Top of the Ticket

Political commentary from Andrew Malcolm

« Previous Post | Top of the Ticket Home | Next Post »

Hillary raises Oprah's Obama bash with a Magic party

Celebrities dueling over politicians. Or politicians dueling with politicians via celebrities.

Either way it's a fun story. And here we go. Do you remember all the hubub a few weeks ago when talk show diva and black billionaire Oprah Winfrey announced her support for fellow Chicagoan Barack Obama and agreed to throw an exclusive fundraiser for him at her Santa Barbara area home on Sept. 8?

Well, Hillary Clinton's campaign will announce any minute now that Magic Johnson will host a fundraiser for her at HIS house six days later on Sept. 14. Co-hosts of the celebrity event will be musician Quincy Jones, a longtime supporter of both Clintons, Berry Gordy, the founder of the Motown music empire, and Clarence Avant, another longtime music industry executive who is also African American.

"Senator Hillary Clinton understands the domestic and international issues better than anyone," Johnson will say in the release. "and has the experience and knowledge to help lead our country and get us to a better place. We need a winner as our next president."

Clinton responded, "I am honored to have such Magical and fabulous support."

Gordy, Avant and Jones have similar glowing things to say. The event will be held at the home of Magic and Cookie Johnson.

And the nice thing for Hollywood's hard-pressed celebrities, being pressured to pick sides in this ongoing Democratic fray, is that the events are on different nights. So they can pay $2,300 apiece twice and will be unable to use a scheduling conflict as an excuse.

--Andrew Malcolm

 
Comments () | Archives (54)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Magic Johnson was a huge deal in the early 90s. All the so called big names supporting Clinton are names from yesterday, just like Clinton herself. They don't have sayings like you can't go home again and you cannot relive yesterday for a reason.
But, Oprah is today. now. and the celebrities who back Obama is like the candidate. today, now, and huge.
there is a difference. Hillary is all about days long gone by and trying to recapture 15 years ago. Truth is, her time has long past and she is much older today than in 92. Her supporters are people who were big deals yesterday.
Barack Obama embodies what is happening now. He has vision and looks to tomorrow. Hillary has no vision because it was all yesterday. Obama is what is important now.
it is no longer 1992.
It is now 2007

By your reasoning, anyone older than 46 (Obama's age) is yesterday's news and not fit to be commander in chief. Please, this is just utterly ridiculous! With no real executive and foreign policy experience, Obama is just too dangerous to be entrusted with our national security and global affairs, as clearly evidenced in his amateur and naive statements.

Hillary Clinton is the only candidate who offers solid experience, indepth knowledge of world and domestic affairs, and the audacity to "change" our country for the better.

The idea of either Obama or Clinton as president is scary to say the least. Unfortunately with either of them we are making universal health care more likely and the war on terrorism will turn into only a bumper sticker. These two are actually truth be told farther to the left than John Edwards who is not quite as scary as them because it is clear that he is merely a politically hungry opportunist. None of them have the mental acuity or balanced reasoning most Americans desire in a president. As they showed in their recent visit to the DailyKos pary, they really pander to the far left of even their own party and don't come close to representing most Americans the way that Rudy Giuliani would. Also, we need to choose our leaders carefully and not listen to people like Magic Johnson who only makes choices recklessly, particularly in the bedroom.

vwcat: So now you are saying Hillary's time has past because she has Magic Johnson as a supporter instead of Oprah? Give me a break. Then again, I guess I would say something like that if I couldn't criticize someone based on real things such as a lack of experience. Don't get me wrong, I like Obama, I just think he is too green to be President. Hillary has bested him at every opportunity and has earned her current status as top contender.

I am sick of this "experience" argument, it is getting stupid and overblown. Among presidents who had less or about the same experience on the national political stage as Obama: George Washington (just a war general), Abe Lincoln (state senate), FDR (first term governor), and JFK (first term U.S. senator). In fact, the two most "experienced" presidents in recent memory were LBJ and Richard Nixon. They worked out well. The truth is, experience means nothing once someone reaches the White House. The only things that matter in a president are his intelligence, decision-making ability, and ability to surround himself with good advisers. Those are three things that have been lacking in the White House for 7 years if I do say so myself, and also three things that Obama possesses. Obama is extremely intelligent and studied at Columbia and Harvard before becoming a law professor. He has proven his ability to make good decisions by being against the Iraq War from the very start. And finally, throughout his career, he has taken advice from both conservatives and liberals, so he won't surround himself with cronies. The only thing he lacks is experience according to the skeptics, the same experience that pulled us into the biggest foreign policy disaster in history, the same experience that made us want to nominate Kerry instead of Dean, clearly the much better candidate. Do we really want any more of that experience?

