Europeanview’s view absolutely – Open Thread

Vote for it here: redditdel.icio.us,    Stumble It!

Good Morning everyone. The results of the Texas caucuses are not yet in and it will take a short while still until the dust settles a bit and more political analysis is available. So, mostly, the papers in Europe are reporting the statistical facts and stating the obvious. Until the pro’s have decided on what to say, here’s a piece of my mind. I’ll give you the press clippings from Europe later in another post. Injun honest. This is an open thread, so whatever’s on your heart, let us know!

Using the pure facts and getting back to my “gut feeling” later, the advantage still lies with Barack Obama. First of all he has the lead in delegates and, never mind her strong showing in Ohio last night, Hillary Clinton has not made a significant dent there. Ohio is clearly hers, as expected, as is Rhode Island, equally as expected. Vermont is a win for Barack Obama with the significant margin we have seen in his other victories, too. Texas has been attributed to Senator Clinton, however, this state’s message is mixed. The caucus results are not in yet and point to Senator Obama. So, when it comes to Texas the number of delegates allotted may be evenly split or even slightly higher for Barack Obama. Even if she wins all remaining primaries by huge margins, unlikely, she will not be able to get in front of his count in pledged delegates. This puts Senator Clintons “bounce back” into perspective.

The campaigning has turned aggressive during the last few days with the notorious “3a.m. ad” at it’s center. Senator Obama seemed flustered by this and he should quickly start getting used to that kind of campaigning, because this is exactly what will be coming from Republicans during a presidential campaign. Here, too, lies a weakness of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. In exit polls voters showed discomfort with the aggressive style. So, while this style has brought her some advantage in the short term lead-up to the primaries, it may be a disadvantage in the long run. It points too much to her being the political animal, the power-hungry member of the political elites in Washington.

No matter what, right now voters in the United States strongly disapprove of the government branches in Washington. In Reuters’Zogby Index you can see, that the Republican President has a 35% approval rate and the Democratic Congress a dismal 18% approval rate. Congress has squandered the landslide win in 2006, which was broadly considered a mandate to end the war in Iraq and a mandate to hold the current administration accountable for breaches of civil rights and international law. Their approval rate shows that voters consider their will disregarded by them. Now, if Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party should disregard the popular vote and nominate her against the majority in pledged delegates this would resonate badly with voters and would do damage to herself and the Party. Moreover, her aggressive campaigning is damaging beyond the nomination process as well. If Senator Obama is going to be the candidate, Hillary Clinton has already done a lot for Senator McCain’s campaign, by chipping away at Senator Obama’s standing.

The decision is in the superdelegates’ and party leaders’ hands now. The fact that Barack Obama will have a lead in pledged delegates is not likely to change, they may as well decide how the’re going to handle it now.

About these ads

7 thoughts on “Europeanview’s view absolutely – Open Thread

  1. Great insight EV. I wonder how much damage she will inflict before she does the right thing for the party, and the country.
    I just have this sick feeling that she won’t give up until she has brought the party to it’s knees.
    She’s going to be doing McCain’s job for him.

  2. I eagerly await the view from the east. This country has gone so far astray and this whole Clinton/Obama thing is beyond the pale. It’s disgusting.

    What does Europe think of Clinton? I know Bill was well liked. How does Hillary compare to him? Do they think she could raise US standings in the world community? Do they think either Hils or Barack could and/or would change the direction of the war, our uber aggressiveness, and all the other things that this moronic president has thrust upon us?

    Inquiring minds want to know. :-)

  3. My admittedly unscientific poll in Europe last week, which included about a dozen Germans, French, and Brits, revealed a definite trend. 100% preferred the candidates in the following order: Obama, Clinton, McCain.

    I actually continue to think that Clinton’s take-no-prisoners strategy for the past week or so has been a good thing. Whatever mud she could sling would be coming from the right wing smear machine eventually anyway. Better to have it out of the way now. Her small bump now will not be enough for her to win, and Republican attacks with the same material later will be less effective because it will be “old news”. Besides, he needs to learn from the experience in order to respond more effectively later.

    Also to repeat the obvious, it was only a couple weeks ago that Clinton was seen as 15-20 points ahead in Texas and Ohio. She did manage an impressive 10 point win in Ohio, but Texas was nearly a draw – after the caucuses are counted, it looks like she will net at most 2 or 3 delegates from the pool of 228.

  4. MsJoanne, good questions. Honestly the reason for me to make this an open thread is: Most of the articles I found in the press this morning were knee-jerk reactions of the “Clinton bounces back” “Die another Day” variety and all the information they contained was the very same you get from your news outlets. This will change during the day and the dust will settle, then I will be able to find more sober analysis or the kind of outright nastiness we got last weekend in the Sunday papers.

    What do Europeans think of Hillary? They liked Bill Clinton mostly and honestly didn’t care about his erotic antics, we’ve seen worse and never quite understood what all the hullabaloo was about. Towards Hillary, I think they are more reserved. They honestly don’t see what qualifies her for President more than Obama and what kind of experience, except being Bill’s wife, she has. She has attended the first ladies’ dinners when Bill was talking to the leaders of the world.

    Obama is seen as more European, a man who has actual multicultural experience, who uses the newest technology, who is smart and inspiring. A man for the times of globalization. This makes many here apprehensive, too.

    Both don’t go down well with the business press, because of their alleged populism when it comes to economic issues.

    If I may try to label it, I’d say Obama is the candidate of the 21st century, whereas Clinton is still rooted into the 1990’s style of politics of her husband.

    This is sketchy, but I hope you get the drift. I will take up your questions and check out the press more thoroughly along these lines.

  5. “If I may try to label it, I’d say Obama is the candidate of the 21st century, whereas Clinton is still rooted into the 1990’s style of politics of her husband.”

    That about sums it up, EV.

Comments are closed.