The race for the Democratic nomination for President is capturing the imagination of people not just in the US but across the world. While it looks like John McCain is well on the way to winning the Republican nomination; Senators Clinton and Obama are now virtually neck and neck in a dog fight which looks like it could last all the way to the Democratic convention in August.
It is unequivocally the opinion of this commentator that the best hope for a Democratic win in November as well as the correct ideological and political choice for the Democratic nomination is Sen. Barack Obama. Obama has consistently spoken of the need for 'unity' and shown a willingness to reach out beyond the Democratic core vote. This trumps the charge of political naivety often levelled against him and shows an awareness of a cold hard political fact; the Democrats cannot take the White House purely be relying on their core vote. Solidifying the political base of the Democrats must be coupled with an appeal to 'soft' Republican voters who have deserted the party largely down to the ineptitude of George Bush. Republican's know this; why else would they scramble in their nominating contest to distance themselves from Bush? Democrats seemingly see no need to solidify the people who voted for them in the Congressional elections into support for their bid for the Presidency. Obama can do that, Clinton can't; her hate figure status will virtually guarantee that a Republican opposing Clinton will have an excellent opportunity to rally the troops.
Much has been made of voting records in this contest and it is widely accepted that the voting records are not that dissimilar between either candidate; however, in 2003 Obama showed himself to be a man of principle, voting not just against military action but against the prevailing opportunism in his own party at the time. Clinton, needless to say, caved along with the virtual entirety of the Democratic Party. It is wrong to use his subsequent votes for increased funding for troops against him, once troops are in action nobody would reasonably deprive them of the resources they need to protect their lives.
Newsweek did a brilliant job of exposing the fallacy of trying to paint Obama as 'Republican in Democrat clothing'; the fact that such a campaign was launched however speaks volumes about the kind of campaign Clinton runs and the kind of administration she would run. It also shows how narrow the policy differences between the two are and in that event personality will be decisive. It is small wonder figures in the Democratic Party hierarchy as well as grassroots voters are deserting the Clinton camp.
If personality is to be decisive then Clinton's surely is a huge turn-off. Her character and conduct during this campaign have shown strong streaks of that same venal and opportunistic tendency. Marianne Pernold Young, 64, whose question prompted Hillary's first outburst of emotion which aided her victory in New Hampshire commeted that she was not overly convinced by her outburst;
"Her response to me was heartfelt for the first 10 seconds," she said. "She put her hand on her chin and kind of looked at me like someone she had known for a long time and we were in a coffee shop just her and I," Young said.
But the moment was fleeting. "When she turned away from me, she assumed political posture again. I felt that her body language was rigid and she assumed that political language."
(Source; The Guardian).
Progressives the world over will be looking to the Democrat's in 08 to end the effective death of America as a progressive force in world affairs. However, a Democratic win in November is by no means guranteed and whether the Democrat's can win not just the White House but also retain control of Congress will be largely determined by the choice of candidate that they make in the coming months.
I consider myself a Republican, not by the leaders, but by the core beliefs in the center of it. I have noticed in this pre-election stuff, that many of the Republican canidates are or have not acted/voted very Republicany. I will vote outside my party if the need arises, and I tend to if Obama is elected the Democratic nominee. However, I would just like to point out to you that it is never the fault of just one party when things go wrong during a president's time in office. The president weilds very little actual power, the congress controls the lion's share of it. At any time Congress could have voted to pull troops out, because there are ways they can do things with out the president's approval, but they have not. And the Democrats have control of Congress not the Republicians. In my opinion, a party is never to blame, the individuals in each are.
MommaTrish - mom of 2 boys and a bump
...I find it interesting just how many Republicans would consider an Obama vote and I have to say that he is popular in the right-wing press (Times, Telegraph) in the UK too....your comment is a good example of the kind of person that the Democrats need to pull-in to win in November....McCain may not be much liked but his party but he's getting the votes because the Republicans realise that he's the most electable and it is kind of distressing that progressives seem incapable of making the same calculation....
With regard to the lack of Bush's responsibility I have to disagree to a degree...the fact is that the invasion (wrong in the first place) was made even more disasterous by the poor planning afterwards and that is something that Bush and those around him can be held entirely responsible for...especially since they undertook the invasion with hyper-inflated expectations of a cake-walk and hordes of joyous Iraqis rushing to embrace their 'liberators'...and also the Congress is only relatively recently Democratic so you cannot spread the blame like that...and also there is the small matter of the Presidential veto...so yes the lion's share has to go to Bush and his administration....