I'm not surprised at all. I knew Hillary would try to replicate the move. She's never had any creative ideas. Once a follower, always a follower.

I find it quite amusing though, that Hillary supporters say Obama is not electable because he's black, yet they pander to black voters and seek endoresements and support from used-to-be-big black celebrities.

What a disgrace!

Magic Johnson? I thought he had HIV-AIDS before he didn't have it? Anyway, that sounds very much like Hillary Clinton.
I can imagine how terribly hard the Clintons have fought for this. They coerce for endorsements and even pay for some.
If she were a genuine front-runner, she won't have to do all that. Her internal polls show that she's not winning.
Personally, I see this as a stupid copycat. It's like saying Magic and Oprah are on the same league. And I think Oprah and those who love Oprah will try and punish the Clintons for that.

I would automatically vote against anyone who is endorsed by Oprah. She is a buffoon who knows nothing about public policy.

It's astonishing that so many people cite Hillary's "experience" as a reason to vote for her. The Democrat with the MOST experience is probably Joe Biden.

This race has nothing to do with experience and everything to do with popularity.

Hearing Joe Biden on Charlie Rose brought that really home to me. Alas, he's not popular.

With all due respect, it was quite unbelievable that Obama didn't know that our largest neighbor and trading partner has a parliamentary form of government (he spoke of calling the President of Canda). Regarding cronies, his land deal with a man under indictment in Illinois was poor judgement (decision making ability) by his own admission. Recent polling that shows Hillary pulling away (whereas Obama peaked when he announced) proves the fallacy of these earlier posts.

xcave:
I'm right with you on this nonsensical "experience" argument. I think people are just repeating what they hear others say without really examining it.

While experience deserves consideration, it is far from the most paramount qualification. Far from it. Knowledge and good, solid judgement is more essential than any amount of experience. After all, it was "experience" completely void of good judgement that got us into this Iraq mess. For all her experience, Hillary's (and other's) judgement was out to lunch. There was a whole boat load of experience in Cheney and Rumsfeld and where did that get us? Again, if it's lacking in judgement it is worthless.

When I got hired at my job, I was not the person with the most experience. In fact, I was fresh out of college, but the hiring manager said something to me that is relevent to this discussion. He said "often times experience brings with it baggage, so as long as you bring us the knowledge and ability, we'll give you the experience". I've been here for 16 years and I'm the senior advisor in my department. To focus on this "experience" issue to the complete exclusion of other characteristics can be detrimental, and in and of itself demonstrates a lack of good judgement!.

So people need to stick a fork in this "experience" argument. It's way over done and blown way out of proportion with other essential characteristics necessary to be effective.

The experience argument is NOT overblown. Every generation has its own set of circumstances to deal with. When George Washington and Abe Lincoln were president with "little experience" as you suggest, the country was in a very different place.

Now, the world is very complicated, we are in the middle of a dangerous war, and there are a lot of domestic problems to deal with.

Obama lacks the experience to get started on day 1. Hillary Clinton is ready and has been ready to lead.

We don't need a president who will need on the job training.

"Every generation has its own set of circumstances to deal with. When George Washington and Abe Lincoln were president with "little experience" as you suggest, the country was in a very different place. Now, the world is very complicated, we are in the middle of a dangerous war, and there are a lot of domestic problems to deal with." ... wrote Gary

The Revolution wasn't complicated? The Civil War wasn't complicated? You are an idiot. To "suggest" that Washington and Lincoln could not lead this country today is laughable. It's amazing you know how to even type letters into words.

