how voyeuristic society has become. There is a nastiness in our society and people seem to enjoy repeating really stupid things they read. I see how people seem to hate Sen Clinton, but I’ve yet to hear a rational reason why. They blame her for everything Bill did. Does that mean the all women should pay the price for their husband’s sins? Or the other thought that Bill would be President if she won. That’s insulting because the presupposes that a woman can’t be strong and think for herself. How many women have husbands that leave most of the daily decisionmaking up to them? We run society every day, but even we don’t seem to appreciate the strength that God gave us because it seems to still be in our heads that we are inferior. Give me a break!
By Skeptic Tank
March 31, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this
Obama, Hillary, McCain.
The only winner will be by default and the long-suffering American people will continue their losing streak.
My voice is not represented in this triumvirate of mediocrity. Is yours?
By Mr. Adams
March 31, 2008 12:28 PM | Link to this
I would support a Hillary/Obama Ticket ot Obama/Hillary Ticket.
Either way they both are too good. They need each other. Or we will have another Republican President.
By Stephen
March 31, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this
To Willnatl-
It is people that think like you that will prevent Obama or anyone like him from ever having a chance at becoming the President of the United States of America. Let’s get real…you’d never vote for anyone of Obama’s skin hue even though he has a Caucasian mother, as in he’s Bi-racial.
No matter how many degrees he has, no matter what successes he’s had in life, no matter how intelligent he is, even if his pastor/mentor had been Joel Osteen or Billy Graham (who has been the spiritual advisor to many prior US Presidents), you’d never vote for him so please quit the false justifications, excuses for your irrational rationale and just admit it, e.g., the REAL REASON.
Intelligent people can read between the code words that you use and many others on this blog have used. These are the same old tired ones that have always been used to justify the beliefs of your biased people.
In case you haven’t noticed, the human landscape of America is changing and hopefully future generations won’t be as closed minded as many who are currently here occupying space.
By Gordon
March 31, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this
I love it when liberals fight with each other. Both the Democratic candidates are jokes, but sadly McCain is not that much better. All represent more government and less freedom. The fact that most people see the choice as Republican vs. Democrat instead of the kind of “leaders” we have now vs. someone who is willing to level with the American people about how bad things really are shows that most people don’t have a clue. Skeptic Tank at 11:56 is exactly right.
By jbjd
March 31, 2008 12:53 PM | Link to this
If I stand beside Adolph Hitler, put my arm around him, and call him my friend; it is safe to assume I am not too crazy about the Jews.
By Geez Jay
March 31, 2008 1:05 PM | Link to this
Ten paragraphs to get to your point. Here’s my point. Hillary and Bill Clinton are political animals, who will do any and everything possible to attain their goals. This is Hil’s one shot and she’s not going to let go of it for anything short of a third ballot defeat at the convention.
By old91A10
March 31, 2008 1:24 PM | Link to this
Although I am not entirely in agreement with Willnatl’s post, I understand some of his/her points.”
On the other hand you make some serious charges about “… code words….”, “… biased people….”, “… closed minded ….” I don’t understand where you see all of that short comment.
I think “…unfortunately Barack has become the candidate for black voters….” is not accurate, and could have been expressed better in comparing support for Barack Obama versus Hillary Clinton. However, even in the main stream media, the fragment ‘candidate for black voters’ is listed among the many reasons cited for his success. Further, it was once listed among the many assets of Hillary Clinton.
To better understand your argument, please clarify what you see in that text or Willnatl’s heart that gives evidence to justify your personal attack.
In the meantime, let the Democrtic primary race continue.
By jack Atlanta
March 31, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this
If the Democratic National Committee has a LICK OF SENSE, they will change their convoluted delegate rules when this election cycle is over! They placed themselves in this position. Hillary was even for the rules before she was against them!! (And to think, we want this type of logic back in the White House?????)
By Mary
March 31, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this
Voting for Hillary - she is right for this country.
By blady
March 31, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this
It’s truly amazing the number of bloggers who describe Obama as a “racist” because they believe his former paster is a racist. By that logic, does that make McCain an anti-Catholic because Hagee endorsed him? This destruction by association is really unbearable. Obama has publicly stated that he believe Hillary has the right to stay in the race; she is a formidable opponent, etc. I respect her right to stay in and I respect his right to support her decision.
