News   Dec 20, 2024
 3K     9 
News   Dec 20, 2024
 1.1K     3 
News   Dec 20, 2024
 2K     0 

U.S. Elections 2008

Who will be the next US president?

  • John McCain

    Votes: 8 7.8%
  • Barack Obama

    Votes: 80 77.7%
  • Other

    Votes: 15 14.6%

  • Total voters
    103
Even Conservative Media Chorus Sings Obama's Praises
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 8, 2008; C01

PH2008010703403.jpg

Conservatives with kind words for Obama after his Iowa victory include, from left, Joe Scarborough, Rush Limbaugh and Bill Bennett. (By Helayne Seidman For The Washington Post)

Barack Obama, now the media's odds-on favorite to win the White House, is drawing effusive praise from the chattering classes.

"You'd have to have a heart of stone not to be moved by this. . . . This is a huge moment," one commentator wrote.

An unreconstructed liberal? An African American hungering for a racial breakthrough? No, it was David Brooks, the conservative New York Times columnist, and he's got plenty of company on the right.

The media overall are being swept up by a wave of Obamamania, in which normally hard-bitten journalists watch the orator in action and come away dazzled by his gifts. A New York Times piece Saturday compared the Illinois senator to JFK and Martin Luther King in the same paragraph. A Newsweek cover story out yesterday gushed that Obama, "tall and handsome and blessed with a weighty baritone, knows how to bring along a crowd while seeming to stay slightly above it." The journalistic scrutiny usually visited on instant front-runners has been replaced by something akin to a standing ovation.

What's more, the applause extends even to pundits on the right, many of whom routinely denigrate Democratic politicians and yet are strikingly warm toward Obama. There is gratitude, to be sure, that he seems poised to knock off their longtime bete noire, Hillary Clinton -- especially if he wins today's New Hampshire primary -- but also admiration for his inclusive approach to politics and for his sheer talent.

"Who's not proud of this kid?" says Amanda Carpenter, national political reporter for the conservative site Townhall.com. "He has a story people feel good about."

In the wake of Obama's remarks about unity on the night of his Iowa caucus victory Thursday, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman and self-described conservative, called it "one of the most remarkable speeches I've ever seen."

Bill Bennett, the conservative author, said on CNN that it was a "remarkable breakthrough" for "Barack Hussein Obama, a black man," to win in a "rural, white farming state." Rush Limbaugh added his voice on the radio, saying that Obama and Mike Huckabee, the Republican winner in Iowa, "had really uplifting, inspirational speeches."

The Weekly Standard called Obama "the classiest candidate on the Democratic side." Peggy Noonan, the former Ronald Reagan speechwriter, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that Obama had won "with a classy campaign, an unruffled manner, and an appeal on the stump that said every day, through the lines: Look at who I am and see me, the change that you desire is right here, move on with me and we will bring it forward together."

What explains these cross-party kudos?

"There's clearly a matter of heart going on here," Bennett says after his morning radio show. "He's a cool guy, a handsome guy, has a fabulous voice. A leading Democratic candidate, a black man in America, and he does not talk about race, does not play the race card. It appeals to the better angels of all our natures."

Scarborough dismisses the notion that some conservatives are talking up Obama in the belief that he would be a weak general-election opponent. "I get e-mails from Republicans, who've never voted for a Democrat before, saying they were tearing up during his Iowa speech," he says from New Hampshire. "I don't think they're being calculated and cynical. This is so damn great for America."

The story line -- "a biracial kid with an absentee father whose improbable path carried him from Hawaii to Indonesia to Chicago to Washington," as Newsweek put it -- has a movie-of-the-week quality for news outlets. The New York Post's headline screamer yesterday, over a picture of Clinton, was "PANIC." By contrast, the Boston Herald's front page blared: "BARACK STAR."

Few liberal columnists are shedding tears over the difficulties of Clinton, who has no natural cheering section in the press. And African American writers -- The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson wrote that Obama's speech gave him "goose bumps" -- are understandably excited.

Not all conservatives have hitched a ride on the Barackwagon. "There's a lot about the Obama movement I find offensive," says National Review Editor Rich Lowry, who predicted two months ago that his campaign was going "nowhere." "There's a messianism -- 'I embody change' -- that if a Christian conservative was saying those things, people would be scared."

But even as a "self-absorbed" Obama spouts "airy cliches," Lowry says, he found himself standing on tiptoe at a recent Obama speech. "It's really something magical," he says. "You're almost not an American if you don't feel stirred by what his victory would represent symbolically. Here's a guy who 50 years ago couldn't have gone in certain restrooms and motels."

Obama's conciliatory tone may also be a factor. He speaks of transcending red and blue states with a coalition that includes Republicans and independents, while Clinton, who has been hammered by the right since her husband's 1992 campaign, boasts about battling the "Republican attack machine."

Some major conservative voices have paid only fleeting attention to Obama -- Fox's Bill O'Reilly says he "ran an excellent campaign in Iowa" and is "very charismatic" -- because they are more engaged in relishing Clinton's defeat. The Standard's cover story this week, with a shot of Bill and Hillary, is "The Fall of the House of Clinton." But that means Obama has been spared, at least for now, the kind of frontal assault that might otherwise greet a surging liberal Democrat.

For some conservative commentators, Obama, 46, embodies the turning of a different kind of page, as the candidate himself has argued. In an Atlantic cover story last month, right-leaning blogger Andrew Sullivan called Obama's candidacy "a potentially transformational one. Unlike any of the other candidates, he could take America -- finally -- past the debilitating, self-perpetuating family quarrel of the baby boom generation that has long engulfed all of us."

Even Huckabee, in ABC's Republican debate Saturday, acknowledged: "We have to recognize that what Senator Obama has done is touch at the core of something Americans want. . . . He has excited a lot of voters in this country. Let's pay respect for that."

Many journalists have a personal fondness for John McCain, who holds a narrow lead in the polls for New Hampshire's Republican primary, based on his round-the-clock accessibility going back to their rides on the Straight Talk Express in 1999 and 2000. Obama has few such relationships with national reporters, who are more in the role of passive observers of a stellar performer.

Politico columnist Roger Simon, in New Hampshire last weekend, contrasted "a compelling, almost mesmerizing, speech" by Obama, who offered few specifics, with an event in which "Clinton talked about issue after issue in almost mind-numbing detail" while part of the audience filtered out.

If Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, the conservative media are not likely to urge his election by acclamation. There will be plenty of emphasis on his liberal positions and, in an echo of Clinton's criticism, his lack of national experience.

"This is a guy probably to the left of Hillary," Bennett says.

"Do I think he's right on the issues? No," Carpenter says. "But there's a perception you can work with him."

Lowry sees Obama as an elusive target: "No one's really got anything on him because he hasn't really done anything yet. He doesn't have any battle scars. You can blast Obama for what I'd consider an outrageous left-wing statement and it just doesn't get conservatives charged up the way blasting Hillary does."
 
where there aren't caucuses there are primaries and not every state has these things. what is the purpose of these things? i know it's good to win them but why?
 
In the end, somebody becomes the Primary Caucuser.



After eight years of an American political scene that made one feel as if they were drowning in a cold vat of wholesome oatmeal, things are starting to look interesting again.
 
In the end, somebody becomes the Primary Caucuser.

and because of that, this is how the party chooses a leader?

are these things conducted like elections? does the public vote in a particular state where these are held? or is something else involved?
 
Few liberal columnists are shedding tears over the difficulties of Clinton, who has no natural cheering section in the press. And African American writers -- The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson wrote that Obama's speech gave him "goose bumps" -- are understandably excited.
The African-American vote have always been very pro-Clinton (both Bill and Hillary). I suspect they've been cautiously watching Obama (while still supporting Clinton) as they gauge whether this African-American can really go all the way. Now that that's becoming increasingly clear, expect their vote to move to the Obama camp as well. Hillary is going to have a real hard time as we head into the more urban/populous states.
 
and because of that, this is how the party chooses a leader? are these things conducted like elections? does the public vote in a particular state where these are held? or is something else involved?
Yes, it's the system that both parties use to choose a leader. That's the only easy part in understanding this as each state has its own system, rules and names for these things. Basically, a primary is much like an election where a caucus is more like a an old-school town-hallish gathering. Some states have "open" primaries and others "closed." In an open primary anyone can vote, in a closed primary you have to be a member of that party to vote.

Unlike Canadian political conventions (which are quite fascinating to watch), the U.S. process is generally just a coronation and prep ralley as it is known at the end of the primary process how many delegates each candidate has received.
 
Yes, it's the system that both parties use to choose a leader. That's the only easy part in understanding this as each state has its own system, rules and names for these things. Basically, a primary is much like an election where a caucus is more like a an old-school town-hallish gathering. Some states have "open" primaries and others "closed." In an open primary anyone can vote, in a closed primary you have to be a member of that party to vote.

Unlike Canadian political conventions (which are quite fascinating to watch), the U.S. process is generally just a coronation and prep ralley as it is known at the end of the primary process how many delegates each candidate has received.


do they choose the states where the P/C's are held based on higher population? hard to tell which way it will go criteria?


what date will the parties choose a leader based on the outcomes of the P/C's?
 
I think the primary/caucus journey across the Union is pretty random. Different states have historically set different dates and things haven't changed too much over the years. I think Iowa has been the first since the early 1970s for instance.

The leaders aren't formally chosen until the actual conventions. However, things become pretty clear around Super Tuesday in most years. This year's Super Tuesday is February 5th and some are referring to it as "Tsunami Tuesday" as a staggering 20 states will have primaries that day.
 
I think the primary/caucus journey across the Union is pretty random. Different states have historically set different dates and things haven't changed too much over the years. I think Iowa has been the first since the early 1970s for instance.

The leaders aren't formally chosen until the actual conventions. However, things become pretty clear around Super Tuesday in most years. This year's Super Tuesday is February 5th and some are referring to it as "Tsunami Tuesday" as a staggering 20 states will have primaries that day.

ah! i remember hearing about super tuesday somewhere but now i know what it's all about. thanks darkstar & hydrogen for all the info :) i get it now. when watching sports, it's good to know what the heck is going on. :D

on feb 5, we'll know 50/50 who will be the next president. i think it's gonna be osama obama yo momma vs. huckleberry huckabee.

imo as of now, obama is the best for the job.
 
New Hampshire: McCain Wins, Hillary ahead (barely)

As of 9:38PM

Clinton - 46,206 - 39.1%
Obama - 43,118 - 36.5%
Edwards - 19,856 - 16.8%
Richardson - 5,420 - 4.6%
Also-ran: Kucinich, Biden, Gravel, Dodd


McCain - 33,893 - 37.2%
Romney - 27,720 - 30.4%
Huckabee - 10,662 - 11.7%
Giuliani - 7,927 - 8.7%
Also-ran: Paul, Thompson, Hunter, Tancredo
 
Clinton - 72,227 - 39.1%
Obama - 66,010 - 36.0%
Edwards - 30,877 - 16.9%
Richardson - 8,565 - 4.7%
Also-ran: Kucinich, Biden, Gravel, Dodd


McCain - 56,105 - 36.7%
Romney - 48,402 - 31.6%
Huckabee - 17,198 - 11.2%
Giuliani - 13,053 - 8.5%
Also-ran: Paul, Thompson, Hunter, Tancredo


66-69 percent reporting. Clinton by this point wins, but close.

Quite different from Iowa, especially with the Republicans. Good to see Mr. 9/11 again not doing well.
 
imo as of now, obama is the best for the job.
Don't forget, America is still at war and the War On Terror will continue for some time. With so many serviceman in action and harms way, I doubt America will choose Obama for that reason alone. Senator McCain will benefit from this and most of the electorate will see him as the commander-in-chief. IMO Obama's tail between legs does'nt go over very well in heartland USA.
 
Don't forget, America is still at war and the War On Terror will continue for some time. With so many serviceman in action and harms way, I doubt America will choose Obama for that reason alone. Senator McCain will benefit from this and most of the electorate will see him as the commander-in-chief. IMO Obama's tail between legs does'nt go over very well in heartland USA.

i didn't say he'd be president, just that i like him more than the others at this point.

i think it will be a fight between mccain & huckabee for the republican leadership. mccain is a war hero & huckabee is a baptist minister. tough to call, baptists comprise the largest religious group in america and they are both. i think protestants comprise over 50% of the population with baptists making up the biggest part. religious affiliation does make or break a candidate in the US. with respect to that, i can't see them choosing romney because they would lose a huge section of the vote. i can't see them choosing a catholic either so [9/11]giuliani[/9/11] has no hope.

i don't know. i wouldn't be shocked if the next president was republican. i'd be pissed, but not shocked.
 

Back
Top