Anatole Kaletsky
Hitchcock
The man, the films, those blondes. Free DVD collection starting this Sunday
Navigation - link to other main sections from here
From The Times
March 6, 2008
They must go for Hillary Clinton
Forget all the razzmatazz over Obama. The Democrats have only one option for president
After Tuesday's Ohio and Texas primaries, Barack Obama remains the firm favourite to win the Democratic nomination. But Hillary Clinton now seems more likely than Mr Obama to become the next president of the United States. In stating this paradox, I am not imagining some outlandish scenario, such as Mrs Clinton flouncing off and winning the presidency as an independent. All I am saying is that Mr Obama is much more likely than Mrs Clinton to be defeated by John McCain.
I know that describing Mrs Clinton as a stronger candidate in the general election than Mr Obama is at odds with the conventional wisdom of US political pundits. My view also differs from the findings of opinion polls.
The most recent poll showed Mr Obama beating Mr McCain by 51 to 41 per cent, while Mrs Clinton's margin of victory was four points narrower, at 48 to 43. Either way, it might seem that the Democrats had nothing to worry about, were it not that several other surveys, conducted only a few days earlier, showed Mr McCain beating both Democrats in a theoretical match. But in almost every such survey, Mr Obama did a few points better than Mrs Clinton: so why do I believe that nominating the former First Lady would give the Democrats a much stronger assurance of success on November 4?
Mrs Clinton has two qualities that have so far gone strangely unrecognised - at least in the media - to set against Mr Obama's glamour, charisma and reputed oratorical brilliance.
Her first and most obvious quality is that she is a woman. While official opinion, especially in the US media, self-righteously insists that America is an egalitarian, multicultural society where gender and race should play no role in political allegiance or personal advancement, the fact is that this is nonsense. Everyone knows that women and blacks continue to lag far behind white male Americans by virtually every social and economic criterion.
Everyone also knows that what makes Mr Obama's candidacy so exciting is not his oratory or his good looks. It is his race. The possibility of a black president has electrified the world - and rightly so. President Obama would become an inspiring role model, not only for black Americans, but for oppressed races around the world, not least in Africa.
But surely this is even truer of a woman becoming the world's most powerful human being. In any rational comparison of frustrated talent, women, who are half the world's population, have suffered far more from disempowerment than Africans, Hispanics, Jews or any other racial group.
And while economic advancement and political representation of racial minorities has moved forward in most parts of the world, the gap between men and women has scarcely narrowed, even in America.
Why then have American women failed to rally in sufficient numbers to Mrs Clinton? Many from her own 1960s generation have expressed contempt for her because, ironically, of her husband's sexual peccadillos. But whenever Mrs Clinton seemed on the verge of defeat, large numbers changed their minds and backed her, as if they suddenly realised that a defeat for Mrs Clinton would end their own feminist dreams.
Gloria Steinem, the iconic intellectual leader of the 1970s feminist movement, crystallised this reaction in a passionate call to arms that she issued to women voters after Mrs Clinton's defeat in Iowa: “Why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? Obama is seen as unifying by his race, while Clinton is seen as divisive by her sex. She is accused of playing the gender card when citing the Old Boys' Club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations. We have to be able to say: ‘I am supporting Hillary because she'll be a great president and because she's a woman'.” This article, published in The New York Times, and syndicated across the country just before the New Hampshire primary, is credited by some commentators with having saved Mrs Clinton's candidacy.
If American women, who make up a clear majority of the electorate, united around Mrs Clinton as their symbolic standard-bearer in the same way that African-Americans have united around Mr Obama, she would be unbeatable in November. And there is considerable evidence of this effect, not only in the last-minute victories pulled off by Mrs Clinton after her near-death experiences, but even more significantly in her success in populous states such as California, Texas and New York.
Mrs Clinton has won by decisive margins in every big state that the Democrats must win to send their candidate to the White House. Mr Obama's lead in the delegate count is based on his success in small states with little electoral significance or in Republican strongholds such as Alabama and Nevada where the Democrats have no chance of success.
This brings us to Mrs Clinton's second big advantage over Mr Obama - John McCain. Had the Republicans nominated an extremist or obvious loser, the Democrats could have been confident enough of winning to choose a candidate who appealed to them emotionally, even if he did not have the pulling-power in large states demonstrated by the Clinton machine. Now that calculation may change.
Mr Obama may have a better record on Iraq than Mrs Clinton, but on almost every other issue of importance to the American public she is clearly ahead. Moreover, she is a Clinton - and can hope to reassure voters with the record of successful centrist economic policies when she was First Lady in the White House. Mr Obama, by contrast, is on record as being the most consistently “liberal” (in the American sense) member of the Senate, with arguably the most left-wing economic and foreign policy platform since George McGovern was beaten by Richard Nixon, despite the revulsion against the Vietnam War.
Finally there is the matter of maturity and experience. This is Mr McCain's biggest gift to the Clinton campaign. An Obama-McCain contest would be seen as a match of inexperience against old age. Mr Obama hopes to win this competition by invoking the spirit of John F. Kennedy. What he forgets, however, is that Kennedy was swept to power on the crest of the baby boom, when the largest group of voters was in its twenties. Today these boomers are in their sixties or seventies - and will not take kindly to the charge that Mr McCain is too old to be president. Given the high propensity to vote among the elderly, this election will not be decided by a baby boom but by a senility surge.
So the world should probably prepare for a President McCain or Clinton. President Obama may have to wait until 2012 or 2016.
Either Democrat will beat McCain. I hope that Democrat is Senator Clinton but if not, so be it.
R. d'Orlac, Los Angeles, California USA
Perhaps I'm missing something in this argument that Obama would do better in a general election because he won primaries and caucuses in red states. Could someone explain? Here's how I see it:
1) Clinton and Obama were not running AGAINST the republicans in the primaries, they were running against each other.
2) One of them was going to win the democratic primaries in those states and that has nothing to do with the republican vote.
3) In a general election the states that traditionally go Republican will most likely continue to go Republican. Obama winning in those states has no bearing on the general election.
4) Clinton is favored in the big states among Democrats in Democratic states and would therefore have a better chance of
winning in a General Election.
There's a swing vote that no one is considering here, and that's the percentage of republicans who would vote for Hillary just to avoid John McCain. Conversely, there are Dems who would vote McCain to avoid Obama.
Lisa, Cape Cod, MA
I agree with Mike, Providence, and most of what Mr. Kaletsky wrote in this article. I also support Clinton and will vote for McCain if Obama gets nominated. This is not a gender or race issue for me. It is of priority of importance: 1) Dems vs. Republicans given the current global and domestic situations. 2) Domestic Social Issues such as health care reform. 3) Experience, strength, leadership principles and past contributions as a public servant.
Mr. Obama needs to earn his place and to gain experience like all other candidates who were more scrutinized and fairly qualified for the job. Hopefully he will test his mettle and stand to win more deservedly in 2012 or 2016....
An American, Chicago, IL
The election for the Democratic Party candidate has shown Black voters to be more racists than the whites, the same with the media, supporting Obama more than Clinton. Clinton had everything working against her, and still she is a winner, that makes a good President.
P. Schutte, LA, Texas
Well lets see from all the comments on this forum. The Obama supporters seem to think that he will win all the big states that he LOST in the Primaries. On the other hand Hillary could not win in any of the RED STATES That he won.
Most of these states that obama won were caucuses not primaries so they were LESS REPRESENTATIVE than primaries. Second republican population in these states for the most part out number democrats. IN NOVEMBER they will for the most part return back to the fold an vote McCain. I find it interesting that when rep. cross over to vote for obama it's seen as a sign of strength, But when they vote for clinton they are just interfering in the election. I know what rash lambaugh said before texas but i also know what rash, shaun hannity , laura ingram,g gorden liddy and the rest of hate radio were saying before SUPER TUESDAY VOTE OBAMA we have to stop HILLARY now. I didn't hear obama supporters crying then.
The Press has been called on the carpet an rightfully so.
pete rosa, Bronx,
I beg to differ with some of the comments. The recent primary in Ohio show that Obama can't win white middle class working men and women (as has been the case in large states). If he is losing them to Hillary in a Democrat primary by double digits, he will most likely lose them to McCain. Hillary is the only chance Dems have of beating McCain. As a Democrat I will support Hillary, but will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee.
Mike, Providence,
How was "Kennedy ... swept to power on the crest of the baby boom" when the first "baby boomer" was born in 1946?? In 1960 the oldest "baby boomer" would have been 14.
That error is so obvious it is difficult to take anything else seriously.
CBCNETT, Columbia, Missouri
FINALLY someone is expressing what I've been thinking since December. Thank you, Mr. Kaletsky.
Nadav, Chicago, IL
May I politely but firmly request that you desist from suggesting that free speech be squashed.