There's no question that Clinton has more experience than Obama - the question I keep asking myself is which kind of experience really counts in this time? I am baffled by the writer who thinks Washington, Lincoln, and FDR were not presidents in "complicated times." None of them had even close to the former first lady's experience. Then again, how is being a first lady experience we should count? I want a woman president soon - but not through the kitchen door. I also want a non-caucasian multi-cultured president who can actually TALK to other leaders without immediately assuming the USA deserves rights of primacy, like the old ugly British empire. We know in our own lives that different people bring different forms of experience to their success and their worth to the community - why do we expect, in these terrible times that we need only one kind? The key for me is the moral center of the candidate, and I think Clinton has none - she ran for senator of a state she had never lived in so that she could run for president because her husband was, forgive me Clinton lovers, a real mess of an executive. Are we only ever going to look back in order to look forwards? Do executives in strong companies succeed because they've "been there?" No, I think we need radical change, Republican or Democratic - I will vote for the one who seems most capable of change - NOT the one who seems most "experienced."

I 'm a barack supporter that will vote republican if hillary is allowed to steal this election. Hillary supporters can gush all they want to about experience. She is an experience liar, her husband is responsible for bush's' presidency and the loss of nuclear secrets to china. She's bought and pay for by special interest. Her supporters are nieve if they think that the government will get anything done if she's president. In the begining of this campaign I thought that maybe I could vote for her but I realize I have to much Intergrity. If she wins the Dem race I will make a protest vote so will many others, Sorry to tell you guys but she will not be President. She the only Dem that's worse for America than the Repubs. Anouncing Majic Johnson as a supporter! Get real this 2007 not 1807 he means nothing he represent nothing to the black community and to the world. Now if she really wanted to do something she should have gotten Dennis Rodmen. Right or wrong at least he has conviction. What is majic? Nothing, a who cares,

Oprah' s support of Senator Obama is significant not just for fundraising purposes, but because her endorsement can potentially allow Obama to cut into Hillary's huge lead with Democratic women, the primary reason for Hilary's lead in the early polls. While Magic Johnson is a beloved athlete, entrepenuer, and HIV/AIDs activist/icon, he doesn't have the media presence or cultural currency to help Hillary Clinton win the African American vote. If anything the attempt to diminish the headline impact of Oprah's fundraiser for Senator Obama, only further erodes Senator Clinton's campaigns claim of inevitability.

having Hillary as President would give us experience and contacts and Bill as a HUGE foreign relations asset. if we are to win the war against terrorism (not terror, as the anti-American dubya and neo-cons constantly mistakenly call it), we need international cooperation. so given their compassion and intelligence for the best interests of our children and families domestically, and the intelligence and goodwill for the best interests of our families serving our country internationally, another President Clinton is our best choice. I care about our nation and our soldiers and my child. That is why I will vote for Hillary.

Hillary is a follower rather than a leader. Obama initiated most of the newsworthy items that have happened recently. Hillary just tags onto his coattails to talk about the same subject matter. I haven't seen or heard anything so far that has come from Hillary that is not as a response to what Obama is doing. Hillary's foreign travel experience does not qualify as foreign policy experience. She is old news. Her presidency will probably end up as a clone of another democratic president in the recent past. We have already seen the disasters of that presidency. We want new blood with new ideas. Hillary has not really proved much as a senator either. I would like somebody in this forum to list 3 accomplishments that can be credited directly to Hillary as a senator.

If you do vote for Hillary, I hope you enjoy waiting in DMV style lines to see a doctor. Enjoy!

I can see how Hillary's experience helped her to mess up healthcare in 1993.

I can see how her experience helped her say only last year that she would take nuclear weapons off the table and one year later she said it should not be discused.

I can see how her experience helped her formulate the belief that American people should not be told the truth.

I can see how her experience taiught her that it was morally and political correct to accept money from the same people who have stiffled her efforts in the past, as long as they help her get elected this time.

I can see how her experience helped her authorize a war that has caused hundreds of orphans, widows, thousands of death and billions of dollars.

Yes, I see how her experience helped her and Bill put hundreds of black people in jail and now they need them to get back to the white house for the second time.

You must be heartless, if you support this woman for President.

Hillary the follower. Obama get's invited months prior to the Selma event and Clinton armtwists an invite to be there at another church. Then Oprah announces a fundraiser for Obama, so Hillary has to look around for someone to host one for her the same week. She just can't bear it can see? And if given a choice, I think Oprah will be the party of the year, not Majic Johnson. While I admire him, I think he and Quincy Jones need to learn what is in the hearts of black people before they put themselves out there to do a fundraiser for Hillary. The news is starting to get out on all the illegal activities of Clinton, and just wait until the California Teachers Association find out how Bill Clinton through the Yucaipa corporation is plundering their pension funds to fund Al Gore's TV station and I could go on. Google is featuring a movie trailer of an upcoming documentary about a massive lawsuit against Bill Clinton and the press isn't even covering it but they will cover a Majic Johnson fundraiser. Interesting how Clinton has the media annoiting her as the next President before one vote is cast. I call the Media the new "swiftboaters for Clinton" and they have already begun their attacks and people are actually believing their idiotic half truths instead of researching for themselves what is true and what is not.

By the way, Judgement trumps experience any day of the week and Clinton has no judgement.

You must be in a pipe dream to really think that Americans will elect another Clinton (a woman at that) into the whote House. America must be pretty desperate. It couldn't find a man for the job or even a woman from a different family other than the Clinton family.

This country is full of opportunities and smart people. Every family must get a fair shot. Power cannot be monopolized by the Bush's and the Clintons. After that, who's next? Jeb Bush then Chelsea Clinton, then one of the Bush twins? get outta here!

LET ME MAKE THIS VERY CLEAR:

If Hillary steals this nomination, I WILL VOTE REPUBLICAN. And so will millions of Democrats.
Just as many Republicans are defecting to Obama now, many Democrats will defect to a uniting, non-polarizing Republican nominee if Hillary wins the Democratic nomination.

But it will not just be us. Hillary's nomination will astronomically raise voter turn-out among Republicans because of the Anti-Clinton sentiment and the anti Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton sentiment.

So, Democrats take note: You will have to put up with another Republican President if you nominate lieing, conniving Senator Clinton, because millions of Dems like myself WILL VOTE AGAINST HER in the general election, under any circumstance. ANYBODY BUT HILLARY.
Americans will know the truth when she goes to court later this year.

Bill was a good President but HILL IS NO BILL.

Bill is a former UNITES STATES president and Hillary's spose, but she doesn't own him.

Any next President can appoint Bill to a foreign relation position, not just Hillary.

Hillary is so polirized that I wouldn't even consider to be on the ticket.
If Obama makes that known to his supporters, I am sure it will change the dynamic on the race.
That's how JFK won the election...he was franck and direct and said that he would gladly return to congress if he's not the nominee.

Its a bold move and OBAMA needs to make that move in order to be seen different. Not just someone who wants to be in power.

I use to like Magic, but this has drastically changed my views of him. The Clintons are the sneakest of "snakes". We must get past them now!! I am a democrat who will vote for a republican if Hillary is the nominee.

I am most certainly supporting Hillary and voting for her and it has everything to do with experience. Obama supporters like to say that experience isn't important, or that Hillary has the wrong kind of experience. Hell, they'll say anything to push the relatively inexperienced Barack Obama into the most difficult and important position in the world.

I am a Democrat and I happen to like Barack Obama and I like his wife too. But there is NO way Obama is ready for the Presidency - he proves it over and over again.

And no amount of "spin" by Obama, by his campaign team and by his supporters can change that.

I take the Presidency much much too seriously to want Barack Obama in the Oval Office. He cannot hold a candle to Hillary Clinton, at any level. He is trying to win the Presidency on ONE speech that he gave a few years ago. Just listen to him in the debates; listen to him in his townhall meetings -- read the strange, contorted "explanations" given by David Axelrod every time Obama screws up.

Hillary is way out ahead of Obama and I expect her to increase that lead as we get into the Fall months.

to joseph penso...

I'm not sure where you are getting your information about the candidates but it must be Fox News because you are really out of touch with fair and balanced information...Do you read the LA Times or any other open print?

Patty

Two things bother me about Obama: one term in the Senate is just not enough exposure to national governemnt to lead this country. Two: in 2006, he co-sponsored a bill to end the slaughter of horses in the US for foreign consumption; he has refused to do so in 2007; obviously because he doesn't want to step on the toes of pro-horse slaughter people. This does not speak well of him.

I'm not wild about Hillary, but she's the best choice among the two. Edwards, as someone else said, comes across as a opportunist.

I wish Gore would reconsider.

