Super (duper) Tuesday round up

Crying clinton

Just a quick summary of last nights events, Obama and Clinton are still pretty close with Clinton being only 80 delegates ahead, with this outlook it appears that a decision will not be clear for many more weeks.  If you look at the wins more in-depth Clinton has done very well with the Latino vote and very well in Red states, highlighting her strength as a candidate that can do well in Republican battle grounds.  Despite tis Obama fared well with black and white voters as well wealthy educated young voters.  The closeness in their results has been put down to the American people being genuinely spoilt for choice, most voters when asked, literally haven’t any qualms against the other candidate, they’re literally choosing their the better of the two, perhaps this is down to the lack of difference in issues between the candidates.

Meanwhile in the republican race McCain secured a strong first place, however what was more suprising in the Republican race was the success of Huckabee who was only 10% behind Romney in the popular vote which though it sounds like a considerable amount he was predicted to do a lot worse.   What will be the most interesting issue for republicans over the coming weeks will be – who will end up VP, Giuliani and Huckabee will most likely both be vying for this position and may explain why Huckabee is staying in the race; so as to split the more conservative vote of Romney and keep McCain strongly in the lead.

We are no clearer to knowing who will be the president come 2009, I’m personally hoping on Clinton, she has a wealth of experience, charisma and commands respect, and for the American people she is seen as a far stronger leader (despite her ocassional blubbing), but most importantly she doesn’t seem to be talking too much about the fact she is a woman and I think this show’s she has the intelligence to understand that (most) American’s really don’t see this as an issue. Also despite Clinton’s strong affiliation to Blair there can also be a very strong working relationship between Cameron and the Democratic party, it will also be interesting to see if Obama or clinton bring a wave of change throughout the world, will the impact of youth (Obama) in the states be a bonus for Cameron or will the impact of experience, McCain be a bonus for Brown, the only thing I know is that it will be a very very interesting election.


9 thoughts on “Super (duper) Tuesday round up

  1. Clinton has a wealth of experience. Is that a joke? When do people get credited with experience for what their spouses do? Why don’t we credit my wife with a PhD just because she lives in the same house as me! I really have trouble understanding why any UK tory would back a Democrat when McCain has a great chance of getting the White House.

  2. Mark… British Tories are trying to modernise… why do we have to hope for a Republican victory? Maybe it’s is viewed as a bit odd for a Tory to support Clinton but the Republican Party has moved so far to the Right and has been captured by a rather unpleasant religious agenda, and the Tory Party under David Cameron is not equivalent to that. The two would not complement one another and thus create an uneasy working relationship.

    Clinton and Cameron by contrast could work well together. Many of BUCF will be suprised to hear this but… perhaps the day of political “ideologies” has died and the center ground is the way forward. Cameron sees this… Clinton sees this… I don’t believe McCain does.

    In regards to your view about Hillarys experience, I completely disagree. She is both a former first lady to a very successful and popular President and thus was privy to some very important “insider knowledge” im sure and she is a popular and effective Senator in her own right. Clinton can be a President on day one. She knows the ropes… and she has a well informed spouse for suggestions on how to do the job!

    Further to this much has been made of the Obama “change” factor….this election shouldnt be about chosing change over experience… Change only comes with experience. Clinton will use her experience to make changes that America and the British working relationship can only benefit from. I remain confident of a Clinton candidacy.

  3. Clinton does have a wealth of experience. Being a first Lady is possibly a harder job than being a pres. People like Mark who make lame comparisons with their academic qualifications reveal their ignorance concerning the challenges of being in front-line politics. It is actually a very difficult job espescially for someone like Clinton who is of her own opinions and entered politics before her husband. Imagine being interviewed as a president. Difficult? Now imagine being interviwed as a president’s wife where one has to appear intelligent, of her own views and in complete agreement with her husband:- a much harder task. If Terhesa Heinz Kerry had been better, we might not be having democratic primaries at all!

    And Mark, if I was your wife I would want to distance myself from you as much as i possibly could considering the naievity of your comments.

  4. So being the first lady harder than being the president Jack? And the Republican party has been captured by religious zealots Dan? And Heinz stopped Kerry winning the presidency Dan? And I’m the one who is supposed to be naive? This stuff is pure fiction. It is common knowledge that Bill Clinton has been suppressing documents detailing Hillary’s involvement in his administration – the implication being she screwed up big time – especially on health care. Shooting fish in a barrel doesn’t even come close to describing how easy it is to critique what is written above. Cameron has consistently gone out of his way in recent weeks to speak in glowing terms of McCain – he spoke at the Tory conference for goodness sake. Clinton hasn’t got a conservative bone in her body. As for the idea that ideologies have died – give me a break. The centre is just as much an ideology as the extremes – it’s just crap ideology! The religious right (I hate this imprecise term) are a minority of the Republican party who are in turn just a minority of the American population at large. And anyway, at least they haven’t sold out their conservatism for a modernisation agenda that is just a euphemism for selling out to the left.