Madelyn DeStefano, Elmhurst, US/IL
I greatly appritiate the views of my friends from across the pond. To me, it's the most un-bios opinion we could get. And by the way, thank you for saving the world during WWII, and most importantly. Thank you for our country we took from you. I Hope to see Hillary in office. Don't count out the Clintons!
Derrek, Colorado Springs
Derrek W, Colorado Springs, Colorado
hang on - there was an article a few weeks back saying obama should be the democrats choice because obama seems to appeal to both sides, whereas clinton galvanises the republican support. So what is it then?
tim, london,
Although Senator McCain was a war hero, this does not augur well for a country that needs a leader who will use discretion and insight to deal with those who oppose us. He has spoken of bombing Iran and 100 more years in Iraq. What kind of wisdom is that? He changed his mind about waterboarding when it suited his campaign, he lallowed Bush to treat him miserably in past elections. Where was Mr McCain's dignity and self-respect?
Lincoln and Jefferson both had little experience and yet are regarded as two of great , wise leaders.
So the American public has to choose between a person who is a warmonger (McCain), a person who appears to have limited experience, but has charisma (don't undestimate his intelligence or ability to learn) (Obama), and a person who appears to be strong and experienced, but who stoops low to gain the advantage (a la the Republicans) when the going gets tough. My vote goes to the one who can demonstrate the greatest, sincerest caring for the people.
Ray, albany, Oregon 97321
I agree with you for the most part. If the Democrats nominate Obama because he makes the media giddy it is a mistake. I could never consider voting for such an inexperienced politician. If they nominate Hilliary I'll consider her, but if not I amjust one of the many un-polled votes that will lead to a President McCain.
Chuck, Baltimore , Maryland
I noticed a comment that Nixon won the "popular" vote and Kennedy won the electoral college. This is in error. John F. Kennedy narrowly received more popular votes than Nixon.
Martin Gasman, Leominster, MA. USA
The idea that American women come together in support of Hillary is a true longshot bet. The Indepenent/Republican animosity is far too strong to let mere gender break its bonds.The fact that she wins in states where Dems tradtionally win in the general election is more a demerit than a plus. Dems will probably carry those states regardless of the candidate. Obama has a better chance at getting the "swing" states to swing. Democrats and Republicans don't decide American elections, Independents do, and among those, Obama has a clear edge over Hillary. Dem party base voters hear the name Clinton and come-a-runnin', the less delusional Dems know that Bill was a better Republican President than he was Democractic. He never met a job-robbing trade agreement he didn't like, and his lust for Republican banking deregulation greatly assisted the series of events that brought on the credit crisis felt now on both sides of the pond. Hillary is no more on the side of workers than he was.
Paul O'Rourke, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA
Obama and Romney had some things in common during the election process. Romney is a Mormon and Obama is African-American and both of these groups have a history of experiencing persecution and discrimination. Barack has demonstrated that that race has become less socially divisive then religion.
Romney won the smaller States especially along the northern US border belt and McCain became the nominee because he won the big important States like New Hamshire, South Carolina, Florida and California which were the knockout blows against Romney. Barack has won a lot of States but Hillary has won the big States.
Obama would probably win against McCain if it only mattered how many votes each received but I agree with Anatole and the CNN/Fox news analysts that have discussed this topic ad nauseam that in the primaries it is the delegates that matters and in the election is is the electoral college that matters.
Based on the facts, Hillary has the edge over Obama to beat McCain.
Greg, Tunbridge Wells,
Personally I am ready to vote for any candidate who will pledge to close the Federal Reserve private bank and give the control of our wounded dollar back to the Secretary of the Treasury and therefore, back to the American people. This would give the government the power to issue and distribute our currency to the banks at cost, without interest. The government would control the money supply and this would end the deliberate "shortages" of money supply routinely introduced by the Fed. 5 previous Presidents have used this technique with success including Jackson and Lincoln. None of the 3 possible Presidents can make effective and massive changes for the better in America, until the Government controls the currency supply. I suggest you see the Internet film, "The Money Masters". Then vote for whoever will promise to close the Fed.
victor.compton, Cherbourg, France
What is Hillary Clinton's experience? What major laws has she passed? She has only achieved what she has because of her husband. Being a woman, I would like to have the first female president get there on her own and not because she shares the same last name that her husband does. It has been hard as a woman to have a professional position, and be looked down by your collegues, because some infer you got there because of affirmitive action. I want to seek the benchmarks in my carrer not because I am a woman, but because I am good. Can't I ask that in my president as well?
Plus I don't think I could handle Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton. Having Royalty may work for some countries, but it doesn't work in the United States. If I remember correctly we kicked out the royalty the last time they tried to rule our country.
Kristy, San Francisco, United States / CA
I think you underestimate the power of Obama's presence. He will crush John McCain in any debate because of his eloquence and thoughtfulness, but likely because McCain has trouble reading from a teleprompter, let alone speaking extemporaneously. Obama ignites the flames of hope in anyone who hears him speak and McCain relies on our fears to justify his candidacy. Americans are sick of fear mongering and are looking for something - someone - to give them hope. Obama delivers.
Lamonte, Burke, VA
The polls posted on Real Clear Politics -- state polls showing Clinton and Obama head to head against McCain, demonstrate that Obama is stronger against McCain than Clinton is in both red and blue states.
The polls show:
Obama is stronger against McCain in CA, NY and PA and other blue states than Clinton is.
Clinton is losing against McCain (and Obama is winning) in the following states that Gore won in 2000: MN, WI, IA, MI, WA, OR, NM. Losing any of these states would probably doom Clinton to defeat.
Obama is losing or in danger of losing the following states that Gore won in 2000: NONE, except possibly WA (Obama is down 1 point to McCain, within margin of error).
Clinton is leading McCain in the following states that Gore lost in 2000: OH.
Obama (averaging several polls) is leading or even with McCain in the following states that Gore lost in 2000: OH, CO, VA
ScottNStone, Washington, DC
We Americans will once again get what we have asked for I fear - and it will either be Bush lite (McCain) or someone who lacks the experience (Obama) to be the leader this country needs and the world will look to for a better example than the US has shown since the 2000 election.
As a registered Democrat, I would vote for Hillary Clinton in a heartbeat if she is my party's eventual nominee for President. If it's Obama? Sorry - I would rather have McCain's experience. No, I'm not a baby boomer - but I'm no fool either.
Dr. S. (a woman), Denver Metro, Colorado/USA
is it really the case that women have 'suffered far more from disempowerment than Africans, Hispanics, Jews or any other racial group.'
I'm not entirely sure that is a true or fair assertion to make..
Neil Spring, London,
Senator Obama is beginning to be seen as a thin skinned, ill tempered, overly ambitious sham. His supporters are emotionally invested in his candidacy thus the "Hillary is evil" spewed whenever they cannot discuss his policies. He is not going to make it to the convention because the press is finally starting to look into Rezko, money laundering from the middle east, changed votes for gambling legislation, publicly financed low income housing loans misused, his "boneheaded" ethical lapses although a trained attorney, his wife's unfortunate propensity to get large pay raises from public entities whenever he wins another election, and the overall stench of the Chicago political hierarchy. Senator Obama's aura of invincibility has been breeched and it is now open season. It's the Chicago way.
Bob Elliott, South Padre Island , Texas
Thank you! Funny how we have to look to another country for someone in the media to point out the truth! Everything you wrote was "spot on"! Please keep up the excellent work.
Denise , Pottstown, PA
why do you repeat this nonsense about Hilary Clinton's experience? Since when was first lady a post of political authority? It's rubbish.
Harry, UK,
Well written.
Alex, Edinburgh, Scotland
It never ceases to amaze me how many Americans respond to articles concerning the U.S. election such as this with comments such as "Stay out of our Elections!" or "Stick to British politics and mind your own business!". May I politely but firmly request that they desist from reading the timesonline web-site if they don't like what they see.
Neil Johnson, Luxembourg, Luxembourg
Jem said it perfectly, the whole point of this campaign is that a majority of people are voting blind of race or gender. The only thing Obama has to worry about would be these ''dodgy friends'' and how he might cleanly get himself out of that mess without scarring his reputation of change.
Res, London, UK
FIRST FIRST LADY to come under criminal investigation
FIRST FIRST LADY to almost be indicted acccording to one of the special prosecutors
NUMBER of Hillary Clinton fundraisers convicted of, or pleading no contest to, crime: 5
NUMBER OF TIMES that Hillary Clinton, providing testimony to Congress, said that she didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar: 250
NUMBER OF CLOSE BUSINESS partners of Hillary Clinton who ended up in prison: 3. The Clintons' two partners in Whitewater wereconvicted of 24 counts of fraud and conspiracy. Hillary Clinton's partner and mentor at the Rose law firm, Webster Hubbell, pleaded guilty to federal mail fraud and tax evasion charges, including defrauding former clients and former partners out of more than $480,000. Hillary Clinton was mentioned 35 times in the indictment.
