MNI

flag objectionable content

A few thoughts on election day:

1. Stuka got worried for no reason. The way IN results came in is not different from the norm. Urban areas have a much higher turnout per precinct and the votes take longer to count. So the candidates doing well with rednecks and hillybillies always get an early lead. For example, the networks had called the MO primary for Clinton and Obama came back to beat her by 10,000 votes. More famously, FL in 2000 followed a similar pattern.

2. The networks and pundits keep harping on the White Working class vote, and how the Democrats cannot win the White House without it. How do they feel about a candidate who's getting less than 10 percent of the Black vote? Which Democrat won the White House without Blacks? And this brings me to a very disturbing trend in Democratic politics. Blacks are taken for granted. They can be derided, ridiculed, betrayed, and the strategists and the punditry assumes that they'll come home in the end. Although at this point, if Obama is denied the nomination (which can only be done through some sleazy tactical manoeuvre)African Americans will sit out the general. Of course Obama or his surrogates cannot make this point without painting themselves in a corner.

3. Obama's speech sounded a lot like the Iowa one. That's a good thing. Irrespective of all this hoopla about his lack of patriotism, an Obama convention will be an historic affair, and a moving one except for the most intransigent racists. They are not going to vote Democratic anyways.

4. Clinton made a tactical blunder doubling down on the gas tax pander. Obama was more than happy to talk about something other than J Wright in the closing days of the campaign. And it's quite clear that Clinton lost that war.

5. Regardless of whether Clinton stays in the race or not, it's over. The tone and tenor of Clinton surrogates changed remarkably tonight. Even the shameless Lanny Davis sounded a bit resigned, and lacked the biting smugness and chutzpah when spouting his talking points.

6. And finally, the punditocracy is facing up to the ugly fact that a significant portion of the "lunch bucket democrats" are intransigent racists. No amount of convincing by Obama is going to change that. What he has demonstrated however, is that he can build a coalition (in the Democratic primary and the General Election) that can win inspite of the racists in the electorate.

7.The conventional wisdom was that Rev Wright hurt Obama. He probably did, but not as much as people thought. The attacks invoking Wright took such racist undertones, that it substantially increased Obama's share of the Black vote, which was thought to be saturated already. Obama now polls in the mid 90s among Blacks, up 10 points from South Carolina.

flag objectionable content

majumdar
I credit both Obama and Clinton with getting what the problem is. I credit Obama with the intention to try to solve it. Whether he will be successful in bringing about such an earthquake against entrenched interests and way of working is another matter(as is whether he will be even given a chance to try).

flag objectionable content

Sadnaji,

Your last two posts are very enlightening. And that's why I maintain that it is really irrelevant who becomes the Prez in Nov. Lets vote for the guys who provides the maximum entertainment ala GWB Jr.

Regards

flag objectionable content

PS: Iraq was just Kosovo on a larger scale.

The reason why the US industry and 'establishment' is much less interested in Afghanistan is because US firms can't depend on bagging the major reconstruction contracts there, as in Iraq, and because the international donors channeling the West's taxpayer dollars are doubtful of their investments in an already devastated unstable country.

flag objectionable content

jang
The world can't control US defence industry and US defence spending on that industry, only the US can.

The arguments for that US defence industry to rain bombs on the rest of the world are very easily manufactured, particularly by the US media. The arguments to spend money on US firms 'reconstructing' after bombing are very easily manufactured as well as US's 'burden' to manage the world.

This racket began in the Clinton years, btw. NYT reported that the YEARLY cost of the UN govt(including salaries of teachers) in Kosovo was less than one day's bombing of Kosovo but no country including the US was willing to pay it(because no Americans got that money, Kosovars did).

Meanwhile companies like Dick Cheney's were making huge profits on Kosovo 'reconstruction' contracts paid for by US taxpayers and that volume of money was very easily passed through Congress.

flag objectionable content

sadna, the future of the world ought to be determined by the world..when they dont do it, US will.

flag objectionable content

Sadnaji,

(The future course of our world is currently dependent on a few thousand voters in some swing state in the US)

I have a different take on this. It is quite possible that Masadi sahib maybe right all along. That US state policy will be decided by the US elite (whoever that is) irrespective of the clown who becomes the US Prez in Nov.

Regards

flag objectionable content

"Btw which candidate wud give McCain a better chnace of winning the Presidency?
"

I don't know actually Both have their own particular negatives.

Then Bush could bomb Iran before the elections which will help McCain and neither will be able to do anything about it.

The future course of our world is currently dependent on a few thousand voters in some swing state in the US

flag objectionable content

Sadnaji,

It wud be interesting if Obama ends up with a small lead overall but Hillary and Bill use their influence to get superdelegates to overrule the Obama ticket and give Hillary the ticket. That wud be real fun.

Btw which candidate wud give McCain a better chnace of winning the Presidency?

Regards

flag objectionable content

majumdar
Without a clear margin of victory over Obama, Clinton has very little to argue in favor of why she should get the nomination. Her argument has been that she has a momentum in her favor which is more important than Obama's higher delegate count with which she can't catch up.

Even her popular vote gains in PA to the tune of 200,000 votes are now wiped out by Obama's bigger margin in NC and she has won by just 20,000 votes or so in Indiana.

flag objectionable content

Sadnaji,

Giving what to me is a clear verdict. A Clinton landslide in Indiana would have been very confusing

What you are suggesting is that if Hillary (or Obama) wins 51-49 it is a clear verdict while a landslide wud be confusing. (" />

Regards

flag objectionable content

majumdar
Giving what to me is a clear verdict. A Clinton landslide in Indiana would have been very confusing

flag objectionable content

Sadnaji,

(Good job Umrikans)

What are you applauding them for

Regards

flag objectionable content

Thanks izuber. Good job Umrikans

flag objectionable content

Zuber sahib,

You seem to be pro-Obama. Why? The guy has threatened to bomb Pak back to the stone ages.

Regards

flag objectionable content