Wednesday, March 5, 2008

Is it really a "race" between Clinton and Obama?

I know this sounds bizarre but as far as American politics goes, I am more of a Republican than Democrat. I have lived in the United States for several years and followed politics closely and subscribe to the Republican political philosophy which is odd since I became a member of the Provincial Liberal Party. This isn't to say that I am in complete agreement with every policy or decision that Bush has ever made but overall I generally agree with their stance on Economics and the Military. After all, I did serve under both the George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton administration while serving with the 82nd Airborne Division based in Fort Bragg, North Carolina and come from a mixed Liberal and Conservative family.

Anyhow, as I watched the polls come in last night for the state of Texas, CNN reported an odd little piece. They conducted a breakdown in Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont and Texas among other states and found that a majority of African-Americans (89%) voted for Obama while a significant majority of Hispanics supported Clinton. Caucasian male voters largely favoured Obama at roughly 56% while women oscillate between candidates.

A good friend of mine and I were chatting this morning about politics, race and the White House and he simply remarked that too many people assume the next President of the United States of America will be a Democrat. He went on to suggest that McCains' quiet campaign coupled with the absurdity that Americans aren't ready for a President who is either a woman or African American may favour his candidacy. I thought that suggestion went a little far until I caught a clip on CNN today where Texans were explaining why they wouldn't vote for Obama because he was Muslim. For those who have been following we know he is not! And besides, even if he was does this impact his ability to be President? I guess our neighbours to the South still believe that you can't be the most powerful political leader in the world unless you are a male war hero born from a significantly wealthy caucasian family. Good for McCain if this is still how people think. To bad for the Democrats and their candidates if this is the case, but more importantly to bad for the culture of America.

10 comments:

Spinks said...

The provincial Liberal Party in N.B. is often more conservative than the P.C.'s so I'm not surprised by your leanings T.J. (well short of the whole raise the taxes thing ;))

It is interesting though that to listen to the media, and even more so Canadian media, one would think a Democrat has the presidency in the bag. The Republican race has largely been an afterthought by Canadian media as they trip over themselves to cover Obama and Clinton. Given that the majority of media has liberal leanings though, it's tough to be surprised by those tones.

Spinks said...

...and to futher illustrate the point, there's this.

T.J. Burke said...

I am thinking the writers strike should have continued until the end of the nominations that way we wouldn't be subjected to thousands of spoofs... :)

Charles LeBlanc said...

Did I see one of my comment rejected?

LeDaro said...

Some Americans still live in 17th or 18th century. World has passed them by.

The bitter fight between Clinton and Obama may cost them elections. I hope it is not gender or race as the reason.

Mr. Burke, Iraq war is an atrocity. Over million Iraqis killed. Close to 4000 American soldiers killed and over 4 million Iraqis are refugees. Killing and disruptions continue. Al-Quida was not there prior to US invasion and now it is all over the place. How can you say Bush's invsasion of Iraq and policies on Iraq are ok. It is a very sad chapter in human history. It is genocide and many war crimes have been committed against humanity.

T.J. Burke said...

Don't know what you're talking about Charles. I don't refuse to publish your stuff unless it's smear or unaccountable.

T.J. Burke said...

Thank you for posting LeDaro. Glad we agree on the Obama and Clinton race. I hope people aren't small minded enough to beleive ones culture inhibits their ability to govern, if so, I am in trouble :)

On the Iraq War issue, you'll have a tougher time convincing me. I am a veteran of the U.S. Military who has been deployed to combat and believes that military intervention is needed to restore deomcracy to a Country that was lead by pure tyrany. I have seen personal loss first hand. War isn't pretty and neither are the reasons which lead to confrontation.

Charles LeBlanc said...

Sh@t!!!! I wrote a blog that you didn't post my blog?

Maybe I press the wrong button?

I should have waited!!!

You being a busy body!!!

Ohhhh well...Bad publicity is better than none at all!!!!

lol

Canadian Rods said...

Hi TJ,

Being a neighbour to the U.S., I do follow their politics to some extent. I find it humourous that it takes them 1 year every 4 to pick a leader, and that even after 225+ years, they still have problems counting ballots.

That said, the media would have you believe that the race is solely between Hillary and Obama. Poor McCain would be doing well to get 10% of the press coverage of either of those two.

As to whether or not Americans are willing to accept a black or female president, I think the question should be "Is the South ready for a black or female president"? The South had a Klansman (David Duke) as a member of a state legislature and a presidential candidate only 20 years ago. The NRA has been credited with giving Bush (a Southerner) enough votes to beat Al Gore and John Kerry. The South is where the Confederate flag still flies on the South Carolina State grounds and is available (on request) on the license plates of nine Southern States.

Is the South ready for a black or female president? I would have to say no. Are the rest of the States? Given the coverage that the Hillary and Obama are receiving, I would definitely say yes. Let's just hope that they have enough votes to outweigh the South and the NRA.

One last point. I love the political commentary brought forward by the likes of Jon Stewart, Steve Colbert, and Saturday Night Live. Given the choice between them and Anne Coulter, I'd take Jon, Steve, and SNL any day.

mikel said...

Part of the reason there is so much press of the democratic conventions is that they are still so close. On the republican side there is really no contest-so nothing to report.

It's ironic to hear much of the media debate about this. Fox and bloggers say that its the 'liberal bias' that has them all talking about the democrats, while FAIR and those on the nominal left complain that its conservative bias because the press is fixated on ONLY Clinton and Barack, the two most republican candidates. Either way, I guess everyone agrees there is a bias of some sort.

But to the above post, I highly doubt the south is going to go up in civil war because there is a black president. The majority of americans pay very little attention to their federal politics, so who the president is is incidental in most cases. Much of the in depth reporting has the US electoral system being so corrupt that its very doubtful ANY democrat is going to be president anytime soon.

But I don't find it 'humourous', it is 'odd', however, it does mean there is at least SOME political coverage, unlike Canada. Let's compare the 'humourous' ways OUR leaders were 'elected'. Harper is nominated and merges two parties that still has court challenges outstanding and that appears to be founded on, at the very least, the breaking of a signed contract. The PM has extradinary powers even though he has barely 38% of the popular vote, of which 40% don't even bother taking part.

While on the liberal side, a bizarre nomination process means the two liberals with the most votes BOTH lose to a guy most people had never even heard of.

At least their presidency allows americans to elect the leader on a separate ballot than their local representative, so I think that process has to be taken at least a little bit more seriously than ours.