HILLARY CLINTON'S participation in a Whitewater related land deal became suspicious enough to trigger an investigation by the Arkansas Supreme Court.
H Clinton first lady, no thanks
Tom, NY, USA
a.k., be honest: you made up all that stuff about why people vote, didn't you? hillary doesn't have a hope because there are too many people who simply won't vote for her because she's a weasel. it would be very sad if people voted simply along the lines of colour or sex. and they haven't been.
obama runs the risk that his integrity will be ripped to shreds by the republicans (who will focus on his dodgy friends) and he will need to back up his fine rhetoric with confirmation that change is manageable and that he is competent to do it. but people might be prepared to give him a chance. no one needs to give hillary a chance because everyone knows what she's like. and it ain't pretty.
obama is a risk. but hillary is guaranteed to lose.
jem, london, uk
That is strange that Steinem, as a white woman, can't see what this country was like. While white women were enjoying middle class homes during the Jim Crow era, many African American women (and men) were living in separate, but economically unequal neighborhoods. When slavery was going on, white women in the South may have been oppressed, but they didn't suffer what Sojourner Truth and Harriet Jacobs did. And if you don't think racism is alive and well today, just look for the ABC news article about Rush Limbaugh laughing when a caller referred to Obama as Curious George, or the purposeful darkening of Senator Obama by the Clinton campaign in their red phone AD in order to mobilize the white supremacist vote. The truth of the matter is that sexism and racism are alive in America and that white women feminists should not say that the struggle for gender equality is more critical than the struggle for racial equality.
person, Lawrenceville, Virginia
To expect women in the general electorate to vote like women in the Democratic primary is mistaken.
It is the same argument that somehow Clinton's wins in a Democratic primary in NY mean that Obama will somehow have a problem there. It overlooks the fact that general election voters aren't all members of one party.
Clinton runs well with women of her party, who overwhelmingly are "gynocentric" identity voters. Bigots, essentially, like Gloria Steinem. General election female voters are far less likey to vote their gender.
Doug, Ridgewood, NJ
I think Mr. Kaletsky's argument likely stems from the Parliamentary system of rule – having some familiarity with it growing up in a former British colony prior to becoming an American citizen. What is absent, however, is the fact that in America, Presidential elections are determined by the self-described Independent voter. In 2008, that vote will not likely go to Mrs. Clinton unless she has a superb running mate and even then…it's a long shot.
The Clintons and Bushes have employed a 50+1 strategy to win the last 4 presidential contests. As a result, we find ourselves in a two front war, the prospect of a recession, $4 gas and a weak dollar. If Senator Clinton is elected in November, many Americans fear that too much time will be spent on retaliation and securing more wealth and power in exchange for favors. That's not change.
Mrs. Clinton supporters may disagree with this, but the truth is she will not have a mandate for change if she barely wins using the 50+1 strategy.
Tami, Wash, DC,
I guess I shouldn't be surprised how many comments here, especially those that are anti-Clinton, are just not true. Another example of the double standards shown towards women, especially those that are strong and in leadership roles.
Please don't base your opinion of someone on something your buddy told you or something the opposition is spewing.
Clinton has a long record of public service helping a vast population of men, women, ethnic groups, religions etc. She was doing that while Obama was learning to tie his shoes.
Obama has been "talking" while Hillary has been "doing".
Marilyn, Indianapolis, USA
Let's see... No foreign diplomatic experience, nothing with the economy either. Nothing to point at to comfort those concerned with a terroist attack. No experience running a big buisness, or even a corner store. Obama hasn't proven that he is anything but a windbag.
Joe, Canandaigua, NY
No Todd, you haven't done your homework. Obama has won in states that go red historically over and over again in a general election. These states record far higher numbers in registered Republicans. Also, these states were caucuses and involve far fewer voters. It is states like CA, NY, MA, IL, NJ, PA, TX(the big states where your democratic populations reside in large numbers) etc. that carry a Democrat over the presidential threshold.
Look back at Gore's run for the presidency. He won all these states and had the popular vote but if it weren't for the Florida nightmare he would have had the presidency without any of the states that Obama has won thus far. Obama has failed to win any of these bigger states who by the way were determined by primaries(popular votes). Hillary may be behind in delegates right now but she's ahead by some 30,000 popular votes. In the general election these popular votes are hugely important and matter in deciding the electoral college.
Susan, Los Angeles, CA
Yiyi Hillary!!!! You are best fit for president.
Jojo Cali, Stockton, CA
I can see your rationale, but I think that it fails to take into account that Hilary's strengths are purely partisan. This means that she will always get democratic strongholds like California, NY, MA, and CN. The test that Clinton needs to do is to win some of the smaller red swing states, and Obama is barely beating her there. The reason that it matters is because if the Democrats can get at least 2-3 more states that Republicans won, then the party has a good shot of winning.
Obama's victories in the smaller states give hope for this. It is pointless to win the exact same states as 2004 and just hope that Ohio or Florida will vote Dem. If you want a better example, check out the latest electoral map by SurveyUSA. Obama actually gets some states that Clinton wouldn't get from McCain.
charlieblaze, Chicago,
Lets wake up and truly appreciate America 2008- It still is not educated enough , and aware of the World etc to vote for any real change and certainly not for a Black or Woman President , so please Mc Cain has the election in the bag , as long as his health remains good- The democrats once again have failed to deliver a suitable candidate and so i must assume must be still listening to Republican advisors!
So the farce will go on on TV and media , about il it be a woman or etc etc - but all it does is feel space - and raise deabte about nothing original or about how to secure real change! Al Gore prefered to take the easy option in 2000 and not challenge ! and concede defeat ! and says volumnes , surprise surprise he now has 36 Million US Dollars to play with Hedge Funds as anounced yesterday in Media !!
David Thompson, monte carlo, Monaco
Gee, I don't think I want to re-live more Whitewater, Lewinsky, Paul . . . scandals. I'm gonna move to Obama.
VO, Durham,
Once again we have an analyst who fails to understand why we have a delegate system and an electoral college: so a candidate does not run up large tallies in a few population strongholds and cruise to victory while ignoring the rest of the country. Senator Clinton attempted to do the latter and her strategy has backfired, while Senator Obama organized and out-worked the opposition across large tracts of the country that would have been ignored in a less intelligent system.
Todd, New York,, NY, USA
I don't think that you have listened to any of the Obama speech. The reason that Obama resonates so well with the younger or more educated voters is that voters are saying enough is enough with the previous regimes in Washington that have not accomplished anything. They want a new start, particularly after the Iraq War and the Housing Crisis. Obama gives hope and shows the ability to bring the democrats and republicans together to bring change to the USA.
His race has nothing to do in here. Stop pretending you know AMerican politics. Your comment on race is really offensive.
Patrick Lu, New York,
This is rubbish. HRC won in big states that would go to the Democrats in the general. Obama won states by wide margins (as opposed to the margins HRC gained in CA, NY, NJ, OH which were all by 15% or so). And further, Clinton represents old politics, which will not bring in new voters which is something at which Obama excels.
I am one Democrat that will vote Republican in November if HRC is the nominee - for the first time. If I am going to vote for someone with a hawkish foreign policy, it will be McCain, who is doing it because he believes it is the right thing as opposed to someone who has run a focus group or polled to make a decision.
Richelle, London from Bonne Terre, UK/MO
Please explain to me why choosing Hillary simply because she's a woman is any better than choosing McCain because he's a white guy or Obama because he's black? The presense or absense of a Y chromosome or skin pigmentation is NOT a good indicator of one's ability to lead. You have to consider a person's character, experience, leadership ability, and positions on the issues before choosing a candidate. Most people realize this, especially the young who have lived in the post-feminist, post-civil rights era.
Helen, Davenport, IA
This is the same tired analysis everyone who supports Clinton has been spouting for months. Why is every state that Hillary wins a "bellweather state", while Obama's victories are insignificant?
Take a look at the numbers of people voting in the Democratic vs Republican primaries, particularly in those "traditional Republican strongholds". In some cases, the people voting for Obama alone outnumber all those who showed up to participate in the Republican primary.
The deciding fact of the matter is, Obama appeals to independents and, strangely enough, moderate Republicans. He has the support of voters who will never cross over to support Hillary. It is the core of the Democratic base, meanwhile, that supports Hillary. Obama will get those votes by default if the Democrats want any chance at victory.
Oh, and the math is on Obama's side. Hillary's "re-energizing" victory closed the delegate gap by a whole 9 delegates. Does no one remember that she was up by 20+ points only a month ago?
Justin, San Francisco, CA
Isn't it intriguing how Senator Obama has never mentioned his race, or Hillar's gender -- but the Hillary campaing has been obsessed with both? From Bill Clinton trying to marginalize Obama as simply a "black" candidate, to Hillary's minions constantly claiming she has being treated unfairly because she is a woman. Can anyone imagine Golda Meir or Margaret Thatcher stooping to either such level?
Victor Welch, Galveston, TX
Hillary Clinton is not divisive because she's a woman. She's decisive because she and her husband have made a career of political mudslinging, and as a result, 50% of the country already has an unfavorable view of her. While Republicans are limp in their support of McCain, they are rabid in their opposition to Hillary. As has been repeated ad nauseum, there's nobody better to unite the Republican Party than Hillary Clinton. Not to mention the support McCain enjoys among independents.
As for the whole "big state" argument, most of them will go to any Democrat - it doesnt matter if Hillary is winning them by 5-10 points over Obama. The more hard-hit economic areas - Ohio, Pennsylvania, will surely vote Democratic in the interest of workers' rights. But if Hillary is the nominee, a lot of independents and Republicans will come out just to vote AGAINST her, while Obama will actually draw independents and Republicans away from McCain. Obama could make states like KS, GA, and VA blue
Steve K, Chicago, IL
Trust me, there is NO WAY this country is going to vote Ms. Clinton into the office of the presidency. Being a president's wife does not qualify one to become president, nor does a measly 6 years in the senate.
She has never run anything in her life. Not even a Dairy Queen.
And you expect her to run the country?
Please don't insult our intelligence.
Tamar, Truckee, CA
Not a very reasoned analysis. Obama's appeal is about his race? Are you absolutely insane? If the result in Ohio is of any news to you - he lost because of an overwhelming anti-Black sentiment among the white electorate there.
And your argument about experience - please tell me how being the wife of a President qualifies as "experience" - please - go ahead and tell me this.
Lastly, lets not forget that your attempt to analyze the American political scene is not unlike an American trying to analyze the British electorate and all of its nuances. You really don't have a place in this debate. I would stick to what you know, if I were you.
Bill, Hartford, CT
"Why then have American women failed to rally in sufficient numbers to Mrs Clinton?"
-Easy... Women in America are SMART. They are able to realize that they don't have to vote for the candidate they think is worse just because they are the same gender. This article is disgusting and sexist for suggesting females should act so shallow.
Remember.. the African American vote was not solidly behind Obama until Clinton started to play the race card unwisely and drove them all away. Obama hasn't once played the 'gender' card so women who have the intelligence to make up there own minds have no reason to rally against him, as African Americans have rallied against Clinton. What you are seeing with respect to Baraks African American support, and lack of absolute female support for Hillary has as much, if not more, to do with Hillary's negative campaigning than race or gender allegiance.
Amy, Allentown, PA
Women may make up the majority of voters, but she only attracts women 60 and older in large numbers. The states she is strongest in are traditionally democratic states and will support whomever the nominee will be.There is also the thing called the "Electoral College" that despite Gore and Kerry winning big states they lost the election. Maybe you should stick to British politics, because you are clueless when it comes to American politics. It's not about "conventional wisdom". It is about an intelligent assessement.
G. St Ames, San Diego, CA
very insightful article and i agree with just about everything you say except the blurb about kennedy riding to power on the crest of baby boomers.
john kennedy was elected in 1960 when the oldest baby boomer was 14 ( i have allways understood the baby boom began with the end of the war plus gestation ; 1946). kennedy road to victory on the support of his fellow world war ii generation; remember his inauguration speech " a new generation of leaders, born of this century"
kevin, chicago, il/us
I'm not sure when you think the boomers were born, but they were not in their twenties when Kennedy was elected in 1960. The boomer generation started in 1946 when American GI's began arriving home from Europe and Asia. Therefore, the oldest of the boomers would have been 14 when Kennedy was elected.
Besides that obvious fact you just seem to ignore several key fundamentals of American politics. Try again.
Andy, Madison,
Sorry you are so wrong on the point you are attempting to make. The only women that will vote for Hillary are the women she is getting in the primaries. For one thing, the Republican party - every state - 55/60% are men, 35/40% are women. (It's just the reverse in the Democrat's party).
If you lived on this side of the 'pond' you would have a better understanding just how polarizing Hillary Clinton has been, is, and will remain.
The only things that would be assured with Hillary Clinton on our ballot in November is - John McCain would be the 44th President and Speaker Pelosi would not be Speaker of the House as Hillary's loss will also cause the House to be Republican again.
Hillary would LOSE, not one important political role, but TWO
Mary, Maryville, USA/TN
I have read many of the postings here and what I see here and in my daily life is that we Democrats are becoming a strongly divided party. I am a Hillary supporter. Like many, many Hillary supporters i know, I will not vote for Barack Obama if he wins the nomination. I will move to support McCain. I have a strong negative reaction to BO. He is not ready to run this country. He is often found in the debates to be fumbling for not only words but thoughts. After a week of the press doing a little Obama vetting for the first time, he did indeed fall apart. His speeches are vacuous and repetitive. I am seeing that he is being found out for what he is, a wonderful professorial young politician.
HILLARY 2008!
Sara, LA, CA
Both candidates have their strengths and weaknesses. I disagree with Jack Dillard who says republican women wont vote hillary. Both my mom and sister who have never voted democrat before and neither of which have voted in a primary election before voted for her.
ty, SLC, Utah
>In any rational comparison of frustrated talent, women, who are half the world's population, have suffered far more from disempowerment than Africans, Hispanics, Jews or any other racial group.
Absolute nonsense. That you would even assert something like this demonstrates a deep ignorance of history.
Hillary Clinton is a white woman. White women were never enslaved, and were never colonized. Moreover, we have already had a white woman as the most powerful person in the world: see Queen Elizabeth of England, and Catherine d'Medici. No person with dark skin has ever come close to that level of power.
Jason Kerwin, East Palo Alto, California, United States
Obama has a better chance of winning than Clinton. I don't deny the existenence of racism, but Obama is not "really" black to most of those who care. I'm not talking about new-Nazis, but ordinary boneheads.
JANET, Calumet City, Illinois
Oh,
i should also like to assist Anatole Kaletsky with some information.
What Anatole Kaletsky is asking American women to do is associate more closely with the labor government of the 1970's that with Mrs. Thatcher.
In American parlance; itaintevergonnahappen.
P. Walker, Memphis, Tennessee
"What he forgets, however, is that Kennedy was swept to power on the crest of the baby boom, when the largest group of voters was in its twenties."
Better check your math. The oldest Boomer (born in 1946) in 1961 was 15 years old.
I'm one of those older female Boomers and I am supporting Clinton. We Dems are lucky to have two strong candidates, unlike the Republicans who had to find someone from a group of losers.
Ellen, Chicago, Il
Terrible piece. Stay out of our election, thanks.
Brian, Moscow, Idaho
Another overlooked reason to elect Hillary is that she hasnt thrown out the idea of the "dream ticket." Hillary is willing to ask Barack Obama to run as her VP, while the Barack campaign has stated they would not want Hillary to run as Barack's VP cantidate. A Clinton-Obama ticket might actually have what it takes to overcome John McCain.
Skip, Long Branch, USA / New Jersey
Pretty good analysis - EXCEPT: You did not adequately account for the differences between primary and general election voting. I think this difference would impact Hillary votes the most, meaning a lot of women who supported her nomination would come to their senses and vote for McCain in the general. This could be easily rationalized, too. So, thanks - the net effect after internalizing your piece is that McCain beats them both, for different reasons. Whew!
Tom Tuttle, Tacoma, WA
Senator Obama will finish the nominating process with more pledged delegates and popular vote than Senator Clinton. If the Democratic party changes the game and gives the nominaton to Hillary -- I am not going to idly sit out the election, I am holding my nose and voting for McCain, and I am not alone. Why are we always changing the rules to accomodate the Clintons? The whole rationale for her nomination seems to be (1) she's white, (2) she's a woman, (3) it's her "turn." Well, a lot of people have been waiting a lot longer for their turn than Hillary Clinton. My father is 78, how much longer does he have to wait? Further, why is Hillary always so angry? America has been very good to her -- bestowing wealth, power and prestige. Yet, she exemplifies entitlement, ingratitude and, often, paranoia. She is probably the least fit person to get this close to the presidency since Nixon.
Victor Welch, Galveston, TX
I appreciate the views expressed in this column. Unfortunately there is a fundamental flaw in the mathematics. Clinton will not be able to draw upon republican females. They are polarized against her, as well as the higher turnout among republicans to end another clinton presidency.
Jack Dillard, Canton, USA Ohio
It takes a Brit to paint it the way it is. The media in the US is so enamored with Obama it is not doing its job.
FYI: And for those that claim they will not vote for Obama if Clinton is the nominee, guess what? It goes both ways. Those of us that support Clinton (I'm and Ind.), will not vote for him either. But, I believe more of us will give our vote to McCain instead of sitting the GE out. So I guess the Reps will win again. Congratulations President McCain!
Sam, Miami, US
That Mr. Kaletsky would seek to have the Democratic nomination awared based on his assessment of comparative historical misery is truly shock. Putting that aside, his column is a wish for his own preference, rather than an argument grounded in the basic dynamics of this election. More than anything else, American voters are looking for change, and Obama -- not Clinton -- is the change candidate. Negative campaigning and attacks will not transform Clinton into a change agent. Even if Clinton does win the nomination, she will be unable to win the general election. She runs strong with the core Democratic base, but general elections are decided by independents. This key voter bloc has demonstrated a marked preference for Obama over Clinton in the great majority of primary night exit polls, and also in every national survey taken in the last 60 days where the two Democrats are matched against McCain. Voters are speaking, Mr. Kaletsky -- you're just not listening.
Louis H., Columbus, OH, USA
You are right on the merits, but the Democrats are by nature a very emotional party. Because black leaders are more united in favour of Obama than feminists are for Clinton, the consequences of slighting the black community would be more grave. No, there wouldn't necessarily be violence, but the black community would be far lass energised and, thus, less likely to turn up to vote in November. This phenomenon could hand Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Ohio over to McCain right off the top, plus pad his national popular vote by a depressed black turnout in the Deep South. Hillary Clinton may be a stronger candidate on the merits, but she has her own weaknesses. She is so hated by the conservatives, she would raise the Republican turnout. Anyone who would vote for Clinton just because she is a woman probably wouldn't vote Republican in any case. So, the Democrats have two attractive candidates on the surface, but both are vulnerable to McCain for different reasons.
Nat Atkins, Mechanicsville, USA, Virginia
HELLO J. Keller, Fredericksburg, VA:
Have you heard on PEW POll & RASMUSSEN POLL ?
IN NJ:
McCain Vs. Obama : McCain wins by 3%
McCain Vs. Clinton : Clinton wins by 11%
WAKE UP!!!
Jake, red bank,
"...George McGovern was beaten by Richard Nixon, despite the revulsion against the Vietnam War."
Ummm. Kennedy and Johnson were Democrats.
Tom A, Northbridge, MA, USA
With all due respect, Mr. Kaletsky has a rather distorted view of both U.S. history (e.g., his Kennedy reference) and the current electoral picture. Because of our delegate system, the chances of Sen. Clinton becoming the Democratic nominee are slim. She can only achieve the nomination by tearing down Sen. Obama through negative campaigning and by allowing the Clinton political machine to bully superdelegates into voting for her. Either way, she will lose the votes of enough Obama supporters (including non-Democrats) that the White House will be occupied by a Republican for four more years. How unfortunate for us all.
Stephanie, McLean, VA
This notion that women including american white women have suffered the most injustices and oppression in the world is false. This is where the issue of race and gender seem to cross paths. The life of a black female slave and a white mistress at the time were far different. The lives of the underclass be they male, female, black, brown, or white are far different from the lives of the priveledged classes. I really don't think that its appropriate to compare or compete as to who has suffered the most, because I don't think thats what its about.
I do believe however that it is some what shameless for Hillary Clinton to claim that it would be a significant change in the White House to elect a woman just for woman's sake. If Obama had claimed the same about being a black man there would have been a huge media back lash and he would probably be out of the race by now. Obama has never claimed that Clinton is divisive because of her gender, but because of her fights with republicans.
Peplz, Oakland, Ca
You obviously aren't aware of the FACT That 50% of Americans polled say they flat outright won't vote for Hillary Clinton in a general election.
Perhaps you should just focus on politics in England. There is plenty there to keep you busy.
IP Freely, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Wake up folks! Clinton has taken the largest states by population and she is leading in the polls in Pennsylvania. Let's see, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, California and if one takes into consideration Florida and Michigan these states account for over 53% of the population of the US.
She is clearly the right choice! Obama ? what a joke! just a lot of hot air, political rhetoric and promises of change. Good looking, articulate with no substance.
Jamal, Detroit , Michigan
Mr. Obama's choice to run in this election was based purely on his overgrown ego. Mrs. Clinton was the obvious choice to bring the Democratic Party back into the White House and bring about real change, while understanding the mechanics of this goverment which has been created over a period of over two hundred years. Mr. Obama acts as though he were able to walk in, and with a few well spoken words, change our government's policies in a few short weeks. If Mr. Obama really cared about America and change, he would have waited 4 or 8 years, become more experienced, and then made his case to the American people. All he has done now is split the Democratic vote, rekindled racial divides, and given the Republicans another shot at the White House. Shame on you Mr. Obama.
David Good, Phoenix, AZ/USA
Gloria Steinem may be right that it is harder to be a woman than a black candidate, but the fact is that both have a disadvantage. Black candidates have proven that they must poll 10+ points in order to barely win (Bradley-Wilder effect). This is not as clear for women candidates, but it is probably similar.
A risk of a Clinton candidacy is that she will energize the right-wingers way more than Obama will. They hate McCain for fathering an out of wedlock black child (he didn't but they think he did), but they really really hate the Clintons. One thing for sure is they spent 4 years and $80M trying to nail Hillary and she was found to be squeekie clean-she has been vetted.
Presidents need to be inspiring, not competent. This is why Gore was not allowed to be the president, why Reagan and Bush have been so effective (maybe not at accomplishing things folks like, but they got done all the things they wanted to, US constitutional restrictions, notwithstanding). Obama is inspiring.
Bob, Toronto, Canada
The first baby boomer was born in 1946. John F. Kennedy was elected President of the U.S. in 1960, some 14 years later. There was no group of baby boomers in their 20's who could have possibly voted for President Kennedy.
Tim, Denver, Colorado, USA
Hillary Clinton has a big problem: Republicans as well as many Democratic senators hate her. If she gets elected, with whom is she going to work? It's going to be fighting from day one. Nothing will be done at the time that the United States is in dire economic situation and desperately needs leadership and change. I'm a Democrat, however if the choice is between McCain and Hillary, I'll vote for McCain for two reasons: First, he can work with the senate and second I believe he has principles and values (although I may disagree with him). How can you trust a leader who is willing to say anything to get elected? And this is the case with Hillary Clinton.
Jason 452, New York, United States
With all due respect, you clearly have no idea about American politics. The November general election will be decided by 3 groups: 1) moderate Republicans; 2) Independents; and 3) conservative Democrats. The first two groups have sided squarely with Barack Obama. The third is probably divided. According to an earlier FOX news poll, Ms. Clinton had the highest percentage of people who would not vote for her under any circumstances at 47%. She is too divisive. She only won the Texas primary because many conservative Republicans crossed over (at the urging of Rush Limbaugh) to vote for Hillary so that the nomination process would be drug out and because she is perceived as the weaker candidate. 10% of the votes in that primary were Republican and, while Sen. Obama won 53% to 46%, his margin of victory in the Republican crossovers was significantly less than prior primaries. Either John McCain or Barack Obama will be the next president of the United States. Get used to it.
jack, laredo, texas
If you believe this, you have no grasp on how polarizing Hillary Clinton is. If Hillary wins the nomination, there will be a tremendous amount of Democrats who cross over an vote for McCain.
Jon, Santa Barbara, CA
I have to say that your analysis is simply off the mark. McCain's staff would much rather run against Mrs. Clinton for a number of reasons. First, Presidential elections in the US are decided by independent voters who regularly cross from one party to the next. McCain's strength is with independents. Mrs. Clinton draws very weakly from this segment. Mr. Obama, in contrast, pols very well with independents, even better than McCain. Second, Mrs. Clinton is running on experience. That works against Mr. Obama, but not against Mr. McCain who has been in the military and government for his entire career. Third, McCain is seen as a politician with a proven record of reaching across the aisle to the opposition and successfully getting things done. Mrs. Clinton is seen as very polarizing. Finally, conservative Republicans will not support McCain unless he is running against Clinton, who they despise.
Steve , Grosse Pointe, MI
Sure, there is evidence that Democratic women would rally around Hillary Clinton, but where is the evidence that Republican or Independent women would do the same? My sense is that she is not well-liked amongst women after the core democratic constituency, which will turn out no matter whom the Democratic nominee is. And she will have to completely change her message in the general election, as she has been arguing for experience over change in the primaries, and experience is one argument she won't win against McCain.
