Category Archives: Obama 08

The news today from Iowa is outstanding. Regardless of who you want to win the elections, the fact than an African American wins the Democratic Iowa Caucus is a historical landmark in the United States. Furthrmore, Obama took 38% of the votes in a 95% white state like Iowa with almost 10 percentage points above the Clinton campaign machine with all of its experience and expertise.

This is something to make you proud to be American. Time will tell whether Obama can continue the momentum against the Clinton powerhouse, but the times have definitely changed and are changing. Think about it.

Back in 1992, Bill Clinton gave a political lesson on how to win an election. When running against an incumbent, most candidates make the mistake of attacking or complaing about the incumbent. The problem is that most people are turned-off by complainers and whiners. That was where Bill succeeded. His argument was change and his whole campaign was about how voting for him would be a positive change for the country, and this was highly successful retoric.

Now in 2007 and 2008, Barak Obama is the new Bill Clinton. He is arguing for change and being the change candidate. On the other hand, Hillary is arguing that the country needs a president with experience who doesn’t need on the job training. But back in 1992, Bush Sr. was much more experienced than Bill and arguably more experienced than Hillary is today. If we followed through with Hillary’s logic (and if it were constitutionally permissible), Americans should vote for Bush Jr. again, as he is more experienced than Hillary herself.

So what is so different about these elections than those back in 1992? Does the United States need a more experienced president in these elections than it needed back in 92? Change vs. experience, then and now. A Barak Obama is who a Bill Clinton figure for change verus a Hillary Clinton who is a Bush figure for experience in office. What do we want? Continue reading →

Yesterday I was reading The Economist article “Hillary Clinton, Her latest incarnation: presidential front-runner“. This does a very good job of describing Hillary’s strengths and weakness and explains why she is presently in the best position to win America’s top political post. The way things look, Hillary will most likely win the primaries and become the Democrat’s candidate. Some pundits say that Hillary can beat Obama but would lose to Giuliani, whereas Obama would lose to Hillary but beat Giuliani. Who knows? Personally, I would prefer to see Obama win the national elections, not because I am per se in favor of his positions, but I think that the U.S. does not need two things that a Hillary victory would bring to the American political scene: (i) more divisiveness (especially after George W.’s divisiveness) and (ii) further another political dynasty (adding the Clinton’s to the Bush’s and Kennedy’s).

In any event, what really caught my attention in The Economist’s article was the following sentence: “[Hillary] is lionised by feminists and demonised by cookie-baking traditionalists.” This reminded me of something that really upset me back in 1998-99 during the whole Clinton-Lewinsky comedy — how Feminists abandoned their core beliefs to blindly follow both Bill and Hillary. Continue reading →

This week’s Economist has a very interesting article on whether the Illinois Senator, Barak Obama, should run for the office of the US presidency in 2008. I am not very familiar with the Democrat senator’s policies or voting record, so I am not qualified to support his candidacy. Nevertheless, Obama has already won points with me by distinguishing himself from the Clinton camp when he said, “When I was a kid, I inhaled. That was the point.” Even if Americans were gullible enough to believe that Clinton actually did not inhale, then what was he doing? Trying to look cool in front of his friends? The last thing the US needs is another poser or incoherent simpleton like its present and former chief executives respectively. Obama, are you up to the race?