The Times they are a-changin’

The Times (of London) yesterday reported on what looked to me like a political horror story for Barack Obama, involving an Iraqi-born billionaire said by a Pentagon report to have “served as Saddam Hussein’s principle international financial manipulator and bag man”, a multi-million dollar loan conducted through a Central American finance company, and an admission from Obama of “boneheaded mistakes”. Yet it appears to be receiving little coverage in the US, the links in the chain being admittedly rather weak (though since when has that ever stopped anyone in presidential politics?). So Hillary Clinton will evidently have to hope for some other miracle to come along in the four days before the next primaries. The latest polls show Obama streaking ahead in Texas, and closing in fast in Ohio.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

436 comments on “The Times they are a-changin’”

Comments Page 6 of 9
1 … 5 6 7 … 9

  1. 247 – Ron
    I consider myself mostly a leftist, yet I don’t subscribe to socialism nor Hillary conceding anytime before hell freezes over.

    I also believe Hillary will win Rhode Island and Ohio and Texas will be line ball.

    Glen: Obama will be a shoo-in because there is no way Hillary will be able to catch him on pledged delegates.

    The momentum of super delegates is also going Obama’s way.

    Whilst it is not impossible for Hillary to make a massive comeback, there are no credible signs to support this hypothesis.

    The odds currently are stacked well in favour of Obama and the betting markets support this.

  3. Diogenes @ 246 – Instructive indeed to read in that article a US Je*ish perspective.

    What a tendentious bit of garbage this bit is though! It says the choice is between peace negotiations with Palestine OR the security of Israel’s citizens:

    “With all the candidates expressing similar positions regarding Israel, the difference will come in their handling of the entire neighborhood, and in the degree of pressure that they would exert on Israel to trade the security of its citizens in peace negotiations with Palestinians.”

    What an insidious effort that is = any candidate who suggests peace negotiations cannot be supported by Je*ws.

  4. One would also argue that being a rightist would be the more delusional viewpoint, given the election of the Rudd government, John McCain as the republican candidate and subsequently Hillary’s disintegration throughout the Democratic campaign.

    That’s not even mentioning the Iraq war and climate change.

  5. Just remember what happened the last time a Democrat Senator from Illinois came up against a decorated Republican War Veteran….he lost twice 1952 & 1956.

    Clinton may be a Clinton but at least she offers substance rather than pie in the sky rhetoric. If this is what politics comes to somebody beating someone because they can use rhetoric better and have fewer policies then it is a disgrace IMHO.

  6. 250
    Diogenes

    You’re talking sense to blogger who backed Howard’s team of shrivelled up losers and disparaged Rudd as ‘me too’ and ‘inexperienced’, then backed Rudy Giuliani, one of the most unelectable Republcian candidates of ALL TIME, (even Ron Paul got more votes!!) and you’re pretending to yourself that it’s going to make one iota of difference?

    Don’t bother wasting your breath.

  7. Some irony eh? Bush and his head honchos fly into a country they occupy with 160,000 troops in top secret and heavily guarded. Ahmadenijad announces his trip days before and rocks up giving Bush the finger.

  8. 255- Glen
    Its great to draw parallels to history but its all too easy to forget we are living in this current reality.

    When St Kilda play Adelaide in the AFL night grand final, you can quote all the statistics from past meetings that you like to find parallels, but remember that its always a new game.

    Although I do agree with statistical analysis of past results to a degree, when you need to draw parallels to something that occurred over 50 years ago, you are stretching credibility.

    Given Obama’s and Clinton’s policies on the majority of issues are practically identical, I welcome your analysis of what constitutes ‘substance’.

  9. Ron,

    Mate, the only “grizzling” is from the Obamamartyrs.

    Check out KR at 174 &177. Is that a dummy spit or what?

    Compare to my reasonable 179.

    It doesn’t matter what colour the glasses are, you have to open your eyes to use them.

    Cheers

  10. Asanque this is the problem, Obama’s policies are not identical to Hillbilly’s but how many times does Obama outline his policies in any depth without quoting Dr King and talking about Change this and Change that.

    What constitutes ‘substance’ is running on policy not pie in the sky rhetoric.

    Kirribilli Removals you trash me over predictions yet fail to mention that i predicted winning Swan and Cowan and holding Stirling and losing Hasluck.