Michael D. Smith, Port Washington, New York
Wow, it is odd to see foreigners break down American politics and commit fundamental gaffs :
boomers have been a large demographic, but you need to look at US demographics from the last 20 years. Babies born after 1980 dwarf the baby boom - and the boom generation is shrinking year by year. Anyone born in or before 1990 is eligible to vote this November. Obama has demonstrated that given the right candidate, this generation is ready to assume its role as the new "baby boomers" - the generation whose size and clout will be calling the shots for politics in the 21st century.
Most boomers are leaving the work force in the coming years, so health care and social security are emerging as major concerns and preoccupations for them, whereas during their working lives, the promise of lower taxes was the political carrot that motivated them - a 55 year old working baby boomer does not think the same as a 65 year old retired boomer.
Salty1, Houston, Texas
I think Hillary should go away and come back in 2016 so that she could claim " 43 years of experiance" instead her current
claim of 35years(?).
Patric, Hercules,
I agree with Nikki in Leicester. Hillary Clinton is a despicable, disingenuous race baiter who will sell out the Democratic Party, the United States and all of its citizens for her own personal gain. She and Bill are malignant tumors on the political landscape and we'd all be better off if this woman would disappear back to the woods of Arkansas from whence she came.
Ted, Burr Ridge, IL
What a total load of rubbish.
The fact that Hillary has won more large states is completely negated by the fact that Obama has won more of the popular vote and the fact that she is a Clinton is not a factor working in her favor, it is something to be held against her. Would Tony Blair's wife be an attractive candidate for your Prime Minister just because she is married to a former Prime Minister?
Many Americans have had it with our faux political dynasties - two Bushes has been more than enough and a second Clinton presidency is more than I can stomach.
Clarke, Kansas City, MO
Take a lesson in US the electoral system. Hillary's wins in California, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts mean nothing. These are safe Democrat states that Obama would easily win to in the general election. His broader appeal in the marginal and southern states is much more significant.
J. Keller, Fredericksburg, VA
Hey Nikki stop whining about Hillary, you basically defeated your argument by doing so.....
I'm a white male and I think what Hillary is doing is great for women and her tactics aren't stereotypical of women, they are stereotypical of every politician. She is just showing she can play with the big boys and she is doing great. Plus, republicans demean women so who would be better McCain or Clinton. But your from the UK so your words have been acknowledged but no one really cares what other countries think, this election is here to define America.
Alex, UVA,
The author is absolutely right. As a Republican, I think Hillary will be a tougher opponent. I didn' think so a month ago, but after watching Obama keep repeating his cream puff riff on "change", all I see is another typical Chicago politician, tied to very old liberal philosophies and constituencies (i.e., "special interests"). If anything, BHO is a "throwback", who could be very vulnerable in one-on-one debates with a well-prepared John McCain. I can't stand the Clintons, and am not a great fan of McCain, but the will both govern closer to the middle, they both know how to get things done in Washington, and yes, they both are more "experienced". There is a lot to be said for that, because by the time you get to be 55-60 you have acquired a degree of perspective ("wisdom") that you don't have at 45, no matter how smart or worldly you may be. The math may add up in BHO's favor right now, but I'm guessing "there will be blood" on the convention floor in Denver.
bendgolfer, Bend, Oregon/USA
Anatole Kaletsky simply makes reference to "the latest poll" without saying which one and this is incredibly bad form in the US where there are so many polls that we have to take averages of averages. Some pollsters are really just advocates such as John Zogby notwithstanding the fact that he co-brands with CSPAN and the Reuters. Zogby is notoriously unreliable as a pollster. He was off by 23 points in favor of Obama the night before the California primary well outside any reasonable margin of error. He was off by 12 points in favor of Obama the night before the Ohio primary. After polls showed Obama beating Clinton in New Hampshire and she won handily, all the pundits promised to use polls more carefully But they forgot that promise at once. There are too many polls in every state and they serve only to propogandize and spin for campaigns rather than to inform or predict actual outcomes. Yet American news media stay addicted to polls no matter how oten they are flat wrong.
Mark Rhoads, Falls Church, Virginia, USA
Umm...hey Anatole, you can't seem to do basic math, so I'm not sure why I care about your opinion. 51-41 to 48-43 is not a four-point difference in margin. It's a five-point difference in margin.
Derek, Dallas, TX
This journalist cites the fact that HIllary Clinton is a woman as being a reason to elect her? How is that any different than telling us that we should elect Obama because he's black? Most importantly, how is this any different than telling us we should NOT elect either of these two because of their respective gender or race?
This is truly a perverse and disturbing article.
Finally we have an America that isn't picking our leader based on sexist or racist reasoning. Possibly the best thing that could happen to this country. And what do we get? Supposed political pundits who tell us we should base our votes based on color and sex... for the good of the country.
And this is someone who believes that Clinton can beat McCain. One can only assume this journalist has not lived in the US in the past 15 years. America is tired of ruthless, dishonest, disingenuous leaders. And we don't care what color, sex, or age they are... or aren't.
Oy.
Jeff, Crown Point, Indiana, USA
Interesting that Kaletsky sees things as black vs woman. Fortunately, voters see things a bit differently. True that most Democrat blacks support Obama. But younger women, including whites do not favor Hilary. Regardless, his article is speculation and piffle. Just look at the hard number of delegates. Hilary has an uphill battle.
C J Dunmore, Washingon, DC, USA
I an independant WILL CAMPAIGN FOR AND VOTE FOR MCCAIN, If HRC becomes my choice.
AT LEAST HE HAS BEEN TRULY VETTED.
NURSEHUSSEIN, los angeles, ca
Look - In a general election vs. Hillary Clinton all John McCain needs to ask is, "What about Whitewater? What about Vince Foster?", and she's dead in the water as they say.
Hillary is playing with matches attacking Obama's record. She's too divisive - plain and simple - and should step aside.
Tim, Austin, Texas, USA
I agree with your analysis it is spot on
The Obama bubble is about to burst. The Dems have to wake up and smell the coffee and rally behind Clinton. She has now defied the odds with dented Obama's Teflon. He has had a month of Celebrity endorsements and glowing press coverage as he swept the Republican States which have a low democratic base.
He had to take win one off the large states if he was in for a chance of defeating the Republic Machine. So far Obama has not been vetted and as the honeymoon ends his supporters will begin to see that he "old" politician like all the rest. As the scandels and past come out to destroy his squeaky clean image.
For further reading check out this article.
http://savagepolitics.com/?p=177
J Fin, Sutherland, Highlands,
Why is it that when Bill Clinton was electrifying in 1992 and Kennedy in 1960, it was down to their charm and intellect but when Obama is doing the same today, it's down to his race? Why does Hillary take credit for Bill's white house record? I've hardly seen any credit given to Al Gore. Hillary is tested and vetted - I pain to see what she's accomplished so far (and also why she should be hated so much)? Americans are so easily fooled. The best political strategy is to label a candidate and have the press repeat it over and over. Americans who claim to be overwhelming Christian should note that God seldom sends a saviour via the majority (liked) ethnic group. that's why Jesus was a jew and could hardly be accepted by others. McCain will be bad for the shaky economy and also for foreign policy - the war and this might hurt America grievously - China might overtake them after two McCain terms. So what if your saviour this time around was a BLACK guy called Hussein?
Consty, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
To win any general election the candidate must attrack independent voters and voters from the opposing party. My analysis brings me to the conclusion that Obama would be more likely to win the general election than Hillary Clinton because Independents and Republicans have had enough of of Hillary and her co-conspirator Bill Clinton. All her adult life she has been a passanger on her husband bus now she shows up telling us that she was the driver for all that time so we should employ her now as the driver-give me a break.
john wilson, Philadelphia, USA
Golda Meir, Benazir Bhutto, Margaret Thatcher. Three leaders who were about as distinctive in their policies and race as ever seen in modern politics. All 3 women did not have to rely on their gender to get voted in. All 3 competed in male-dominant cultures and environments that are harsher on female candidates. Yet none had whinged and griped, hoping for sympathy and feminist support to negate alleged 'disempowerment'. The one reason those country leaders had in common was their dream for social and economic changes for betterment. The one reason ultra-feminist democrates cast their votes for Hillary Clinton surely pales in comparison. I write this as a woman who appeal to all voters to keep an open mind, seek the truth and value integrity and in your choice.
Jules8880, Philadelphia,
I can't understand why the votes of people from the big states worth more than the people from the small ones. As far as I know the next president will be elected to be the president of the whole country and not only of the big states. But I may be wrong.
Silvino Ferreira Jr, London, London
Anatole is correct. I have been saying this for some time. Obama won't win in November. Obama supporters should face the facts if they truly want a democrat to be elected. Many of the people who support Obama are just swept along with the excitement, some are actually very well off and don't care about getting a health care system. They want OBAMA, not a democrat. And then some people are just deluded, and believe he really will win in November. All of these Hillary Haters... if she is so evil and terrible (what are you basing this on exactly?) why has she won all the big states?
