absolutely alex’s adventures & times

Is it really the end for Hillary Clinton?

Could it be that her campaign, which has been counted for dead so often but then miraculously resurrected so many times in the past, will truly stay dead this time?

Is it actually the case that her campaign is now history though Clinton had been expected to lose North Carolina and was running close to Barack Obama in Indiana after being vastly outspent by him in both states and yet she still managed to eke out a win in Indiana?

Have the Democrats really chosen to dump a candidate who, while flawed, remains feisty when she is down, keeps her head held high when countless shots were slung at her, wakes up everyday to campaign with renewed vigor and stays optimistic of seeing the tide turn when pundit after pundit have mercilessly written her off?

Have they abandoned a woman whose never-say-die attitude and perseverance in the face of adversity embodies the kind of toughness the President of the United States needs when disasters strike or foreign dictators test the nation?

Are the Democrats seriously going with a man who goes all sullen and conveys defeat when his campaign was plagued by the chickens that have come home to roost, such as Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Bittergate?

Can they back a man who is only confident when things are going his way and teleprompters are set before him?

Are they certain they want a man who complains constantly of the toll of campaigning, that he has not slept well since last year, that he has not had enough time to spend with his daughters, and who seems to have much less energy than a woman 15 years his senior on the campaign trail?

If Obama is so spent from just plain campaigning over the past year, does he really have the stamina and will to handle the endless crises that come with the most demanding job in the world for the next four years?

Do Democrats want to send to the White House a man who has sat in the pew of Wright’s church for 20 years listening to his incendiary sermons, did not flinch as it served his political purpose of getting an in with the Chicago political establishment and community, and yet suddenly found Wright’s remarks “divisive”, “destructive” and “appalling” when those same messages went outside the confines of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ into the public consciousness?

Are the Democrats sure they can win the White House with a nominee who is willing to conveniently renounce ties with a man whose advice, guidance and inspiration helped him gain national consciousness in the first place and who really only seemed to be done with him after Wright brought Obama back down to mortal status as just another politician?

“And what I think particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing,” Obama told reporters in his I’m-done-with-Wright moment.

Well, we live in a democracy. And the people have spoken and exercised their choice. They will have to live with it, come what may, which could include John McCain winning in November.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Well, it looks like the halo over Senator Barack Obama’s head is starting to lose its shine.

It took Obama’s former pastor, the incendiary Reverend Jeremiah Wright, to cause likely voters to take a longer, harder look at Obama. And they don’t seem to like what they see after the hullabaloo of the past week, going by new polls.

According to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, only 30 per cent of those surveyed thought Obama broke with his pastor because he was truly angry with what he said.

58 per cent thought Rev. Wright’s words were prescient, that Obama was just another politician, and dumped Wright for his own political expedience.

People were not fooled by the hastily-called news conference the Obama campaign arranged on Tuesday for the candidate to denounce Wright and distance himself after a 20-year relationship between the two men.

52 per cent thought Obama was not surprised by Wright’s controversial views, as the candidate had claimed, while only 33 per cent thought Wright’s words at the recent National Press Club, which included his reiteration that the US government unleashed AIDS on minorities and brought terrorism upon the nation with its policies, took Obama by surprise.

Perhaps more damagingly, more than half of the respondents (56%), felt that Obama is at least “somewhat likely” to “share some of Pastor Wright’s controversial views about the United States.”

More bad news for the Obama camp on other fronts too.

The latest Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll saw the lead that presumptive Republican nominee John McCain has over Obama in a hypothetical match-up open up, 48 per cent to 42 per cent. Before the Wright controversy, they were even at 46 per cent.

His remaining rival for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, improved in the fight against him in the race for the nomination. She now has a 46 per cent rating, compared to Obama’s 44 per cent. Close, but it is still a demonstration of the tide turning against Obama, who was eight points ahead of Clinton before the Wright saga blew up in his face.

Obama remains on track to win the North Carolina primary next week, but his lead over Clinton there has shrunk from double to single digits. Meanwhile, Clinton seems to have gained in Indiana, according to the Rasmussen poll, with a five-point lead.

Even if Obama eventually beats Clinton to clinch the Democratic Party nomination, it looks like the Wright controversy will continue to dog him in November. The superdelegates might have to ponder very carefully about which horse to back if they are keen on winning back the White House.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

“How are you going to stand up to the terrorists when you’re afraid of Fox News?” Jay Leno famously mocked the Democrats’ refusal to appear on Fox News-sponsored debates during his monologue on his nightly “Tonight Show”. 

But these days, it looks like the Democrats have toughened up and are bravely taking on the channel seen as the voice piece of right-wingers.

In the short span of this week, both Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have appeared on Fox News.

Obama finally put a stop to Fox News’ comical “Obama Watch” clock that counts down the days since he agreed to appear on Fox News but still hadn’t, when he sat down with Chris Wallace last Sunday.

Clinton went a step further, taking on liberals’ favorite bashing-boy Bill O’Reilly during a campaign stop in Indiana.

She was feisty, argumentative and relaxed despite O’Reilly’s in-your-face, you’re-wrong-and-i’m-right style of questioning. Clinton looked like she was actually having fun sparring with O’Reilly. She does her best when cornered, after all.

And this weekend, Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean himself will appear on Wallace’s show. The cable news network has trumpeted the interview, saying it’s the first time in 18 months that Dean has appeared on the channel.

Strategically, it was a brilliant move by both candidates to cavort with the enemy.

Fox News might have a reputation for being the bastion of conservative punditry but its audience is not just conservative, high income-earning white males ready to bash Democrats. 

Along with the largest reach among cable news channels (1.78 million viewers during prime time), Fox News has the added advantage of an audience of varied political hues.

The LA Times reports that consumer research firm Mediamark Research found in a survey of 10,000 people, that 39 per cent of Fox News’ viewers described themselves as being very or somewhat conservative, 47 per cent as middle-of-the-road or undecided, and 14 per cent as very or somewhat liberal. That’s not too far off from its biggest rival CNN, which has 33 per cent conservative, 47 per cent middle-of-the-road and 20 per cent liberal viewers.

Going into next Tuesday’s open primaries in Indiana and North Carolina, where independents and even Republicans are likely to weigh in and vote, Clinton and Obama’s appearances on Fox News are shrewd attempts to appeal to those people that could make a difference in the margin of victory or defeat. 

Looking at the longer term, these same people could help the eventual nominee during November’s general election.

While MSNBC could be described as the Obama campaign cheerleader, Fox News has surprisingly given Clinton a fairer treatment.

Maybe it’s a part of “Operation Chaos” propagated by right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh at work here — the Republicans want Clinton to be the Democratic nominee, as they think she would unite and energize the Republican base in November better than Obama. 

But for Clinton, her acceptance of O’Reilly’s interview is apparently also prompted by the better treatment that the Clinton campaign feels Fox News has accorded it. 

“Fox has given Hillary Clinton better coverage than all the other cables,” Clinton campaign chair Terry McAuliffe said in a recent radio interview.

Strange as the detente between Democrats and Fox News would seem, there is no denying that both need each other. It would not be in the best interest of the Democrats to be silly and continue ignoring Fox News and pretend that it does not matter.    

Instead, the Democrats could be better off using Fox News to reach voters that aren’t in the choir yet. And Fox News sure would not begrudge the viewership boost from appearances by top Democrats. It would be a win-win situation for all if they just agreed to co-exist while agreeing to disagree.

 
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Reverend Jeremiah Wright is a megalomaniac who cares more about himself and his image than his flock. That much is clear after his back-to-back-to-back media appearances since last Friday.

If it is true what they say about those closest to you knowing exactly how to hurt you the most, Wright’s words and actions must have been a stake through the heart of presidential hopeful Barack Obama and his campaign.

Wright was unapologetic for his outrageous and incendiary remarks, by turn claiming that he was misquoted, to openly confirming them. Lapping up the media attention, Wright’s antics these few days drew more negative spotlight on Obama at a time that he could ill afford to have more distractions and racial division to color his campaign.

What a stunning betrayal it must be for Obama, who considers Wright not just a pastor but an inspiration for many of his philosophies in life.

While Wright might have done much for the poor over the years in Chicago’s South Side, the man’s narcissism is amazing to behold.

Unrepentant about his ludicrous accusations, such as the US government’s deliberate introduction of the AIDS virus to the African-American population and 9/11 being a consequence of the US’ terrorism against others, Wright seemed to enjoy adding more wood to the pyre by reiterating those comments in the by now infamous session he had at the National Press Club. It was a performance so stunningly self-serving and simultaneously such perfect fodder for Obama’s enemies that one cannot help but feel that Wright must have had it in for Obama and wanted the Illinois senator to know that.

Perhaps Wright is still fuming from Obama’s distancing from his remarks in his speech on race relations in March.

Yesterday, Wright dealt Obama the deepest cut, by saying, “Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls, Huffington, whoever’s doing the polls. Preachers say what they say because they’re pastors. They have a different person to whom they’re accountable.”

“What I mean is what several of my white friends and several of my white, Jewish friends have written me and said to me. They’ve said, ‘You’re a Christian. You understand forgiveness. We both know that, if Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected.’”

No wonder Obama had to come out so strongly and unambiguously to denounce Wright today. Not only was it to condemn Wright’s hateful and division comments, something Obama needed to do anyway, but also to defend himself.

Obama and his campaign has tried hard to paint him not as just another politician, but as a uniter who transcends politics-as-usual. To have someone as close to him as Wright pull him back down to earth must have been the last straw for Obama. And Obama is a politician after all, despite what many of his supporters might believe and the hype that seemed to have gone to his head.

His timing is also significant. Having played down Wright’s rants for so long, Obama is now choosing to cut ties with him as a new poll shows him being the weaker Democratic candidate in a hypothetical match-up with presumptive Republican nominee John McCain than Hillary Clinton, the feisty New York Senator who refuses to roll over and give up her pursuit of the party’s nominations.

However, Obama will now have to live with the consequences of this example of bad judgment on his part. For a candidate who has stressed judgment as a calling card, his association with Wright and his extreme views smacks either of poor judgment or Obama must have been lying when he said he wasn’t previously aware of Wright’s comments.

Wright’s views might not be Obama’s views, but Obama had been in his congregation for 20 years, seeking Wright out to burnish his Christian credentials that made possible his presidential run and to obtain both spiritual and life guidance. Obama adopted Wright’s phrase “The Audacity of Hope”, not just for the best-selling book Obama wrote and used as its title, but also for the 2004 speech he gave at the Democratic National Convention, which vaulted Obama to national prominence. To deny that Obama has not been influenced in one way or another by Wright’s teachings would be disingenuous.

It now remains to be seen if Obama’s clear denunciation of Wright will kill the story, or if it could drag on further if Wright, in his egomania, feels the need to strike back with another pronouncement on Obama’s motivations.

Amidst all this drama of the fall-out between the two men, Clinton must be glad that she did not withdraw from the campaign despite the immense pressure for her to drop out. This makes the remaining contests much more significant and validates the argument that the nomination should not be wrapped up quickly just for expedience.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

“Some people counted me out and said to drop out, but the American people don’t quit, and they deserve a president who doesn’t quit either.”

These are fighting words on a great night for Senator Hillary Clinton, who is still struggling to win the Democratic Party’s nomination to run for president.

Reuters photo

More than just staying alive to fight another day, Clinton has pulled out another impressive showing in Pennsylvania, beating fellow Senate colleague Barack Obama by a 10-point margin.

Never mind that Obama out-spent her nearly 3-to-1 in an advertising blitz with the aim of burying her in the Keystone State, so that he could close the deal. Once again, he was unable to deliver the knockout punch, despite having strayed far from his themes of unity and hope, by running negative ads against her.

Pennsylvania offers perhaps one of the clearest gauges of how Democrats would choose a candidate for their party. The state’s contest is a closed primary, allowing only registered Democrats to vote and it does not permit same-day party registration either, with registration having closed about a month before the primary. These factors help to screen spoilers more effectively.

Clinton held, and strengthened her appeal among the coalition that has usually delivered for her — women, older voters, blue-collar voters and Catholics.

Clinton was fortunate that in Pennsylvania, she faced demographics more inclined towards her than Obama, such as more white, working class and older voters. The pleasant surprise was her better than usual showing among white male voters there.

Obama, on the other hand, held on to his base consisting black voters, the college-educated and younger voters.

Going forward, the Democratic Party will undoubtedly be increasingly worried about the widening divide along sex, class, educational and racial lines of the party’s different constituencies. These fault lines though, manifest the problems of a big-tent approach that has trouble keeping together groups that do not have much in common with each other.

But in the meantime, Clinton has new momentum in the races going forward, with Indiana and North Carolina looming on May 6.

Her win tonight is likely to give a new lease of life to fund-raising for her campaign, which is currently in debt. The road ahead will be tough but the Clinton campaign has a new spring in its step and seems eager to fight on, thanks to Pennsylvanians’ vote of confidence.

The calls for her to drop out will subside somewhat now. But why would party members want to ruin a good thing? Due to a protracted Democratic primaries season, voter registration has gone up in astonishing numbers all over the country, with Pennsylvania alone boasting a record four million registered Democrat voters this year.

For now, Obama is still ahead in delegate count and the popular vote but Clinton has a realistic chance of cutting into his lead in the popular vote, and even overtake it, if she does well in Indiana and other upcoming primaries.

That factor, along with the argument that Clinton has won all the big states save Illinois, and the pattern of late deciders breaking for Clinton, will add more doubts about Obama’s electability in November’s general election.

There is every reason for Clinton to ignore detractors and keep plowing on. She deserves to stay in the contest.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

So the Obamas made $4.2 million last year.

And there is nothing wrong with that. This is America, where working hard and being successful is not a sin.

Critics will point to Senator Barack Obama’s surprisingly substantial wealth, based on how much money he has made from his two very successful books, and say that makes him elitist. They would do better to remember that being elitist isn’t just about money, it is about a person’s attitude. Even those who aren’t exactly swimming in it can be elitist.

But what’s more interesting is the Obamas’ charity contributions.

Obama has won himself many backers with his platform of hope and transcending race. But he doesn’t seem to have put his money where his mouth is.

Of the $240,000 him and his wife Michelle gave to charity in 2007, by far the biggest portion of $50,000 went to the United Negro College Fund. Next was the international charity, Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE), to which they gave $35,000. CARE is an international humanitarian organization that is fighting poverty. The third largest sum the Obamas contributed in 2007 went to their church, the Trinity United Church of Christ, which received $26,270.

Taking together the Obamas’ contributions to their church, the United Negro College Fund and the National Congress of Black Women, that makes up about 34 percent of their total giving, which is towards black-only causes. This is the biggest chuck of their charity. In comparison, their donations to international organizations, such as CARE, Habitat for Humanity and Direct Relief International, constitute about 19 percent of their total giving.

The rest of their other donations go to Chicago/ Illinois-based charities, which is probably understandable, given where they live. One organization which the Obamas gave to, which stood out in particular, is the Mujeres Latinas en Accion, an advocacy group for Hispanic women. A nod to the Latino vote, perhaps?

Others have also noted that the Obamas’ charitable contributions seem to have increased substantially after Obama began his presidential run.

On the other hand, all the hullabaloo about how much the Clintons have made, $109 million, has to be taken into perspective.

First of all, it was over eight years, which averages about $13.6 million per year.

Consider the Clintons’ ages too. They are in their sixties, while Obama is 46 and his wife Michelle is 43. Given the age-gap, it is not unreasonable for the Clintons to have made more.

Bill Clinton is an ex-president, whose books have sold phenomenally, and is highly sought-after in the speech circuit. At the rate the Obamas are going, it wouldn’t be in the least surprising that he rakes in more than the Clintons, should he successfully become the next president of the United States.

Consider too, that the bulk of the Clintons’ wealth comes from Bill. If Bill’s portion is stripped, Hillary’s salary is considerably less. Hillary’s salary as a US Senator is $150,000 a year, and her book royalties netted her $153,000 in 2007 ($555,000 in 2006, $1 million in 2005, $2.4 million in 2004, $2.3 million in 2003, $1.2 million in 2002, $2.9 million in 2001).

Seen in that light, Clinton’s earnings are not substantially higher than Obama’s. His books will remain on the shelves and will probably bring in quite a bit more for him over the next few years, especially if he gets into the White House. In 2007 alone, Obama made $3.9 million off his book sales, which is higher than Clinton’s books in any single year.

Now that all this financial business is out in the open, let’s hope personal issues like these would be out of the way, and the candidates can focus on important things, such as how to deal with the fast-tanking economy and end the Iraq war.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Even as he is busy fending off attacks for the “bitter” remark that he had made to San Francisco donors, Senator Barack Obama now has to deal with another own goal.

His controversial pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, though retiring, has unleashed his fiery tirade again, this time at the funeral of former appellate judge R. Eugene Pincham.

The Chicago Sun-Times, whose reporter slipped into the event even though it was expressly closed to the media, managed to capture more damning words from the pastor. While the journalistic integrity of the paper is in question, the story which it unearthed would probably overshadow its dubious methods.

Wright was caught once again railing against America’s alleged mistreatment of its African-American community saying that it “planted slavery and white supremacy in the DNA of this republic”.

While Wright might have pointed out that Thomas Jefferson himself said ‘God would punish America for the sin of slavery.’, and blasted Fox News and its anchors, the most polemical statement Wright suggested was perhaps his equating Jefferson to a pedophile.

If Wright was not Obama’s pastor, no one would have cared very much about the hate and anger he spews. But because the Obamas have been a part of his congregation of the Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years, Obama’s opponents would only too happily seize on Wright’s statements and exploit it to question Obama’s faith and judgment.

Someone has to stop Wright from sounding off whenever he pleases and knock some sense into his head. Besides sounding bitter, crazed and anti-American, does he not know that he is hurting Obama’s chances worse than his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton and the Republicans’ John McCain could?

Obama’s speech on race following the first Wright episode has been highly-praised for his level-headedness and eloquence in dealing with the potential fall-out. But now that Wright has made incendiary remarks all over again, what will Obama have to do this time? Would he have to be forced to denounce not just Wright’s remarks, but the man too?

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Just when it looks like Senator Barack Obama is closing in on Senator Hillary Clinton in the upcoming Democratic primary in Pennsylvania, his “bitterness” remarks comes to light and now, it seems like he will not be able to close the deal, once again.

While there might be a grain of truth to people being bitter about job losses, as Obama was saying when he spoke those fateful words to a group of donors in San Francisco, the associations he painted with these people were unfortunate and even inappropriate.

“In a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long,” Obama told the donors.

“The jobs have been gone now for 25 years, and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Obama is probably right that these people are angry and bitter at being left behind. But why did he in the next breath suggest that they are gun-crazy, xenophobic and insular? It might not be as “elitist” and “out of touch” as the Clinton and McCain campaign had said Obama is, but it shows a serious lack of understanding of Middle America.

People go to church because they truly believe in God, not out of desperation. And the attitude towards guns is that it is a way of life for many people who cherish their Second Amendment right.

Lots of people might agree that the country is on the wrong track and be frustrated, a staggering 81 per cent, according to the most recent poll conducted by the New York Times and CBS News.

Yet despite this, Americans like being known as optimistic and having a can-do spirit rather than be painted as bitter and irrational. Clinton and Obama might also have been concentrating a lot of their firepower on trade and its ill effects on jobs and the US economy but surprisingly, more people, 58 per cent, still believe that trade is positive for the economy on balance.

Obama has painted himself as the unity candidate, the Washington “outsider” who will bring Americans together and clean up the mess that has been created by Washington D.C. His message is one of hope. Unfortunately, those remarks do not reflect his platform. They will set him further apart from blue-collar voters and are unlikely to convince undecided voters that he understands them. Just watch the attacks of his attendance of Ivy-League universities Harvard and Columbia being trotted out as proof of his inability to connect with Middle America.

Will superdelegates, who will inevitably determine the nominee for the Democrats, lose confidence in him? Perhaps. The undecided ones could be swayed on the argument that he cannot win in the general election against McCain.

Obama has tried to do damage control by expressing regret for his wrong choice of word (”I didn’t say it as well as I should have”). But the damage is already done. Together with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright controversy, this latest flap might still allow him to be the Democratic nominee, but would definitely come back to haunt him in November. The longer this primary race stays alive, the more Obama might just sink himself.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Is George W. Bush’s boy genius Karl Rove targeting Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama because he and the Republican party are afraid of facing Obama in November?

Or is Rove is giving the world a taste of how they might try to crush Obama during the general elections?

Speaking at the Young America’s Foundation in Washington, D.C., Rove painted Obama as an ambitious but low-achieving senator, trading on his speech-making abilities without having much to show for it. “What bills has he sponsored?” Rove reportedly asked.

Rove also could not resist taking a dig at the Democratic party, ribbing them for hoping that former presidential hopeful Al Gore could still emerge and settle the impasse between Obama and the other Democratic party contender, Hillary Clinton. “You know you got a problem if the answer is Al Gore,” Rove said, to the amusement of those present.

Is Rove hoping to damage Obama now, in the hope that Obama would be out of the picture so that the Republicans would face Clinton instead? There is certainly validity in that view, as nothing would energize the Republican base more than the prospect of defeating Clinton, should she be the Democratic nominee.

In that case Obama and his supporters should get some kind of warped comfort from Rove’s unwanted attention. It possibly reveals the strength which Republicans view in Obama’s candidacy, their anxiety about having to go head-to-head with him and an attempt to manipulate things so that they would deal with Clinton instead.

Poor Clinton. She must be feeling pretty blue about not even being on Rove’s radar. Is this a bad portent for her, if the Republican attack machine that Rove embodies has totally disregarded her?

But Rove also gave a hint of the line of attack that the Republicans would engage against Obama if he ends up being the Democratic nominee. They would be attacking him on his thin resume and too little time spent in the political tranches. Against John McCain, the Republican nominee, Obama could indeed look like an over-ambitious, wet-behind-the-ears junior politician.

If you thought the internecine sniping between Clinton and Obama is too bitter and distasteful, wait till the Republicans swing into action and work on Obama.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama can squabble all the want about who will make the best commander-in-chief or be the toughest in safeguarding the nation.

But if they want to win in the general election, they should do well to remember, especially Clinton, what helped Bill Clinton win in 1992 — “The Economy, stupid.”

The economic news keeps getting grimmer everyday. February saw the second straight monthly decline of job figures, with a 63,000 plunge in the number of jobs lost. The US dollar continues to lose its value against other currencies, oil prices persist in challenging their record high prices and the stock market cannot seem to stop swooning.

And while the housing market has been giving countless heart attacks to homeowners, the credit and the construction industries, the gravity of the situation really hit home when the Federal Reserve announced a $200 billion fund to ease illiquidity in banks.

The New York Times sure got it right when it said the good times as we know it, could well be over very soon.

So it’s no wonder that poll after poll showed that the economy and/ or jobs is the topmost concern or issue of those surveyed.

One of the most recent, a CBS News/ New York Times poll had 33% of respondents naming the economy and jobs as the most important problems facing the country. The second most important, the war in Iraq, was cited by 20% of the respondents.

A USA Today/ Gallup Poll yielded similar results, as did those done by NBC News/ Wall Street Journal and other news outlets.

On this issue, the Democrats seem to have an edge over the Republicans, when it came to perceptions on which party would be better able to handle the economy.

A survey sponsored by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that 53% of respondents thought the Democrats would be better at dealing with the economy, versus 34% who thought the Republicans would be better. More also believed that the Democrats would handle the tax system better than the Republicans (49% to 37%).

Clinton herself got a first hand experience of the urgency of the economic issue. Her campaign was recently given a lifeline by Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island, many experts say, because of her “red phone” advertisement. But in Ohio where she beat Obama by a 10 percentage point margin, those Ohioans who strongly stated that the economy is their biggest priority went for the New York senator.

So while the debate about who can out-Rambo the other is important enough, the candidates really ought to beef up their economic messages and come up with well thought-out plans about how they are going to deal with the economy and get the good times rolling again when they get into the White House. It’s most probably the biggest thing on which they would be judged.

And actually, the candidates could also benefit from referring to former president Clinton’s campaign strategist James Carville’s two other points in the campaign’s central goals and core messages, as they still make pretty good sense in 2008: “Change vs. more of the same” and “Don’t forget health care”.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose: The more things change, the more they stay the same, indeed.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::