Barack Obama - cooler than a wet ham sandwich
I agree with Art! I heard a British journalist in DC the other day moaning on about voter turnout and trying to make the point that the British process was still better because more people take part - nonsense! Stand in the lines that'll form in Wyoming soon and Mississippi next week if you want to see real participation in democracy.
Rob's point about Margaret Thatcher reminds me that the American idea that a woman might make a weak leader is downright weird. The world's toughest political leaders have often been women: from Queen Boadicea to Indira Gandhi.
Ben Cameron makes an observation which goes against conventional wisdom and I am certainly going to try it out on a senior Democrat when I next see one - perhaps the duel is a fiendishly clever Democratic Party plot to keep McCain out of the headlines.
I see my Obama as post-Pennsylvania running-mate idea has not exactly received universal approbation. I am not advocating it guys, just reporting its likelihood!!
Meanwhile why, oh why, do (all of them as cool as an English ham sandwich on a wet day in Bognor Regis) continue to think that they can be like Barack? Forgetaboutit.
Start by buying trousers that reach as far as your shoes but don't expect to reach Obama cool any time soon...
Hello, I'm 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
It might amuse your readers to know that here in the States, and particularly here in NY where it originated, the spelling is "fuhgedaboudit"!
CBC exonerates Obama over NAFTAgate
>According to CBC, all the details were wrong. Canada contacted the campaigns. Michael Wilson was not involved. And, most damning, they are now admitting that the memo at the heart of the controversy "may not accurately reflect what they were told".
Also the key quotation didn't dome from Obama's campaign but Hillary's
>The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign called and was "telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt."
How come when Obama wins more delegates in Nevada and Texas, ´óÏó´«Ã½ show this as a win for Clinton??? I'm confused
hello
after reading the comments on your obama running mate idea, i have to say that i dont agree with many of the comments, especially those stating clinton cant beat mccain. have they looked at the latest tracking polls?
which not only give her a four point lead on obama, but also a 2 point lead on mccain.
At first blush a Clinton/Obama ticket would indeed appear unlikely given the (apparently intensifying) animosity between the two, but it wouldn't be the first time two presidential hopefuls have kissed and made up. If I remember it right George Bush Senior dismissed Reagan's economic policies as "voodoo economics" during the primaries before becoming his running mate in 1980.
As to Obama capitulating while still ahead in the delegate count the logic would seem to be a) he can't win the big states and b) momentum is all. Still I don't believe any ticket with Clinton on it is electable given the galvanising effect she has on even the most moderate/disillusioned of Republicans. It's gotta be Barack.
At 3am if Clinton answers the phone and it doesn't go her way, will she cry in frustration or maybe throw a tantrum?
Obama Republicans exist. Obama can beat McCain, Clinton will not. She is that polarizing. I give her credit though -- she sure can spin election results. Amazing how she won Michigan... being that she was the only Democrat on the ballot. I'm offended my tax dollars paid for that farce of a primary... (do it again at the expense of the party not the taxpayers - the politicians messed this up, we didn't!)
I also agree that there have been stranger combinations than Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama -- but it would be a mistake on his part. She will hurt his chances.
Justin, you are right on target regarding strong women politicians. Not all Americans view women as weak politicians. I'm just sad that we women in American have not been given a better woman to vote for!
But that's just the point - most people don't stand in the lines or even bother to walk down the street on a sunny afternoon to rubber-stamp one of the Xerox candidates. Whether or not it's better than the UK system doesn't detract from the fact that it (or both for that matter) is not "real" democracy. Comparing it to Russia is simply an extension of the specious "lesser of two evils" rationalization that permeates the whole bogus American electoral system. But then again, a corporate journalist could hardly be expected to question the sham election process in America if he (she) wanted a seat "on the bus". Embedded reporters in an "election" are not much dlfferent from embedded journalists in a war; they adopt the outlook of those they're embedded (in bed?) with. But the voters see it differently. In America, eligible voters have repudiated the sham elections overwhemingly. There's no way around that "stubborn fact". The figures prove it. As Ghandi once famously said when asked, what did he think of democracy in America? It would be a good idea!
2 Things:
1. In regards to the British politicion complaining about how the British system is better because of voter turn out, I have to say your defense of ours is right on. It seems-in this election at least-that many more people turn out to vote than in the UK, but when it comes to campaign length, campaign fund raising, and party selection, not to mention the whole feasco with deligates which (at the end of the day) can, in theory, choose whom ever they wish to support, clearly the British system, I think, is better.
2. I have to say, that the news of some British politicians trying to be, in your words, "as cool" as Obama is a plesent surprise. I don't know if they are, because I haven't studyed them enough, but regardless, the fact that for once in a very long time, a foreign politician is actually admireing instead of being disgusted with an American politician is, in my opinion, wonderful and welcome news!! Although this whole "cool" business, to me at least, its not how someone acts, but rather the policies they champion and how well they are at articulating those policies that make them "cool", and I think several British politicians can do, and are extremely skilled at doing just that!
I wonder when the Clinton camp knows Mathematics. Besides, Obama is a lucky guy. Those who don't believe in luck, its up to you. Luck:
#1. If Florida had accepted the rules, Clinton's win would have been a landslide. Now the state is going to redo the primaries, and you know how it will go: Clinton 52; Obama 47; (divide the delegates). Michigan: same story: Clinton 53; Obama 45. Do the Arithmetic, would you please?!
#2. The Americans are desperately in need of something new.
#3. He has been lucky all his life: winning the senate vote, being born to a gorgeous blond mother, complete the list, Harvard, Chicago…Most of it has been sheer luck, plus of course smart decisions e.g. moving to Chicago instead of going to the sunny islands. Barack means luck in Swahili, by the way. Hope you get me on that.
While you're mentioning tough leaders, I'm amazed you left out the UK's own Margaret Thatcher. Here in the United States we called her the "iron lady", and I have never seen any reason to doubt that appellation was well deserved, whether one supported her views or not.
Also, it is Indira GANDHI, please, not "Ghandi". :-)
Hello??
Obama appears to be unable to win crucial states like NY, NJ, Ca, Ohio and Txs - and on this basis, he could well slide on Fla and Mich, if they are permitted to have primaries now.
In other words, Clinton faces up to the big stuff whilst Obama chokes. IMO that means the Dems have to take HRC, warts (big bum) and all. If Obama can be persuaded to take VP, maybe on a promise of the big one in 4 years, then so be it. At least there will not be another 100 years in Iraq (I think)
Justin - your blog is getting really lame. You get a whole lot of heat about your last piece and then you don't even bother to explain why you said what you said. You won't keep your readers if all you come up with is a throwawaw comment like, "I see my Obama as post-Pennsylvania running-mate idea has not exactly received universal approbation. I am not advocating it guys, just reporting its likelihood!! " Earn your money adn don't waste our time!
justin,
this week's blog is great as always..
here is my question: why is not the press doing more research and questioning barack obama background and his goals towards the united states of america if he is elected to the presidency of the united states....
"I am not advocating it guys, just reporting its likelihood!! "
Then what ARE you advocating, Justin?!
Whats interesting to me is your source for the speculation: Robert Novak!! Oh, I am sure he is the best source for info about the inner workings of the democratic party!!
Then your earlier endorsement of Gerard Baker's denouncement of Obama ("Is America ready for a dangerous left winger?"). Today's source is none other than... Karl Rove!! Not surprising... all the roads were leading there!
Is this some new ´óÏó´«Ã½ America policy of supporting the right by proxy? What about some pretense of neutrality?!
Something to consider...
If the 0300 AM call comes to the White House with Hillary there, it might very well be from one of Bill's female acquaintances....
a little comparison with the French elections of 2007:
1/ in France, we also had primary to select the socialist candidate (the "equivalent" of the democrats) and the battle and insults between the (three) candidates only weakened the eventually designated candidate, Ségolene Royal whose abilities and experience to fill in the position were openly doubted by her socialists opponents. It only helped the right wing candidate, Sarkozy who had been designated for months
2/ Royal was like Obama the favorite of the media and had been for months, according to the opinion polls, the sure winner in case of duel Royal/Sarkozy. The media frenzy and the polls played a huge part in her designation although it was rather clear that her main socialist opponent, Dominique Strauss Kahn was far more experienced and competent. I fear that the American will chose the hyped up Obama /Royal against the serious but boring Clinton/DSK. When the presidential campaign actually started, Royal quickly proved that she was not ready for the post and never really was a threat for Sarkozy who was triumphantly elected. The only consolation for left wing voters such as me is that 6 months afterwards, Sarkozy's true nature and overated abilities are now unmasked and he now faces the lowest opinion polls (37%). However, we still have to put up with him for the next 4 years and a half...
As an Englishman i can only hope that Obama not only wins the Democrat vote but also wins the Presidential race too!
In my experience with America, it seems to far "behind the times" to allow a female leader to run it and i think that it's foreign policy would suffer also as other countries still don't respect women enough to take a female leader seriously. Yes, we had Maggie Thatcher but she has/had much bigger balls than Hilary!
I'd like to think Obama would be able to repair America's damaged image quickly as he comes across as cool and level headed as opposed to the "shoot first - lie later" current leader! A non-white fella is always going to look good and add a few brownie-points anyway!!