By Dave
March 31, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this
“James Carville —- overreact” ? Clinton can’t accept reality ?
Déjà vie – all over again…
By Simple Man
March 31, 2008 4:03 PM | Link to this
This has been the most fascinating political spectacle that I have ever witnessed. On the one hand, we have a mixed race candidate from an affluent Chicago family who insists he represents the disenfranchised african american voters in the deep south. On the other, we have a former first lady who moved to New York City so she could get elected to the Senate and maintain her powerbase in national politics. Finally, over in the distance, we have a distinguished combat veteran who is being called too liberal by those in his party. Should Hillary drop out? No, but she, and Barrack, and John should start talking about issues that matter so people can make an honest and clear choice. Tell us your plans for improving the economy, our schools, our medical care, Social Security, the mortgage crisis, etc.
By GA_Tiger Fan
March 31, 2008 4:07 PM | Link to this
Hillary is evil and will stop at nothing to get elected. She’s been caught in lie after lie and yet some people still believe her…..idiots!
By GA_Tiger Fan
March 31, 2008 4:14 PM | Link to this
Mary must also live in the bubble Jay speaks about! Get a clue, please.
By The Truth
March 31, 2008 4:15 PM | Link to this
Hillary Rodham Rodham is a moron. Nothing makes me happier than seeing the democrat socialist party tearing itself apart with racism. Love it and hope they will continue to eat themselves. Barak and Hillary should go run for president in a third world country.
By Jay
March 31, 2008 4:19 PM | Link to this
Bill had very little to do with the economic success in the 90’s MUM. Any President has little effect on the economy for that matter. Clinton the 1st actually botched foreign affairs every bit as much as you people want to blame Bush, at least history will vindicate Bush. The fact remains that the Dems have again combusted from within without taking a stance on anything. And you guys and girls think you can run OUR country.
By jasper
March 31, 2008 4:25 PM | Link to this
Wait a minute. Jay “left wing nut job” Bookman, writing for the African Journal of Communism, says that Hillary is in a bubble. The irony is so rich it should be taxed.
By jack Atlanta
March 31, 2008 4:44 PM | Link to this
Normally, would like to say something positive, but in all candor, do not see any of the three candidates who can put the USA back on an even keel. The childish bickering between Obama and Clinton is only symptomatic of a larger problem we have developed with the politicians we have elected over the years — individuals who think more of the acquisition of their personal power, than they do the people they are supposed to serve!
The Country has a number of problems that we FAIL to address: *A failing education system that we either ignore, or are not willing to fix. *An energy crisis with oil in our own ground — but, unwilling to extract; unwilling to build more nuclear plants and refineries; but we continue to whine! *Crumbling infrastructure that we do not address until we have an immediate problem. *Wasteful spending by our politicians, but allow them to raise taxes without much of a whimper! WE SIMPLY FAIL TO HOLD THEM TO ACCOUNT!! *A volunteer military that is being supported less and less by the population, and is being WORN OUT! *A growing sub-culture bent on violent crime to survive — and it is!!! *Politicians who continue to set poor examples of values and character for the youth population of this Country (Clinton (Bill) and Spitzer are only two examples). *Total failure to establish a climate for business in the USA to attract and retain foreign investment. Instead, we find ourselves going ‘hat in hand’ to China, the Mid East, and India to bail us out! *Failure to establish world standards for manufactured goods to beat foreign competition (auto industry is just one example), for we fear we might upset some unions. *Politicians — both parties — who place their own personal power above that of the people they are supposed to represent, and spend tax money to benefit themselves, vice the citizenry of the country.
None of the presidential candidates have an economic background. There is a tendency of two of them to promise the world to get votes. If they follow what they are promising, an increased number of businesses will leave the shores of America, or CLOSE! They will simply not be able to keep up with politician’s appetites of spending. The third candidate simply may be to old to provide the sheer energy to lead the nation in time of multiple needs.
Hold the two political parties responsible for failing to provide better qualified candidates! At a time of significant need in this nation, the two political parties have let both the nation and its people down.
Who is at fault?? Guess we are. We allowed this to happen … on our watch! We should collectively be ashamed! In the meantime, we will watch the destruction of the once strong Democratic Party by a couple who had rather destroy than lose themselves! Sad. So Very Sad!