I am an Obama supporter than like Hillary Clinton. I will definantly vote for Obama, but I don't have many bad things to say about Hillary; so far. At this point if she won the primary I would support her; however, as the political season continues and she continue to use her retoric against Obama I will absolutely vote against her by voting for the Republican candidate or not at all. I would like to see a dream team ticket Obama/Clinton.

I think all this argument about experience, freshness, or change is all nonsense. This democratic field is strong and are capable of delivering. Instead of the different camps trying to undercut each other or to make the other look bad, they should be concentrating their efforts in pounding the Republicans. It is my belief that any of these Democratic candidates, CLinton, Obama, Dodd, Biden, Richardson etc are extremely capable and each has his or her own baggage.

The idea that Barack or Hillary are the best options is sad at best. Joe Biden actually has the most experience in foreign policy, being a politicians WIFE, doesn't make you experienced inforeign policy, nor does less than 8 years in the senate.

On a personal note, I'm a HUGE fan of Hillary and Barack, especially Barack. I do think he has vision, and smart enough to have choose an experienced team that will compliment, not over-run what direction the country should go in.

Now to Rudy, this a joke. This guy MARRIED HIS SECOND COUSIN, and was married to her 14 years. That is SICK!!! He cheated on her with Donna Hanover, then humilated Donna and his children with his affair with Judi Nathan. That type of behavior should be taken into consideration, as it should have been discussed in the Clinton era. How you treat your family, people you supposedly LOVE, is fair game to me. Let's talk about friends, that he says "are the best people he know," are accused or proven to be corrupt and child molesters says alot about how his judge of character. Lastly, while he did turn crime around in NY, and seem to be a stand up guy during 9/11, what else has he done, that he should be the candidate of choice, especially for Republicans?

First of all, no endorsement rarely make any difference. Oprah is probably the only exception to this rule. Whatever Oprah says America does. This is true for books, movies, cars, and probably presidential candidates.She is probably the most influential person in the world right now in that respect. She is the figurehead of the house-wife population. No other endorsements matter--not Clooney, Matt Damon, Stephen Colbert, and Jennifer Aniston for Obama, and not Magic Johnson for Hillary. THAT is a fact.
And secondly, I don't understand all this "First Lady" experience. Laura Bush has the same exact experience as a First Lady as Clinton, do you think SHE should be president? No, because that experience doesn't mean anything. experience means nothing. What matters is the decisions you make when you get into office. Obama will make the right the decisions, I can give you a guarantee on that.
If Clinton wins, I'm writing in Michael Bloomberg. This isn't medieval europe, I don't want two families running the White House for thirty years.

Hillary Clinton is the best! Obama lacks experience and it shows. One moment he wants to have lunch with dictators and the next he wants to bomb our ally Pakistan. If he wins the democratic nomination, I will definitely vote Republican!!! As for Oprah,she should stay out of politics and should continue to just sit on her ass and talk.

If Hillary is the nominee, she will single-handedly lose this election for the Dems. It is unfathomable to think that someone as divisive and reviled as she is would emerge as the nominee. Can Dems afford to lose again? Can the country? As for the experience argument, I guess Hillary is so experienced that she didn't have to read the intelligence report leading up to the war. Her 'experience' isn't worth a whit and neither is her judgement. Does the country want more of the same old thinking of the past 16 years? New, fresh ways to deal with our myriad problems is what's needed. Obama's judgement (and he DOES have experience) trumps Hillary's old school experience, not to mention her finger-in-the-wind approach to her positions. Oh, one more thing. Quincy Jones bases his support of Hillary on smoking cigars and drinking in the White House with the Clintons (see the LA Times article). I guess it's cool to be invited to the big house, and he wants to go back. Quincy Jones is a musical genius, not a bellwether for his political acumen.

Magic Johnson and his wife both gave $4,600 each to Senator Obama in the first quarter. I guess the Clintons put the squeeze on him to endorse Hillary. That's what they've been doing to everyone leaning towards Obama. Get a spine people and stand up against the machine. She is not going to get the nomination. And even if she would, can't win the general. Every rightwing nut in the country would come out to vote against her. She is just too devisive. This country needs someone to unite, not divide.

Disappointed in MJ, but as previously mentioned, Oprah has no equal when it comes to influence, especially with mid-class, career-oriented femmes. Bill/HC must have helped MJ with some of his biz connections, thus this quid pro quo.