TAM, Northants, UK
I rather support Obama. He is an international, African, American, and Asian. He is the hope of the new generation.
Give him the Chance to lead the world to the promising future. His success is the renaissance of the Minority community, the end of poverty and inequality. Change is in his thought, the tolls are in his hand, and the wisdoms are in his heart.
Hedase, Chicago, IL
So it all comes down to experience, does it? Then why don't the Republicans nominate Laura Bush next time?
In terms of concrete achievements there's very little to separate HDC from Obama - and she obviously recognizes this, since she's tried to claim "achievements" such as the Northern Ireland Peace Process, to which she contributed next to nothing.
The division in this election should be between hope and faith on the one hand and business as usual on the other - and Obama needs to find a way to wrench it back to this polarity, otherwise he'll lose.
And if he does lose, the young, black and other generally non-voters who were so galvanized by his campaign will stay home, and we're more than likely to end up with four more years of Republican disasters.
Simon Buckland, washington, DC
In what overall primary result tables that I have read to date, the Democratic delegacy far exceeds the Republican delegacies to date.
If these two Democratic incumbents can work together, it would be nice to see these two {"controversial"}, leader-type individuals work united in the WHITE HOUSE!
The President should be Senator Clinton -- not because she's more experienced or a woman -- but because of the qualifications; former President Clinton's economical, international, mine safety, public safety, medical and additional policies that have been so tossed aside by "republicans" (who, by the way, ruined the U.S.S.R.)....
Patrice Bernier, Norwich, CT
This woman is despicable - what depths won't she sink to? Her tactics and her negative campaigning, her crocodile tears, her constant whining about the media favouring Obama are just a few of the things she's been doing.
A tribute to females and women? I think NOT. She embodies qualities women are stereotyped for (like manipulation)
Shame on YOU Hillary Clinton for tarring us women a bad reputation, not all of us are like you.
nikki, leicester, UK
Interesting article. The multiculturalism of the Democratic party allows for voting on the basis of race and sex. The quandary was always which victim group to vote for. Democratic women wanted a woman, and blacks wanted a black, but voting for a black man would also be a good choice for whites to assuage white guilt, a point that Obama has played to perfection. Black Democrats are voting overwhelmingly for Obama.
This has changed a bit in recent days as Obama's sheen has begun to tarnish. Speeches by he and his wife that indicate that neither are proud of America are anathema to most Americans. Setbacks for Obama in Ohio and Texas show a bit of buyer's remorse, but it may be too late for Hillary, and If, by some miracle, she wins through the superdelegates, the blacks will be furious.
As far as the Republicans. are concerned, they want the battle to last through the convention, as Obama and Clinton seem to be tearing each other down more effectively than they ever could.
Doug, Sanford, NC, USA
Bill Clinton advocated for an oppressive communist leader known for human rights violations, corruption and election fraud to help a Vancouver businessman get uranium and, in return, the millionaire cut a hefty check to the former president’s foundation. THIS IS JUST ONE OF THE REASONS THAT THE CLINTON DO NOT WANT TO RELEASE THEIR TAX RETURNSDO A GOOGLE SEARCH FOR CLINTON URANIUM With the help of his good buddy Clinton, Vancouver mining mogul Frank Giustra secured tens of millions of dollars worth of uranium to fuel nuclear reactors worldwide. The thank you note included a $31.3 million donation to the William J. Clinton Foundation as well as a future pledge of $100 million. Also google Clinton Yucaipa , clinton Vinod Khosla , clinton Richard Branson , Clinton Ronald W. Burkle, educate yourself .Our country wealth is being sold to the highest bidders. Bush or Clinton Game plan Corporations win people lose and we will not get health care again when then Deals are made in the back rooms.
Susan, New York,
This is great. The US has painted itself into a corner. A woman or a black for president. My how the times do change. From chains,the noose and the non-person unable to vote to the pinnacle of power.
Lorne Babcock Sr, Victoria, Canada
I don't think she has a serious chance of being the Democratic nominee this time around. She'd either 1) have to win by huge margins in every state, or 2) persuade the vast majority of superdelegates to support her. Option 2, though within the rules, would be an outright rejection of democracy, and I can't picture that happening. As a young American, I also have to say that Obama is inspiring me to serve my country in a way that Hillary never could. Don't get me wrong– I think she started off with the purest altruistic motives, but she and Bill have been corrupted by their own power. A good defeat and subsequent political humiliation would probably be a good remedy. I'm also frustrated by her willingness to do anything to win this election– lie, insinuate, even break the rules if necessary (and I'm sorry, seating FL and MI delegates is breaking the rules). Her behavior really shows that her campaign has nothing to do with public service– it is all about her and her ambition.
Jason, Tempe, AZ
My view as a woman is that all the Presidents that we have had has promised one thing or another and because of that look how our country is today. Actions speak louder then words and I have yet to see any type of promise made. What does Obama know about running a country? Whats does he know about the White House? If Obama made president where and how long will there be a change that we see? I really don't find that he will make a change for anyone. I also think that Mccain is a little too old to be a President being in his 70's. Hilary Clinton has the experience, the motivation, and determination to see that promises that have been made follow through. Experience and motivation is what counts, and we as Americans need the experienced to run our country. The question is who is going to clean up the mess that Bush made now? Who is more qualified, experienced, and determined to put this country back in order? I vote Hilary, because I prefer experienced over inexperienced.
Heather, Windsor, ON, Canada
are you crazy?, Hillary will lose to McCain, it won't even be close
there are republicans who will vote for Obama and his independent draw deeply hurts McCain, I go as far to say if Obama gets it he will landslide. Hillary has basically very independents and NO republicians that would vote for her, not to mention when she steal the nomination she's going to disenfrancise half the democratic party....She's toast, the fact she can't see that speaks to what her presidency will actually be like
You Euro's better pray Obama wins unless your anxious to see America continue to slide into the abyss.
Chicago Dem, Chicago, IL
This article is a fair portray of what we are going through. I proudly subscribe the quote " I am supporting Hillary because she'll be a great president and because she's a woman".
Anne, LA, USA
I couldn't agree with you more. After 7 years in Bush-ville we don't need another on-the-job-trainee in office, and McCain is not an option as he will just continue Bush's policies.
Bring on the experience, bring on Hillary
Steve, Atlanta, GA
I think if anything this nomination battle proves that the US is moving forward in terms of gender and ethnic politics - I read that Jack the comeback kid might get Powell as his second - and Hil would have Obama as hers. That in itself can't be bad. As to the corruption and the way politics is sold like an antidepressant - well that won't change overnight until they go for someone outside of the major parties.
Stephen Pain, Odense, denmark
Mr. Obama currently BRAGS about being against the war, but in 2004 (when the U.S thought the war was going well and had strong public support) Mr. Obama publically BACKED AWAY from his anti-war stance every chance he got because it wasn't "politically correct" at that time. He also vowed he would NOT fund the war yet he HAS FUNDED THE WAR ON EVERY VOTE. PROOF:
(New York Times 7/26/04) "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘What would I have done? I don't know..."
[Chicago Tribune, 07/27/04]
"...There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.â€
[The New Yorker, 10/30/06)"...I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test."
Aileen Williams, Charleston, SC, USA
Bush misled his countrymen and drove the bus into the ditch just like Blair did. Clinton was sitting right behind Bush and approved of his driving the bus into the ditch.
I'd rather go with the less "experienced" driver who figured that passengers expect the bus to be driven on the road.
Pierre, Bueno Aires, Argentina
First and foremost I'm an immigrant of African decent, but I am a Democrat for Hillary Clinton. True, Mr. Obama is an interesting man, but Mrs. Clinton is more qualified to take this country out of the mess in which it now finds itself. Should she not win the election, years from now after she has passed on, her detractors will all be knocking each other over in their rush to the podium to commend her brilliance and to declare her a great American. The time to do that is now when she can do something for the country!
Audrey simmonds, Laurel, Maryland
What an extraordinary article! Senator Clinton has had everything handed to her on a plate - that includes the six years she was on the Board of Wal-Mart, a company notorious anti union. Strange how she makes no mention of this in her biography or on her website! She is certainly well travelled as the wife of an Ex President and has in the capacity of First Lady met many Heads of State. The way she frequently talks about her ‘experience’ you would think SHE had been President and Bill merely about. Her efforts to reform her husbands Health Reform were hardly the stuff of competence.
Senator Obama is a self made man. He has overcome many obstacles to get where he is today and is every bit as ‘experienced’ as Clinton to sit in the Oval Office. Instinct tells millions of Americans he is a man of integrity, good character, and genuine and original thinking. Clinton merely says what she thinks each group wants to hear.