  5. 1) I never mentioned anything about Theresa Heinz Kerry. A review might be in order.
    2) I think Camerons words if you read them…. are far from an endorsement. They are merely complementary… as were his words about Barack Obama. I think the media has read to much in to this. If Cameron has “endorsed” McCain he has done it at a very early juncture as McCain isnt even the confirmed candidate yet.
    3) “At least they haven’t sold out their conservatism for a modernisation agenda that is just a euphemism for selling out to the left”… I do hope that is not aimed at me! I can assure you… and i’m sure anyone who knows me can assure you… I am not left. (I have been accused of being right of Thatcher… so i think you are barking up the wrong tree on that one.)

    All in all i think that Cameron by supporting McCain is merely repaying the favour. Cameron does owe McCain a great deal of gratitude for his appearence at conference at a time that was politically uncertain for him. However whilst I am an admirer of McCain I think that the Democrats have the election in the bag…. assuming Hillary is their candidate. If it came to a choice between Obama and McCain? I’d pick McCain.

  6. I wrote that very quickly. Yes the Heinz comment was for Jack not you Dan – my apologies! I think getting McCain to speak from the conference platform would be seen by most as some sort of endorsement. As for the Dems having the election in the bag – virtually all the polls over the past two months have shown that McCain leads the Dems in match-ups, especially Hillary. I make no apology for the comments on selling out to the left. I’m wondering when the Conservative Party will be renaming itself the Libertarian Party. There is now some scope for arguing convincingly that Brown is now more conservative than Cameron on a range of social issues. I’m growing increasingly tired with British politics. I can’t motivate myself to get excited when the only debates are whether the state should be spending 40 or 41% of GDP, while all other issues are kept off the agenda by a cosy, cosmopolitan, socially libertarian consensus. McCain for President! (I think I’m going to move to Alabama!)

  7. Marc, with the greatest of respect, how can you stand by two contradictory comments that have been posted only a day apart?

    In the first you ask how Clinton can be credited with experience simply because she was Bill’s wife. Then in the second you say that her involvement in Bill’s administration was of such an extent that he now has to suppress related documents.

    If she was, by your own account, involved in the then President’s administration, to the point that her involvement now has to be hidden, then she must have done more than simply be Bill’s wife while he was on office. Though rightfully this experience doesn’t so her in the best light.

    And Jack, your comparison of the difficulties of giving interviews between the President and the First Lady are great, If all that’s involved in being the President is giving interviews, but it’s not.

    I hear there is a certain big red button marked ‘nukes’ in his office.

    Plus when the President gives an interview the text is poured over by experts in London, Brussels, Moscow, Tehran, Pyongyang, and, previously, Baghdad, for any sign of internal or external weakness.

    Most of the First Ladies time is spent smiling at WI type flower arrangements or meeting community workers.

    And for the recode I loathe the women. Plus as my friend said the other day “no child should ever have had both their mother and father serve as President!”.

  8. Andy, I was assuming the original article meant positive experience, rather than experience in general. As far as I’m aware (although I’m willing to be corrected), apart from the medicare/medicaid reform cock-up, Hillary was not very prominent in forming White House policy. I don’t think it’s contradictory to say that overall, she cannot claim the ‘experience’ label, and still point out that the one time she had ‘experience’ she did a botched job. The only direct political experience she should be able to claim is her seven years in the Senate, which doesn’t look very impressive compared to McCain’s twenty-five on Capitol Hill. Without her husband, she would be considered just a junior member of the Senate, and probably wouldn’t have got there in the first place without Bill.

    I completely agree with your analysis on First Ladies in general.

  9. So Mark ‘knows’ that Hillary was directly responsible for healthcare cock ups but she doesn’t have any positive white house experience. Where are the sources for this? Much of Hillary’s involvement would have been informal and actually the smart people examine the first Lady’s speech for signs of weakness rather than the President’s as that’s where the administration can let it’s guard down. (Remember Suez?)

    Terhesa heinz Kerry was a big weakness for Kerry. The number of adds the Bush campaign ran that focused on Laura Bush is testament to that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s