  11. Glen, you’ve shot yourself in the foot there….

    If you know that Obama’s policies aren’t identical to Clinton’s then you are acknowledging he has said policies.

    If you are annoyed he’s not trying to sell his message based on the way you want him to sell his message then that’s your problem.

    If Obama has the policies and the votes, then whether he used the policies to get the votes is completely immaterial.

    We’re all elitist enough to agree that the vast bulk of the population will not vote based on policies (like we do) and so as long as the policies are there, whether they form the basis of the message seems moot.

    Having “substance” didn’t do Gore much good. I think most leftists would be OK with Obama becoming President with a leftist agenda but using a rhetorical message to attract the votes. So long as he wins, that is.

  12. “After standing on the stage, after the debates, I made it very plain, we will not have an all-volunteer army. And yet, this week-we will have an all-volunteer army. Let me restate that.”
    GWB Daytona Beach, Florida; October 16, 2004

  13. Glen @ 260 – [ i predicted winning Swan and Cowan and holding Stirling and losing Hasluck.]

    You’re a psephological genius Glen, surpassed only by Malcolm Mackerras. The Liberal ice-cream fell in the dirt, but at least you’ve still got the stick.

  14. Glenster!

    ‘In the final days before March 4, Sen. Barack Obama isn’t delivering many stirring addresses, those hope-filled stemwinders that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has dismissed as long on rhetoric and short on facts. Now Obama is in the solutions business too, holding a series of town hall meetings similar to the free-wheeling forums that packed his schedule early on in Iowa.’

    http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/02/obama_throws_away_the_script.html?hpid=topnews

    Quite a bit I reckon, particularly for a popularity contest. In any case, as mentioned above, there are few great policy differences between Obama and Clinton. We can hypothesise on how they might be different, but looking at what they have given us in black and white, there aren’t great differences.

    And frankly, I haven’t seen great policy detail from Clinton either. People seem to be confusing her comparative deficiency in style with a nonexistent extra substance. Can you point us to where and how Hillary has been more detailed on policy substance, and how it is a great departure from what Obama is presenting?

  16. #245 – Hi Ronny baby – Your “rose coloured glasses”, am I supposed to wear it so i can see the “white” side of Obama, since he is a piano man.

    So that what he is, as our south african friends used to bestow his kind, an “honourary white”. I now finally understand why he is OK with the whiteys. Is he not also related to the Dark Lord Chaney? Pity Jesse Jackson. Yep, he’ll be the next POTUS. But not yet, Go Hill, go. Lady first.

  17. ron-
    glasses! For moi?? aw, shucks.
    the rose colour will soften the sight of poor Hillary disppearing kicking and screaming from view as the su sets on her idaho.
    Bit sad really, but guess what? – we were right and Adam wasn’t so it makes it even sweeter that Obama will be POTUS (barring some horrible unspeakable event).

  18. EC at 229, an intriguing part of the article is the statement that if Ohio was an traditional Democrat primary, Hillary would win by double digits.

    What do others think of the fact that independent voters are swinging the vote for Obama. Shouldnt it be Democrats who decide their nominee??

  19. Andrew @ 268 – [‘Shouldnt it be Democrats who decide their nominee??’]

    Too late to change the rules now, just to suit Hillary, although she would disagree. Everyone has known the rules from the start. It tells you something about electability anyway. Who wants a candidate independents see as a dud?

  20. Andrew,

    I see it as a positive that Obama can turn out new and independent voters. Plus, the argument that he would only win with these people is sort of false – he has won states with open and closed primaries, and in both cases energised non-traditional voters. To win the Presidency a candidate would need to win these people, so demonstrating a strength in that area now is a good start.

    Also, in a closed 2 party system, it seems more democratic to me that everyone should have a say in who their choice of two candidates will be come November, not just registered or paid up Democrats. Yes this is open to strategic voting, but it would seem to me that in this case, Obama is drawing support, rather than being boosted by a machievellian Republican scheme.

  22. A couple more polls
    Ohio Democratic Primary Suffolk Clinton 52, Obama 40 Clinton +12 (smallish sample over 5 days)
    Texas Democratic Primary WFAA/Belo Tracking Obama 46, Clinton 46 (WFAA/Belo Tracking previously had Obama +1)

  23. Prince Harry’s Tour of Duty “a PR Stunt”
    -a “total, superficial, PR exercise” aimed at “rebranding'” Harry – who has a reputation as a wayward party animal – in a more positive light
    -criticism of foreign media for breaking a gentleman’s agreement was “sheer propaganda” that “may make us feel ‘our boys are winning’ in Afghanistan.”
    -“This (the coverage) is war reduced to entertainment, willingly ignorant of the truth that young men like Harry, both British and Afghan, are dying violent pointless deaths in Helmand province,”
    http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23310109-5006301,00.html

  24. @273, When will even our government discuss Afghanistan properly and realise it is as much a disaster and waste of time as Iraq. Up and till now it has been a convenient copout for those who say that we should not be in Iraq, but we really are fighting terrorism.

  25. “Meanwhile, the head of Britain’s armed forces, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, refused to be drawn about whether Harry would return to the frontline.”

    Sir Jock Stirrup HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

  26. Diogs –
    it’s not nice to laugh at people’s strange names. after all- Diogenes….well, enough said.
    It would appear from Realpolitics site that Hillary might as well call it a day so that Obama can get on with demolishing McCain, so the GOP can get the drubbing it deserves. Wonder if they will look as dishevelled and pathetic as our own Libs do after a defeat?

  27. Somewhere upthread an oracle said:

    [Kirribilli Removals you trash me over predictions yet fail to mention that i predicted winning Swan and Cowan and holding Stirling and losing Hasluck}.

    Which segues seamlessly into Bludger’s Riddle Round Up.

    Question: What resembles a realpolitikally challenged Junior Woodchuck psephologist wannabe who keeps shooting himself in the foot?

    Answer: A “shoe in” search of a load of old cobblers.
    —————–
    And Ron, that’s awfully kind of you to mail me those “rose coloured glasses”. I tried them on at home and my 16 y.o. daughter and her friends began giggling hysterically. Pretty sure it was the horn rims. Do you have anything in “granny” frames? Cheers, China.

  30. Diogenes @ 275 – Did you make that name up?

    I thought a ‘jock stirrup’ was an article of intimate support made of iron, as worn by the Light Horse brigades in WW1

  31. #279 – TurningWorm – who said it was news? But you did. I said it was Hollywood. If you cant tell the difference that is your problem. My “News” in #278 was referring to the News Limited’s article.

  33. Andrew, also a very nuanced reply from Pancho at 270.

    Anyone want Bludger Toon Time today, or has ennui enveloped yez all?

  34. Sorry Finn old chap, didn’t mean to strike a nerve. I’ll just leave the gossip about the Royals to you then.

  35. #284 – TurningWorm – [I’ll just leave the gossip about the Royals to you then] – they are doing very well tq without any help from me.

  36. Finn- You win BIG on that prescient blog. I remembered someone had said that but was too lazy to look back. And if you read the article, TW, it’s a lot more than one hack. It was in the Guardian, the Mail on Sunday (which is right of centre), the Independent and the Observer. And the “war as entertainment” quote was from Former British soldier Leo Docherty, an Iraq war and Afghanistan veteran.

    jv-I kid you not. The name of the head of Britain’s armed forces is Sir Jock Stirrup. HAHAHHAHAHAHA
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jock_Stirrup

  37. #286 – Diog – Are u sure it was not Sir Jock Strap? As I recall it was: “a support for the genitals worn by men engaging in strenuous exercise”.

  38. Because the US political economy is so right-wing there is more space for an economic class politics. Periods of real social change in US require progressive president + social movements. Wilson, Roosevelt & Johnson had social movements pushing them on, Clinton did not hence disappointments. In the 1990s populist conservatism was the ascendant social movement, Clinton governed against the tide. The current position is unclear, conservatism is weaker and there is a hunger for change but it has little basis in mass social movements.

  39. Predictions form the March 4 contest:

    Texas: My Obama will win the most delegates. The vote outcome will be somewhere between 51% and 55% setting the stage for a Clinton withdrawal. Texas is the biggest pot with 193 pledged delegates up for grabs and the real numbers to watch are the number of delegates each candidate wins.

    Ohio: Probably a win for Clinton but also a possibility of a win for Obama. If Clinton takes the state is will not be my more than 51%. If Obama wins it will not be by more than 52%. In either case as far the delegate race is concerned – its a draw. Ohio has 141 pledged delegates.

    Rhode Island: Word on the street is that this one is an inevitable Clinton win but more and more its looking like Ohio in that there is an outside chance of an Obama win – but the word on the street is a narrow win by Clinton. But at the end of the day the state is only 21 delegates. A Clinton win will not generate news – but if Obama wins it is the equivalent of a tap on the shoulder from the Angel of Death.

    Virginia: Slam dunk for Obama somewhere around 65-67%. No news here other than ‘how big will the Obama victory be’. With only 15 delegates the interesting point for discussion will be the proportion of delegates picked up by Obama as a consequence of the delegate selection rules (i.e. DNC process favour dumping losers as opposed to rewarding winners – expect to see the definition of a Clinton dump when the delegate numbers come in).

  40. “Just show the face of Barack Obama on television to some teenager in Lahore, Pakistan, who has a vision of America that’s been determined by the Bush-Cheney years, and suddenly, more than any words, his opinion and views of this country will change.”

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/03/03/candidates_branding/index.html

    …if the candidates are viewed as brands, you get an interesting view of this race. Maybe it’s not the most politcally correct article, but in some ways it captures something that we know to be true: people vote on the ‘brand’ they identify with.

  45. 292
    Diogenes

    Who cares about what the Constitution says,eh?

    They’ll try anything, the reptiles, just to get a bite.

    It’s interesting that McCain came out and hosed it down the drain straight off, but did Hillary?

  46. Dio, the responses on that blog say it all: Clinton is percieved (rightly or wrongly) to have no style. Instead of whacking that question out of the ballpark, she played with it, qualified her answer, and left it hanging that it was even a legitimate question to ask of her.

    Given her decades of doing this, I think it’s time she realised the audience wants something else, and something she is habitually unable to give ie refreshing directness and honesty.

    Sorry, she blew that one.

  47. Due to precedented demand, Today’s Toonies!

    View Cartoons by date. (Sun. March 2) The Buzzard Dumptys:
    http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/billday;_ylt=AqXJVczmlXD9GDCuly9kPczX.sgF

    (Sun. March 2) The Epiphany Of Joe Sixpak
    http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/robrogers;_ylt=AvpPUa5ELqAF4KXlB0HLYQ0XvTYC

    (Sun. March 2): Wiemarnomics
    http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/tomtoles;_ylt=Am6OqfvRWKj.D_Pe1SMAsaVT_b4F
    ————————
    President – WINNER Cbet
    OBAMA, Barack 1.70
    MCCAIN, John 2.90
    CLINTON, Hillary 4.75

    First minor fuctuations in 5 days: Obi out 2 cents, HRC out 25 cents and Johnny Bomb-Bomb firms 5 cents.

  48. Geoff Robinson @ 288

    interesting post.

    would you consider the massive turnouts for the Dem candidacy as the beginnings of a social movement?….or maybe just disgust with Bush?

  49. 297

    EC

    Regarding the last one, with the bank: Ben Bernanke just chucked in a little bit of cautionary advice..”expect some bank failures”.

    Just imagine Stevens coming out on the national news and saying that!

  50. I understood and largely agreed with GR’s post (except the first sentence which was a bit gnomic). I would think that the turnouts are not yet a “social movement” because they are confined to the electoral process. The big question is whether the habit of mobilisation remains or whether, once Obama is elected, the turnout turns back IN to their previous atomised and powerless existence. One hopeful example (and a small point of difference I have with GR’s analysis) is FDR’s victory in 1933 which he describes as following a social movement. It followed the Depression and there were some major mobilisation of the unemployed etc during the Depression in the US. But the bulk of the mobilisation – of the “social movement – happened AFTER the election victory. There was an initial wave of strikes in 1934 – Autolite workers in Toledo, teamsters in Minneapolis and longshoremen in San Fransisco. But the dam only burst with the sit-down strikes of 1937.
    There is a long way to go before anything like that is on the cards. But the point for me about Obama is not his policy platform but the way in which he is mobilising people, not just to vote, but to organise, even if they’re only organising electorally.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 6 of 9
1 … 5 6 7 … 9