Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Obama Vs Clinton: The New Yorker weighs in

Here we go again, the race card. People may ask why I continue to post about this issue but I want people to step outside the box and think about politics and tactics. This New Yorker article touches a lot of key issues and here are some highlighted points.
Also Clinton visited Tyra's talk show today and talked about that old issue of Bill cheating with Monica (so 90’s). Was it a tactic to get more women votes or did Tyra bring it up just because she has some men issues of her own?


Obama was typed as the candidate of Starbucks liberals (latte having long ago replaced Chardonnay in the iconography of the pundits), someone with little working-class appeal who could never break out of the demographic borders of the young and well educated. But, remarkably, in Iowa he fought Hillary Clinton to a draw among union households and bested John Edwards and Clinton among Independents and Republicans.

There were echoes of his 2004 Senate race, when he did not so much defeat his hapless opponents as benefit from their self-immolation.

but Obama’s Iowa win did start a panic in Hillaryland. According to sources on her campaign team, if Clinton had lost in New Hampshire, several senior advisers, including her communications director, Howard Wolfson, were planning to offer their resignation, and Clinton was prepared to skip the next two contests, Nevada and South Carolina, a decision that could have ceded all the momentum, and even the nomination, to Obama.

Pollsters are trying to determine whether he experienced the so-called “Bradley effect.” In 1982, when the African-American mayor of Los Angeles, Tom Bradley, ran for governor, the final polls showed him with an average lead of eight points over his white Republican rival, George Deukmejian. And yet Deukmejian won, by a point.
Read the enticing article

1 comment:

ImLudaChris said...

Good article. We need to be more informed anyway. I liked the New yorker picture...should've posted it :)