melanine or mammaries
written by Stephen Wanyama , July 25, 2007

Come on, come on. What a dilemma, they have both sold themselves over to their corporate masters and does it make a difference?
Hillary like her husband is a stone cold killer. The only reason she has got away with it is their alliance with the New York Times. So everyone supposes they are nice and cuddly. Clinton has far more blood on his hands, even though he was sitting on them, than George W Bush does. The real genocide in Iraq.

Wrong choices
written by a guest , July 25, 2007

I see two problems for Gilead:

1. The highest chance of winning not the primaries, but the presidential elections (by a true landslide) would have a white, conservative, pro-gun male Democrat. The Democratic Party has no such candidate.

2. Hilary Clinton would - alas - be cause for a further and maybe even stronge polarisation among US Americans, sad as this is. Obama would not. He would be more apt to integrate.

who then?
written by Nekessa , July 25, 2007

I cannot wait for the nominations! Then we can begin speculating about who is "winning."

Anyway, I watched the debate, and Hillary came off as the most confident of the lot. Obama, unfortunately, did not.

The YouTube debate was revolutionary because it showed the face of the voters although the questions asked are the same in all debates. When in Kenya, will our politicians answer to real issues, real questions from their constituents?

Many times I wonder how people decide who they'll vote for. A lot of the same people watch the debates, and the rest of the electorate is ignorant about their candidates.

...
written by Tim Norwood , July 25, 2007

Nekessa, sadly as a supporter of human rights, of all that is good and green, I must say Hillary Clinton is the embodiment of pure evil perhaps worse than George Bush even. While she dissembles and wins the plaudits of many on the left- oh, I forgot, immigrants coopted into the American dream quickly become hateful conservatives.

Now, here's a pointer. Nothing will change, like with her husband, there will be a few cosmetic changes here and there. Still, America will continue to trample over the rights of the peoples of the Third World. Don't forget that it was cuddly JFK who organised the Bay of Pigs invasion, or cuddly Bill Clinton who supervised the death of 600,000 Iraqi children through the 'targeted sanctions'.

Will Obama change a thing? I am more inclined to give him a chance if only because I know he has always stood for justice, unlike the petulant she-male Hillary.

Hillary
written by Nekessa , July 25, 2007

Yes, Tim, she is the worst kind of politician-- cold and calculating, that much I will agree.

I am behind Obama all the way, however, I am afraid comments on Hillary's gender and sexuality irritate me, and have nothing to do with her running for office.

And you are right, when it comes to little people, America is a superpower so it doesn't matter who is in office. The only difference is that the Dems pretend to care .

Obama-- whether he will create change or not is to be seen-- his promise is enough for many.

The American presidential debates remind me a lot of Debate Club in school. Its so easy to make an argument for even something you don't believe in.

Polls--> these don't really tell the tide. However, I am afraid they tell people how to vote come election day.

one more thing
written by Nekessa , July 25, 2007

The question had been whether any of the candidates would be willing to meet with the leaders of these nations – without preconditions – within the first year of presidency. Obama had responded that he would, citing precedent by previous presidents JFK and Reagan who held discussions with leaders of countries that were considered very real enemies to the US – with positive results.

"The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of [the Bush] administration — is ridiculous," said Obama.

Hillary, who answered saying that she would not meet those leaders without preconditions talked about not wanting the US president to be used as a propaganda tool by those leaders. The Clinton campaign saw this as a valuable opportunity to reinforce the charge that Hillary is a mature, seasoned politician who would be ready to lead from day one while Obama is still a little green, wet behind the ears.

"I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive," Clinton said in a stern rebuke on Tuesday morning that was quoted in an interview with an Iowa newspaper.

Hillary and the media are blowing out proportion Obama's answer. It's silly really. Perhaps, they need to look up diplomacy in their dictionaries!

response
written by Dave Nyambati , July 26, 2007

Hillary and Obama present different approaches to the same eventuality. For Hillary the means justifies the end and she is content to play the game even if it means overlooking a few rules because as she said “I’m in it to win” not in it to change politics. The Republicans have shown (as with Al Gore and John Kerry) that a ‘civilized’ approach may be good for the conscience but bad for presidential victories – thus Hillary’s hardball stance.

I disagree with Stephen that Obama has sold himself over to corporate masters. He went out of his way to reject PACs (Political Action Committees aka big business/special interest lobbyists) and open up his campaign records so that the whole world could see where every cent of his money was coming from. He has a proven record of fighting for the underdog and until he starts doing otherwise, I am inclined to take him at his word.

Annon – each election has specific issues that determine how the public votes. In this election it is the Iraqi war, healthcare and of course the economy (and to a lesser extent abortion rights, the environment and education). Gun control isn’t on the table one way or the other.

Tim – I would not call Hillary the embodiment of pure evil (lol), like I said she is just very committed to win the presidency, if that means she has to throw a low blow every once in a while, then she will. There are certainly much worse politicians in America than Hillary Clinton.

Nekessa – I think Hillary has risen beyond the negative connotations of being the female candidate and is actually being helped by this fact. There will always be bigots but just look at Hillary’s polling among women of all races to see how much of a boost it has given her (she is virtually tied with Obama in male Democrat polls).

same bad coin
written by Amir Ibrahim , July 26, 2007

Dave,just grand to see you back, and with a great article too.
You seem to look at things from a purely American light, whereas those of us living outside the USA, particularly those of us from a left of centre background see the world as a single organism, one in which the likes of Hillary wreck havoc as they want.
I remember only too well Hillary's support for the very illegal war on Iraq. I doubt this causes many Americans sleepless nights, but for the rest of us it is a tragedy. Depleted Uranium, Abu Ghraib, the massacres of Fallujah, these are very real indeed.
Second point. Hillary, like Bush is unafraid to call Iran names, and to beat up the drums of war, making out that Iran and Islam are irrational entities to which an American President must up. Nothing could be further from the truth. I remember keenly also Hillary's support for the rejection of the Dubai World Ports takeover from P&O. Again, small things to you but quite important to us.

Has Hillary not cheered or silently approved the USA's steady move to the right? Did she defend Habeas Corpus? Hear her speak against She is a naked populist, self-serving and a bigot. She and Giuliani are cut from much the same cloth.

Have you heard Obama defending the Palestinian people at all? He used to do that you know? On the way to Damascus, he passed by Jerusalem. Now he sings like a canary. Was he anti-gay marriage before? He is better than the rest, but come on, he is not too far off the mark. For heaven's sake he wants to increase the size of the US Army, in order to enable them to bring more peace and joy and democracy around the world!!

affirmative action
written by Obamad , July 26, 2007

Barack Obama, and the Hillary-monster who say all options are on the table with regard to Tehran, including nukes, is one of a long line of 'minority' candidates who stand to show just how egaliatarian American politics is. Anyone can be a war criminal. Whether a Catholic and cuddly like Kennedy, or po-white-trash like Bill Clinton, or even black Americans like Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice.

Obama hits back
written by Obamad , July 26, 2007

Now here is the lanky Senator getting feisty, don't let no one tell you he is a sissy.