Clinton is a ‘celebrity’ candidate. Obama is someone who, astonishingly, has struck a chord in the souls on millions of Americans of all ages, races, colours and creeds. He has managed to engage and involve young people in the political process in a way rarely seen before in the history of election campaigns.
Some of the rest of the world may be excited at the prospect of America electing a Black African to the Oval Office. For millions of others it will just be a new President. There are already Heads of State of many hues in other countries all over the world. If, as indeed I hope and pray, he does win it will be a sign to the rest of the World America has grown up a little and moved on from the issue of race affecting someone’s ability to hold the highest office in the land.
Bergman Coffey, Belfast,
There is no doubt that it is time for the usa a leader that can preside over the nation with respect and integrity,and who is admired not only for their intellect but also for their ability to reach all the people and who will not demean or belittle those who don't agree with them.as for experience for this position how many past presidents had previos experience,and as for being strong,i don't think that shedding tears will help at a conference of nations will make the opposition change their mind.and also the baggage that wouldbe associated with the female candidate would be to heavy for any party to carry again.
owen, gateshead.,
What a terrible article, i don't know if I'm more disgusted by the undertones that women voters should vote Hillary because she's a woman or by the quote that women have suffered more than blacks, jews or any other racial group. How can you compare suffering or there not black women and jewish women? and more importantly What has that got to do with anything? Voters should vote for the best candidate period.
dana, london,
I don't think I want anyone who can not handle pressure, it seems Clinton can not, should run for any office. When the chips are down she is a cry baby not the strong woman she appears to be when things are in her favor. How can a person such as Clinton handle foreign affairs. I'm sure Clinton will not gain sympathy from other countries with these types of antics as she has during the election. You can not elect a person to an office out of pity and expect them to do a good job. We have had too much of the buddy system in this country and it is just time for a change. If Clinton wins the Democratic Primary, I think you will find a large number of young Democrats voting for John McCain. Given the choice between McCain and Clinton, I vote for McCain.
AMP, Greensboro, NC
I actually agree wholeheartedly with this article and am glad that finally someone has noted the hope and change that having a woman as the most powerful person on earth would bring to global society.
To Maertin Brown who maintains that women have not been more victamised than blacks/ jews etc. Minority Men and Minority Women are discriminated against. I am not particularly aware of many men who suffer for their sex alone.
Additionally race/antisemitism are noted wrongs; for years South African produce was boycotted because of their views on apartheid. Everyday in cultures around the world women are viewed as second class citizens. Ever heard of sanctions for maltreatment of women?
It is a crime to denounce the holocaust. Yet everyday courts throughout the world find it appropriate to stone women to death because she was raped.
Women are the most discriminated against group on the planet.
Please think before you speak next
Elle Green, Edinburgh,
I don't see the point of putting a women in the white house if that women is corrupt and disliked. I wouldn't vote for a man just because he is a man and I don't understand the logic of wom,en voting for a women just because she is famale.
rod, nottingham, UK
"Why then have American women failed to rally"
So its nothing to do with the ingrained religious beliefs of bible-belt American women then? And as for your analysis of the paucity of women in higher-end politics, you pointedly ignore examples from all around the globe, including the UK. Women in politics are typified by the inimitable Mrs T, who was much more resolute and militaristic than either Brown or Blair, but never actually started any wars, although she did end one PDQ!
KR, Stockport,
As an American, I resent this perspective. I think it is disappointing that some people might be thinking along these lines. Advising voters to weigh whether women or blacks have suffered more in the US is ridiculous, as is most of this article.
Also, there is this statement: "Everyone also knows that what makes Mr Obama's candidacy so exciting is not his oratory or his good looks. It is his race." Again, this does not reflect the reality of the situation in America. Awhile back most of us recognized that she was losing voters to the same extent he was winning them, irrespective of race and gender issues. People in the US are actually paying attention, unlike Mr. Kaletsky.
Trevor, New York,
"What he forgets, however, is that Kennedy was swept to power on the crest of the baby boom, when the largest group of voters was in its twenties."
Sorry in 1960, the "crest of the baby boom" was 14 years old....not much of a voting block.
That said, the author is correct. John McCain will chew up and spit out Mr (and Mrs) Obama. Hillary is the only chance for the Dems and even then it's far from sure.
Glen, New York, USA
First of all, Mrs. Clinton won big in the large states that go Democratic anyway. I have a Labrador Retriever that could carry New York as a Democrat (although she's registered as an Independent). Obama's nomination puts Virginia and such places in play.
Second, Mrs. Clinton voted for the war in Iraq-Nam, a war 70% of Americans loathe.
Third, if she is given the nomination by the party apparatchiks despite trailing in the elected delegate count, the Democrats will lose a great many of the new voters Obama has brought into the process. That will hurt not only at the top of the ticket but all the way down (and remember a lot of the superdelegates are up for reelection).
Finally, when the red phone rings at 3 am, Americans don't want a president whose first instinct is to hold a focus group to decide what the policy should be.
Jeff Myhre, New York City, USA
Just a few facts, Nixon won the popular vote, JFK won the electoral vote, Nixon conceeded to JFK. In the 2000 election Gore only won the popular vote by a mere 0.5%. Bush won the electoral college. America's government is set up as Republic, not a Democracy. How the parties decide who will be their candidate is up to them, how the election will turn out is up to the voters and electoral college.
D. Yurkas, Franklin, Virginia USA
It's so sad a presidential race is brought down to, americans won't vote for a mixed race guy so get the white woman in as she stands a better chance. What ever happened to policies and debate on key issues that affect voters lives?
If the democrats aren't carefull they putt off voters with thier in-fighting, niether candidate is better than the other but for the sake of their party please pick one and stand united.
B, Aberystwyth,
There was a very interesting news item on NPR a month or so ago. (By the way, National Public Radio is so pro-Democrat, left leaning and liberal that it is almost un-listenable.) The gist of the story was that with Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama running, black American women would have an almost impossible choice about who to support. The clear premise was that they exercise their democratic right based mainly on the sex or race of the candidate. A sad reflection on the intellectual abilities of the electorate, but probably true.
crofty, Greensboro, NC, USA
Wonderful article!!! Yea!!! People are seeing the light. I am a professional woman and I have been for Hillary since she first began speaking about her candidacy. Not because she is a woman, but because she is brilliant, experienced, and the best and only hope this country has! Again, I agree completely with everything written in this article. Anatole, you nailed it!!! Good job!
Lori , Knoxville, TN
Only those, who voted for G W Bush twice, could contemplate voting for Obama.
Jane K, London, UK
The current Mccain v Clinton poll figures come after 16 years of Republican attacks on the Clintons. People already know all that the Republicans can use to attack her.
The McCain v Obama poll figures come after a 6-month love-in between Obama and most of the media, and before the Republicans get started attacking him. There's plenty of room for Karl Rove & co to tarnish the golden-boy image, quite apart from any genuine murky Chicago political deals that might come back to haunt him.
Andy, UK,
I agree with Boris from Edinburgh. Mr. Kaletsky is reading too much into demographics (as pundits often do), and he forgets that this country is still divided over the Iraq war. Iraq doesn't even get a mention here.
Alan Unsworth, Rochester, New York, USA
Well, Mr. Kaletsky seems to echoe the interpretation that non-Americans, especially Europeans have of the U.S. Presidential race. Most outsiders don't really understand the essence of what it feels like to be American and what I and my fellow americans are going through at this particular moment in our history. We are sick and tired of having either a Bush or a Clinton in the Whitehouse since 1980 (Bush Sr. as Vice President). Mr. Obama hit the nail on he head when he coined his slogan of "Change". We want to see what America can do in this New Century, New Millennium. Americans are dreamers, we want to be inspired, we look for our leaders to entertain us and dazzle us and move us with their words and emotion. Mr. Obama is one of those rare beings that transcends race, gender and cultural barriers with his poignant and heartfelt love for Americans and Humanity as a whole. This election isn't about the issues. It's about hope and inspiration. He/She who inspires the most, will win.
Al, Miami Beach, Florida, U.S.A
I am a Nigerian. Before you go scrambling for your map, thats in West Africa. I need not bore you with the fact that I'm quite "black''. Racism is a reflex action, and we're all racists. "White" "black" "yellow" we're all racists. You feel more comfortable with your own and instinctively seek them out in troubled time.
Obama will lose the general election even if he wins the nomination. This has nothing to do with his qualification, I consider him eminently qualified for the office (Bush lowered the bar on that) but I fully expect the baser instincts and race of the majority to see Mc'cain through.
The liberal press will abandon Obama in drove when push comes to shove.
Dele Farotimi, Lagos, Nigeria
why does everybody refer to Obama as black. He is clearly of mixed race, we wouldnt call him white eith