We need talent, leadership and sound judgement--not "experience" alone. If you have experience and the aforementioned qualities then cool...And for the nitpicker who mentioned the PM of Canada slip...Well, if this is the best ammo you have for justifying his lack of readiness, you're shooting blanks. Though in some countries PMs powers are not as broad as a president; diplomatically, there's really not much difference...It was the intent of his statement that most matters, not that he called the PM a president--very picayune!

For those bloggers citing the poll lead by HC...Misleading. Many of Obama's supporters don't use land lines; cellular only. These people don't called, so we'll see on judgement day who has the majority support, and I PRAY Obama wins. It would be a great day for America, and would send a clear message around the world that we have a new, bold, diverese leader, who's wants to reverse our current self-implosionary course.

Big names are nice, but it doesn't mean anything if they're not running for President. Big names help get the image out, but please vote for the person, not the BIG names, just because some one read a book, doesn't mean they can run for President. I'm all for new blood, but right now, we need experience and knowledge in the White House, not another inexperienced person in the White House. Votes should be based on that, not what book you've read, or BIG names you know, those things just help push things along.

Hillary's supporters show a great deal of intellectual dishonesty when they advertise her as the most "experienced" leader. If your main criteria fo voting for selecting the party's nominee is experience, then hell, vote for Dodd, Biden or Richardson.

The true question in this election is if we want more of the same, a return to the divisive politics of the past, or do we want new and bold visionary leadership. History has already shown us that so called "experienced" leadership is often times is spoiled and expired. Just look a George Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and Condi Rice.

Obama is the only candidate that has taken on the establishment and is promoting a genuine new kind of politics. Not to mention, that he is the most electable candidate and the only one capable of attracting republican supporters over to his side. Hillary too will mobilize Republicans...to vote against her.

what experence does Hillary have? Being first lady and what does that have to do with being persident? Hillary is as scripted as Bush was when he ran and we know who was pulling his strings. Who is pulling her strings? Hillary will keep this country divided liked the republicans...even a dem. like me would never vote for her under any circumstance. She is the biggest liar running ..even bigger than rudy.

Why is it that it takes trashing the other candidate to make yours look better? If you listen carefully to the Democratic candidates, they are all saying pretty much the same thing (except perhaps Kucinich, and praise him for having the gall to be so honest and unelectable).

I'm not sure whether an Oprah or Magic endorsement will win any of the Democrats the election. They would have to continue to be out there hammering home the issue that the war is costing lives (both ours and innocent Iraqis), the economy is in a tail spin, we have a massive health care and immigration problem, and a right-tilting Supreme Court. Add to that, tell us how they will deal with the future of terrorist threats (without scaring the hell out of every one and trampling on our rights).

I think there's enough good stuff out there without trashing Clinton, Obama, or Edwards. They're all probably a better pick than the current president, and whoever comes out from the other side.

Besides the posts are starting to sound so--if I may say--Republican.

With regard to the post that polls aren't done on cell phones...not only that, but most of the people I know, including myself, aren't Democrats - either Decline to State or some other party but lean Democrat - and are Obama supporters, and they, for sure, aren't counted. Perception is what makes polls count, unfortunately, but they absolutely don't reflect actual voting patterns.

So what, hillary has the endorsement of two UNCLE TOMS' (Magic Johnson and Quincy Jones). Who can they influence, no one, not even a bunch of dogs. They are two HOUSE NEGROES. The young black generation don't even know them, they are too old, just like hillary, can you visiulized an old woman as president? If she is elected, in four years she will be 63 years old suffering from memory lapses. And just think another four years she will be 67. It better looking at an old man than looking at an old woman. I am with all the other democrats, I will not vote or vote republican if hillary wins the general election. I don't like the lady. We are hated around the globe. Most countries do not respect a woman as leader. Having a woman president makes us look WIMPY.

Cassandra: Are you serious? You aren't going to vote for her because she won't age well and will make the US look wimpy? I don't know what you have been watching, but she is the only one with balls out there. She has faced an intense onslaught from the right-wing since day one because she dared to care about more than white house china, and she has taken it all with grace. I understand it is harder for a woman to be taken serious, but this is not a reason not to support her. The real reason Hillary might have problems boils down to one word: sexism!

