About that Debate last night.....

With the world jittery over Economics and Stock Markets, war and escalation of war, our crazy, out of control President... Maybe, folks are beginning to think is it better to Go with the Devil you know than the One you Don't? I'm referring to the way some of us here feel about about Hillary and why we have trouble voting for "Clintonomics" again. Was the Devil of Clintonomics worse than the unknown of Obama and Edwards?

An interesting article from a German Washington Correspondent for "der Speigel" posted by a DU'er today got me thinking about this. It's worth the read for those who found that debate last night kind somewhat "lacking." :shrug:

Here's a snip: (BTW, I'm Kucinich supporter gave a little to Edwards last week to keep him in}


---------------------

MEET THE CANDIDATES
SPIEGEL ONLINE
US Elections 2008: Race for the Oval Office

Low-income Americans have been especially reluctant to warm up to Obama. Hillaryland starts at annual household incomes of $50,000 or less. Even the endorsement of the biggest union in Las Vegas wasn't enough to convince the majority of union members to support Obama. America's lower-income citizens apparently prefer cash to change. They find his attacks on "Washington lobbyists" appealing, but not sufficiently concrete. Hillary Clinton's promise of universal health insurance for everybody strikes a different note among the country's lower-income working classes.

-snip-

Obama also has trouble appealing to older Americans. In Iowa, 45 percent of voters over 65 voted for Clinton, while less than half as many preferred Obama. He was even less successful among older voters in Nevada, where close to two-thirds of Democrats over 60 voted for Clinton. Pollsters have noted the same pattern of aloofness to Obama throughout the country. Clinton's support within America's older population is twice as strong as Obama's. In a country where the old clearly outnumber the young, this doesn't bode well for Obama.

Among Hispanics, who in some states make up a larger contingent of voters than African-Americans, Obama has encountered strident resistance. Sergio Bendixen, a pollster working with the Clinton campaign, recently told the New Yorker: "The Hispanic voter -- and I want to say this very carefully -- has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates." Based on this logic, an Obama victory in South Carolina, where every second Democratic voter is black, would be more than offset by an Obama defeat in California, a much larger state that is dominated by whites and Hispanics. Staffers within the Clinton campaign are referring to the Hispanics as their firewall.

Obama has come too early for America -- or perhaps too late. In the 1990s, when the economy was doing well and Islamist terrorists had not yet appeared on the world stage, a man like Obama probably would have had stronger prospects. But tough times are bad times for visionaries.

All it takes to understand Clinton's appeal is to observe the way people react when she speaks with voters in small groups, as she recently did in a lecture hall on the campus of the University of Nevada. Hardly any college students were in the audience, but about 100 middle-aged women, some of whom had even dragged along their husbands, sat around the candidate on folding chairs.

Clinton told her audience about the hard work waiting for her in the White House, about responsibility and about her view of herself as a problem-solver. No one cheered, no one jumped up from her seat and there were no choruses of approval. But the women nodded quietly in response to Clinton's words. They didn't seem fired up, but they did feel understood.

Watching the group, I realized that perhaps this election isn't about visions at all, but about something even bigger: trust.

more at........


http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,530129,00.html

Is this a political waltz?

Something is very troubling with many of folks re: blogs and pseudo-journalists SWINGING back and forth. That is, should we install a "political turnstile" and man "a counter" in order to discern the number of times "politicos" choose to change endorsements? :shrug:

I care about the health of the working and middle class. If Clintonian Economics means continued union busting and the full realization of a One World Order that destroys the Middle Class, then count me out.

Count me in the "miffed" category. :crazy:

when candidates we liked dropped out or didn't get the media attention. Maybe it's the debates and getting a closer look at the candidates. :shrug: This reporter works for a German newspaper so it was interesting read. But, for all I know he might be a conservative German and is biased. He has another article at the site that he wrote after the New Hampshire primary that was an interesting read, too. It's on the site.

You are correct, in that, we should continue to "better understand" these complex issues though a myriad of valid sources/commentaries. Although I may not "buy into" some of the assumptions that the author has put forth, I have no doubt that it is a well considered effort/publication.

Understood. :hi: