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.

 
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

With 44 percent of Americans telling a recent poll that rising gas prices is a serious economic concern, it is no wonder that the presidential candidates have weighed in on the issue.

But it would be a mistake to cave in to populism and enact a gas and diesel tax holiday, as proposed by both presumptive GOP nominee John McCain and Democratic hopeful Hillary Clinton. Only Barack Obama has refrained from jumping on the bandwagon, arguing that the idea is too flawed.

Both Clinton and McCain want the federal government to suspend the 18.4 cent-a-gallon federal gas tax and 24.4 cent diesel tax between Memorial Day and Labor Day, traditionally a peak travel period for American families. 

I myself will be doing a 2-week road trip this summer and should be enthusiastic about Clinton and McCain’s proposals, but it is a bad idea at the end of the day.

For one, the savings are small. Experts have calculated that the average driver would save about $2.35 at every trip to the pump, based on a 13-gallon full tank estimate.

But the fiscal hole caused by the gas tax holiday in the federal coffers would be considerable — to the tune of some $10 billion.

That means less investments in roads and infrastructure, at a time when heavier usage of roads and highways would presumably occur. Remember the deadly bridge collapse into the Mississippi River in Minneapolis last summer that took 13 lives and injured 100 others? There should be no compromise in the up-keep and repairs of infrastructure and we can ill-afford to gamble with chance as the nation’s roads and bridges get older.

The politicians have also forgotten to factor in another casualty should the gas tax suspension become reality: jobs. According to a US Transportation Department study, every $1 billion spent of federal highway investments helps support 34,779 jobs. Extrapolating from that, $10 billion in revenue lost to the federal government could mean 347,790 less jobs, if construction projects were halted or killed due to a lack of funding. While it might not ultimately hit that kind of numbers, it still looks like a substantial number of jobs could be lost due to the gas tax holiday. 

Finally, cutting the price of gas for the short-term would only make demand rise and gas prices to follow suit. If prices were artificially lowered this summer, consumers might drive more (not to mention the environmental consequences of that), causing demand to rise, which inevitably leads to higher prices. It would also fail to wean Americans off gas dependence, perpetuating the misery in the long term, making oil producers the only winners.

And after Labor Day, wouldn’t everybody get a rude shock at the 18.4 cent tax being put back in place?

It is election season and it might be clever politics to ease things like taxes. But pandering is short-term and myopic. McCain and Clinton would be better off thinking up more sensible policies that will take the US towards the long-term goal of energy independence rather than scoring small political points that has dire consequences in the long run. 

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

Don’t count her out just yet.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign might be short of cash, with around ten million dollars in debt, but her solid win last night in Pennsylvania injected a fresh bout of confidence in her campaign.

She has reportedly raised $2.5 million just a few hours after television networks declared her victory over Barack Obama in the Keystone State.

With the 10 percentage point victory over Obama now certain, it looks like Clinton could keep on raising more, to better face the tough times ahead.

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

“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.

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

Cage up your big dog Bill, Hillary.

He is out there on the trail, wreaking havoc on your campaign once again.

As if resurrecting the embarrassing Bosnia debacle and making Hillary seem forgetful and old last week was not enough, he has gone and done it again, this time alienating a huge swath of the electorate, the younger voters.

Bill told an audience in Quakertown, Pennsylvania that older folks vote for Hillary as they are wise enough to see through Barack Obama’s rhetoric.

Bill might think older folks will appreciate that compliment, but he has just gone and alienated an important demographic group, the vocal younger voters that have been flocking decisively towards Obama. Looks like Hillary won’t be winning them over any time soon, especially after Bill’s stereotyping, which is bordering on insulting towards younger voters.

“I think there is a big reason there’s an age difference in a lot of these polls,” he said. “Because once you’ve reached a certain age, you won’t sit there and listen to somebody tell you there’s really no difference between what happened in the Bush years and the Clinton years; that there’s not much difference in how small-town Pennsylvania fared when I was president, and in this decade.”

Sounds like Bill is mad that Obama thinks his presidency was similar Bush’s. Bill, please remember that this election is not about you, it is about Hillary.

But how does Bill explain the fact that the better-educated are more favorable towards Obama than his wife?

Bill has really overreached this time. Maybe he really does not want to be First Laddie. But it is still such a pity to see the goodwill and legacy of the Clinton presidency tarnished with his careless words and actions throughout this campaign. And the worst thing is, he is becoming no help but a hindrance to Hillary.

Hillary has shown herself more than capable of handling whatever has been thrown at her.

Hillary, it’s time to tell your husband to shut up and let you handle this.

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

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.

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

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 Bill Clinton serious about getting his wife Hillary picked as the Democratic presidential nominee and elected president of the United States?

Sometimes, it seems like the former president is working against his wife.

Just when the flap about Hillary’s Bosnia sniper story is dying down, Bill had to go and resurrect the sorry saga all over again.

To make matters worse, Bill himself added more errors through his account, getting the year of her visit wrong, saying Hillary has only recounted the story once and that she had immediately apologized for her oversight.

But most damaging of all, Bill, in trying to explain away Hillary’s gaffe, said she was tired at 11 pm and hence misspoke.

“Now I say that because, what really has mattered is that even then she was interested in our troops. And I think she was the first first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt to go into a combat zone. And you woulda thought, you know, that she’d robbed a bank the way they carried on about this. And some of them, when they’re 60, they’ll forget something when they’re tired at 11 at night, too.”

Oh dear.

Trying to defend his wife is one thing, but did Bill think through before he said Hillary is forgetful at 60 and tired at 11 pm? Has he thought about how much ammunition he has just supplied to Hillary’s enemies with those remarks? Did he not think they would gleefully seize on that and undermine her argument of answering the 3 am phone call?

Bill just seems to have gone from un-stuffing one foot from his mouth just to put another one in. That has cost Hillary dearly at the polls. Just look at what started in South Carolina. She would have had a lot more support from African-American voters there if Bill had not alienated them by callously casting Barack Obama in the mold of Rev. Jesse Jackson, a politician who only has appeal with African-Americans.

Bill was supposed to have been an asset for her campaign but so far, that mantle seems to have fallen more accurately on their daughter Chelsea’s shoulders instead. Bill’s outbursts and statements are only making Hillary’s job harder. He is hurting her every time he makes a mistake that would be quickly picked up by the media, which then go to town with it.

Often called one of the greatest political minds of his generation, Bill Clinton cannot be so totally clueless about the cause and effect of his words and faux pas. Speculations abound about whether Bill’s mistakes are honest flubs or a more disturbing sign that deep down, he actually does not want her to win. That of course, remains pure speculation. But what is clearly not speculation is how little control Hillary has over him and would have over him if she does make it to the White House. Would she have to waste her time cleaning up after him or explaining away something Bill might have said that could result in some kind of serious diplomatic rift?

In a statement, the Clinton campaign was forced once more to offer another mea culpa it should not have had to. “Senator Clinton appreciates her husband standing up for her, but this was her mistake and she takes responsibility for it.”

Note to Hillary and her staffers — as things tighten up in the crucial battleground of Pennsylvania, they have to reign Bill in and keep him from saying anything else that could damage his wife’s chances. That might help her a lot more than anything else.

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