Speaking as a casual observer of British politics (of which I hold no faith in) and a UK citizen, the following passage positively oozes ignorance -
"Meanwhile why, oh why, do British politicians and their pals (all of them as cool as an English ham sandwich on a wet day in Bognor Regis) continue to think that they can be like Barack? Forgetaboutit.
Start by buying trousers that reach as far as your shoes but don't expect to reach Obama cool any time soon..."
Reach Obama cool any time soon? Seriously now, David Cameron tries to be cool in a completely pathetic way. Everyone in the UK can see straight through that, he's just as out of touch with the general populus as the rest of the musty troupe that inhabit the Houses of Parliament. However I hold my doubts that he'd inspire to be anything like a political frontrunner in a campaign dogged by outdated religion and overblown (not to mention unwarranted) patriotism.
British and American politics, in my personal view, are so alien to eachother as to be incomparible... so please stop trying.
Justine Webb,
You certainly have annointed Obama as the next president. So goes OHIO, so goes the Nation...just you watch, Hillary will keep picking up the core Democratic states leaving Obama with his petty little RED states that will not win the national election...you too have joined the OBAMA Band wagon to hopeful path to what?
GO HILLARY!! ANN E BUSH Columbus OHIO
Of course Brits think their system is better, despite the fact that they don't pick any of the people who end up running their country. Who elected the queen? Who picked Gordon Brown? all Brits get to do is vote for one person in one constituency. The parties do all the rest. The people don't even get to pick their local candidates. Some democracy.
In the US, we vote for all kinds of public jobs, including judges and even police chiefs. Many state constitutions allow for the people to amend them directly. (Can you imagine Yorkshire or Kent even having its own constitution?) Whether or not this makes for effective government, it IS an example of the people expressing their collective will.
And by the way, the United States has never been a literal democracy. It is a republic.
One thing about the British system is undeniably better: The whole bloody thing is over in a few weeks. These primaries have gone on so long I wonder if the winner will have the energy to actually govern.
The very idea that Barack Obama can be likened to a preening aristocrat like David Cameron is ill-concieved, to say the least. Fact is, Eton and Oxford University (prerequisits for UK political office) don't exactly churn out streetwise visionaries.
I just don't understand the ´óÏó´«Ã½ coverage, to be quite honest. It's some weird double-speak these people seem to be using. Before Tuesday, everyone was saying that Clinton needs to win Ohio and Texas by double digits to still be in the race. Come Tuesday, Obama gets more delegates in three states, including Texas, still has a 100+ delegate lead and ´óÏó´«Ã½ reports it as a triumphant comeback of the "juggernaut Clinton".
So... Obama won but Clinton has the upper hand? And is somehow going to overtake Obama in delegate count even thought that is realistically impossible? And if not that, she is at least going to gain momentum by attacking Obama for absolutely ridiculous reasons? And then Obama, even though leading in both delegates and popular vote, will congratulate Clinton, bow down and be Vicevicepresident? Am I losing my mind or is this what I am actually reading on this website?
I'm also beginning to wonder if Clinton has some strange form of Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder and suicidal tendencies... Yes, yes, attack the person half of your potential November voters look up to as a role model. And boast about your experience which is, quite frankly, non-existent compared to the likes of McCain and I can only imagine just how much he will enjoy mentioning that in October.
I've always maintained that people after 60 slowly enter their second childhood (which is not necessarily a bad thing). To me right now, Clinton seems like the 5 year-old who didn't win in Granny's Footsteps and is now trying to ruin the game for everyone else with the Tonya Harding mentality of "if not me, then no one".
Sigh, I'm better off going to the pub but in my opinion, Clinton missed her train in '04.
So let me get this right...If Mrs. Clinton has her way....I will spend my entire ADULT voting life (I will be 40 next year) under the rule of only two family's? Bush..Clinton...Bush JR...and Clinton? I had no ideal when I was 18 and could vote for the first time all those years ago, that I would never have a real choice in who would represent me in office. Two Family's...already 24 years... and maybe 8 more of same thing? Mother England SAVE US ALL!
The inevitaablility of Hillary Clinton is a farse of the media. She will not win against McCain and her "experience" was not making the decisions. She may have advised her husband but he was the "decider." She is smart, talented but I feel that that whole decade of the fierce fighting between parties will just continue. It's taken me a while to get here. I was a supporter of Mrs Clinton even though I live in Senator Obama's district. I have come to understand that we do need a new mindset on not only domestic issues but also understanding our place in the world. The politics of fear has taken us to a dark place that we need to release. Obama is the calm, sensible leader that we need now.
The Clinton spin about Obama "not being able to win the big states" is pretty pathetic when you consider that Obama's "losing" margin in all these states is a voter plurality of 2 and 3 (and sometimes 4) times the total voter turnout for the entire Republican primary in the same state. Obama isn't going to have any problem taking the states he "lost" to Clinton away from McCain, which is what counts...
I think Obama should be Mccain's running mate if Billary steals this thing!
Then he would be the president in 2 years rather than 4 years. (Big Mac might just even kick the bucket before the swearing in anyway).
Due to the lack of spines among the American media’s talking heads, I urge the ´óÏó´«Ã½, as well as other international media outlets, to help keep parity in the accounts reported on the American Democratic candidates. Ask the tough questions of these candidates.
As an American, I personally am disgusted by the Clinton campaign, and would feel quite ashamed if she becomes the face of America. She is a Bush-lite, who like both John McCain and King George Bush II , cater to and do the bidding of the lobbyist’s and powerful elite. You, the World, will get a watered down version of the elitist mentality. Mark my words.
Be well, and do the right thing!
Elisabeth Caquelin-van den Hoeven makes several good points. Mr. Obama is a good speech-maker, and this appears to be his greatest talent. But, he is vulnerable when it comes to tussling on specifics and issues.
Here in the US there are several interesting url tracking sites for seeing who is making political contributions. If you study many of the 'small contributors' to Barack Obama, who have sent in the max $2300 contribution, you can Google their other activity on the web. Interestingly, you can observe that a great many of them have previous histories are Republican think tank backers and contributors. Have they all been converted to a new hope-filled America? I think not.
The McCain crowd has always hoped for a McCain v. Obama run because they hope to fight on the grounds of War Patriot in Time of Uncertainty v. Liberal, Taxing, Lefty, "You know what." With the US economy tanking Obama is the Republican Billionaire Club's only hope for a straw man for Bully McCain to mow down. Hillary scares them and rightly so, as she is savvy enough to sidestep most of the obvious Rovian traps.
Like Sarkozy, McCain is an egoist and has too much to prove and if elected will be a bit of an international buffoon. Hopefully he won't trade his wife in for a younger model for fear of being tarred and feathered by the Christian Right crowd, but who knows. The big fear is that he will look to more war as the economic stimulus of choice. For Europe, which craves stability in Iran and the Mideast, this could spell disaster.
I find it interesting you talk about democracy in action in America. Only having two political parties to choose from doesn't seem very democratic to me.
And given Paxman's combative interview with Nader the other day, I am beginning to wonder if you boys at the ´óÏó´«Ã½ really have an understanding what democracy is.
Whatever your ideas they seem far different to my own.
What we see in both the UK and America is a rigged system that doesnt reflect the proportional vote. Instead of acting as a campaign outlet for the political parties I think you should be examining why the voter only has two choices; apples and oranges.
If Obama is still around..., McCain will not fall of the radar, he will win the presidency
Dave #22 said, "He's just as out of touch with the general populus as the rest of the musty troupe that inhabit the Houses of Parliament. However I hold my doubts
that he'd inspire to be anything like a political frontrunner in a campaign dogged by outdated religion and overblown (not to mention unwarranted) patriotism."
Yes, because that's exactly what Americans want from their leaders afterall! A bunch of flag waveing, chest beating, arragant, ignorant fools who speek of religion as if its the one and only worthy thing with which to judge someone!! Are you insane?! That couldn't be further from the truth of what we want nor what is being campaigned on!! A suggestion, watch one Obama rally and you'll get my point. O, and FYI, patriotism is fine and healthy in all countries in small amounts-certainly not "unwarrented", although yes, the Republicans do overblow it far too much!! And I feel you should know that judgeing someone's race or nationality is just as insulting and unexceptable as judgeing one's religion or lack their of.
Obama!
Music to McCain's ears...
If Obama becomes President then American Economy becomes weaker. Trust me, world market doesn't believe in him. And the capital/investnment will go to China. He is a relatively new in a bureucrachy and making policies, hence quite risky for him to make a completely new foreign policy. And at the end, you will value what experience is.
What an ironic and coincidental choice of words, "cooler than a ham sandwich." The phrase "you could indict a ham sandwich" is credited to first having been said in the Tom Wolfe novel "Bonfire of the Vanities" but was made even more famous when it was quoted by Sol Wachtler, the former New York State chief judge.
While we know of no statutory law or regulation Obama violated that would justify a criminal indictment, he certainly should be indicted by the press for his lack of judgement and experience, far too poor to take the helm of the executive branch of the United States. And so should those who support him for their lack of knowledge of history and exceptionally poor judgement in choosing someone so unqualified. Well they say people get the government they deserve and if Obama wins, the American People will have nobody to blame but themselves for the catastrophe which will ensue. And who will the rest of the world blame when the consequences ripple out like a tsunami throughout the world? Why America of course, their favorite scapegoat for everything that goes wrong everywhere. Then they will wish for the good old days of George Bush. Mediocrity beats incompetence every time.