Hillary is the Goliath of this campaign and the machine she has built is formidable. She is surprised that she isn't coasting to the nomination. She should have run four years ago if she is so bold. She is not the right candidate for the nomination. If experience is her strength then she trails more experienced candidates like Biden and Dodd. She can't count on her machine overpowering the Republicans. If nominated, she WILL lose. The Republicans have known for years how to win against Hillary and are afraid of Obama. They know he will and has drawn a number of their more moderate, reasonable supporters who would NEVER vote for Hillary precisely because they are moderate and reasonable. They will only be able to attack his supposed 'inexperience' which the voters won't buy. Conversely, republican voters will enroll for the first time in order to vote against Hillary and democrat voters will vote republican for the first time. She is the most polarizing figure in politics. Her disapproval rating is twice that of any democrat. If you support Hillary, don't expect to see her as the first woman president. In spite of all her pandering to the center, voters still don't believe she is moderate. They don't trust her in office.

Good job MJ - for not being like the typical black person who would vote for Obama just because he is black, Black people, can we get it together? Quit voting for people based off of race, sex, and what party the represent. I suppose if Al Sharpton had a dog in this fight you would support him too. Obama clearly lacks any kind of experience to be able to be the president. Hillary is clearly miles ahead of him when it comes to this. Sorry, but I am in the military anc cannot just throw someone in office cause he is a "brother". I will be a "sell out" and will follow MJ on this one. None of the candidates on both sides stand out to me, but Hilllary seems to be the best candidate at this time. And Oprah, since when does she speak for the black race? Get a mind of your own and quit voting for people because they look like you!

How about this? Obama for President and Hillary for Secretary of State!!!

Those who think Hillary is the most experienced are simply buying into spin. As has been said, Biden probably has the most experience in government, and he would make a very good vice president in my opinion. Those of you voting on experience, please vote for Biden in the primaries if you won't vote for Obama. Hillary is already trying to distort the campaign by making issues and controversies where there are none. In fact, Hillary previously stated that we should talk to our enemies. But now that Barack said the same thing, she's putting words in his mouth (the idea that he had made a commitment) and critizing him for them ("irresponsible and frankly naive"). Barack got involved more than I would have liked ("Bush-Cheney lite"), but he does have to draw dinstinctions between himself and Hillary.

And I challenge anyone who thinks the President of Canada mistake is such a huge, telling error: do you really think you wouldn't make such an error? He was trying to give a coherent, intelligent answer (thought up on the spot) in less than two minutes--of course he's going to make a mistake here or there. Yes, he knows Canada is parliamentary. So do I, and so do many/most Americans. But I think most Americans could easily make the same slip.

Barack has the power to unite America. He's got the ideas to build up our nation as it needs to be built up. He's planning to vastly improve our nation's educational system, something I haven't heard anything about from Hillary, even though it's possibly the most important issue for America's long-term success. He's got a strong plan to fight terror. He's got a very good health care plan. He wants to get us mostly out of Iraq, but not cut and run. He's capable of reaching across the aisle and stepping above partisan politics to find solutions to the underlying problems (His ideas enacted in government include "Healthcare for Hybrids," ethics reform, capital punishment/interrogation reform in Illinois, and many more great ideas).

So if you've got reasons like these to vote for your candidate, good. But if you don't, maybe you should be researching for yourself and not just letting the media feed you talking points.

Listen folks its just this simple, I consider myself a middle of the road Independent and plan to vote for the person who I believe is the best candidate to address the serious issues we face as a nation. But make no mistake, if Hillary manages to steal the nomination, I am either staying home on election day or voting Republican.

There is no way that I am casting a vote to establish a see-saw Bush/Clinton presidency cycle. What'll be next, Jeb Bush coming out of the wood work n four years?

This nation needs a fresh start and we will not get it recycling the same politicians.

Enough said!

 
1 2 | ยป

Connect

Recommended on Facebook


Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

About the Columnist
A veteran foreign and national correspondent, Andrew Malcolm has served on the L.A. Times Editorial Board and was a Pulitzer finalist in 2004. He is the author of 10 nonfiction books and father of four. Read more.
President Obama
Republican Politics
Democratic Politics


Categories


Archives
 



Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: