Obama is sweating.

[IMAGE via coxandforkum.com]

Barack Obama has to win South Carolina in order to gain the needed momentum to pull him through "Super Tuesday" on February 5th.

The democratic debates in South Carolina were a heated argument between front-runners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Obama being on the defense most of the night. With only one win in Obama's pocket, it is easy to see why he is getting nervous.

Perhap's his immature attacks on Bill Clinton, and his defensive attitude towards the Clinton's in general, is infact a reaction to the idea that Hillary is now a threat. This isn't to forget that Hillary, herself, came out just as foolish during the debates. She certainly was the one to start the mud slinging. However, she has done this far more strategically than Obama has. She attacks Obama on his voting record in the senate, and on his lack of experience. Justafiable attacks, even gaining the suprise support of Edwards during the debates. Obama counter-attacks Hillary on her corporate ties and her husband. Well, the problem with that, her corporate ties were short lived (despite her lobbyist connections), and well made up for. While her husband, well every democrat loves him! Obama's biggest problem with Hillary is simple, that type of confidence and wit is the thing pulling her to a comfortable front of the race, and that just ain't right to him.

Click "read more" to continue...


Clinton has a much better chance in states such as New York and California, where she has been campaigning vigerously. This of course, leaving the January 26th South Carolina Primary for her Husband to do the work "on her behalf". She is practically giving the state to Obama, and maybe that type of kindness isn't what Obama needs. He needs to win against Hillary in order to gain momentum, not because she let him.

It may seem an unfair advantage for Bill and Hillary to be practically running as a duo, but everyone knows Hillary Clinton originally gained her fan base because of her husband. How many people planned to vote for her simply by assoctiation? Alot. Besides, there are no rules against it, and maybe Hillary needs it. America is ready to accept the first Black American President to the white house, but not the first female President. So if electing Hillary, a viable, and honorable candidate means getting Bill too, what undecided voter wouldn't realize this advantage and play along as well?

Well, the Obama voter thats who. Luckily for Obama most of the state of South Carolina is black, a major leg up for him, but a win could be just as much of a loss in the long run.

Bill Clinton recently accused Obama of playing the "race card" in his campaigning "on behalf of Hillary" in Nevada. Obama promtly dismissed his remarks as false, but his defensive attitude towards the Clinton's is making him look more guilty. With a win much needed in the Obama camp, and conveniently in a state mostly made up of black communities, how does this make him look? Well, it appears as though he is infact depending on black, and minority voters to lead him to the oval office. Even if that isn't exaclty true, the illusion is there.

Whether he is doing it or not, Bill and Hillary Clinton are brilliant politicians, and Obama is trapped in a corner.

A win in South Carolina could boast his numbers on February 5th, or it could hurt him, leaving the undecided to vote for Hillary. Why? Because they get two for the price of one, and because Obama got caught up in the dirty politics of some publically loveable, and viable people.


Written by: Jessica Erven (c) 2008





For more visit:

Washingtonpost.com (article)

Read more!

Democratic Debates: South Carolina

[IMAGE: cnn.com]

The Democratic debate in South Carolina quickly developed into a nasty battle of “suitability” between Clinton, and Obama. While Edwards, to a thankful crowd, rolled his eyes.

The debate took place in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina on January 21, 2008 at 5pm PT. CNN broadcasted the event, with timid moderators Wolf Blitzer, Joe Johns, and Suzanne Malveaux heading the debate.

The first question's, regarding the Economy and Health Care, became a personalized bickering between the two front-runners Clinton and Obama, both sliding off-track and boasting their own idea of what needed to be said. Edwards, at one point had to jump in saying, "Are there three people in this debate, not two?" gaining Edwards an enormous applause from the audience. He later continued his criticism of the bickering duo with the statement, "This kind of squabbling -- how many children is this going to get health care? How many people are going to get education because of this? How many kids are going to get to go to college because of this? I respect both of my fellow candidates, but we have got to understand this is not about us personally." Maintaining his moral stand, and professionalism, Edwards was seen, united from an Obama favored crowd, as the winner of the debate. But would this do anything to boast his numbers at the voting booth? Sadly, probably not.

Click on the "read more!" link to continue...

This debate focused less on political issues and more on defensive differences between the three candidates. Obama addressed the impact with Bill Clinton's prominent existence in Hillary Clinton's campaign. Addressing the issue in many different opportunities, the only positive remarks Obama made towards the former president regarded, “his [Bill Clinton's] important, and respected presence in the black community.” This was offered following the odd, yet charming question of “Do you think Bill Clinton was our first black president?” Referring to remarks made by the Nobel Prize-winning African-American author, Toni Morrison, who famously observed this about Bill Clinton in the 1990’s.

The issue of the past week’s feud between Former President Bill Clinton and Senator Obama, remained a minor focus in the debate. Most of the debate was spent in policy differences amongst the candidates in a bitter battle to snag the voter’s hearts.

When it came to the economy, both Clinton and Obama agreed on a quick fix tax rebate for the American people upwards of $650.00 to immediately stimulate the economy. Edwards, on the other hand, was for long-term goals, and did not believe in a quick tax rebate. Later gaining the support of Obama in his long-term plan.

Senator Edwards has been known in past pubic forums to side towards Obama, and has subsequently become the “anti-Hillary” vote for Democrats. For the first time seen publicly in the campaign, Edwards and Clinton ganged up on Obama, and his inability to be tough on issues. This following a prominent booing from the audience towards Hillary Clinton and an attack she made on Senator Obama about why over 100 times he voted present on a number of important issues in the senate, instead of yes or no. Clinton’s original approach to draw up the issue was regarded as distasteful from viewers, but with the interaction of Edward’s it became a moment of observation on the reality that Obama has been a little less than honest, and fair on his past voting record. He took it shamefully and the issue was moved on, Obama one down.

John Edwards stood true to his campaign forum, once again reminding voters that he is a man of honest footing, who is not a fan of lobbyist deceit. He attacked Hillary Clinton for her support of lobbyists, and her potential intent to include them in her cabinet, if elected into office. Her defense was little more than ‘let it go, you’re wrong.’ While she came out foolish in the end with an intersection from Obama, siding with Edwards on Hillary and her lobbyist ways.

The South Carolina debates proceeded far more heated than intended, fewer questions were asked than in previous debates, and no new answers were provided. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all stood true to there original campaign idea’s but the persistent combativeness between Clinton and Obama surely did nothing more than aggravate listeners, and possibly turn off undecided voters.

The strategies of each candidate were easily determined. Obama focused on the black voter’s of South Carolina, the pre-determined winner of the South Carolina Primary. While, Clinton fought in a more national debate, knowing her wins were in such states as New York, to be seen at a later date. Edward’s, being the good contender he is, focused his attention on his honest beliefs, convictions, and concerns, being truly a candidate of the people. It has now been made clear that Clinton is running as the anti-bush, while Obama is standing as the un-bush. So, where does this leave Edwards? Well, he is the American voice.

Written by: Jessica Erven (c) 2008

The Official CNN Debate Transcript

Read more!

The Democratic Debates- Las Vegas

Image: Getty Images

The Democratic Debates
Las Vegas, NV
Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Edwards won. Hillary regained her stand. Obama...Stuttered.

Democratic frontrunners Obama, Clinton, and Edwards took a more civil approach for their race to the oval office at the Democratic debates yesterday in Las Vegas, Nevada. The viewers were happily reminded that the democratic candidates "are all family in the Democratic party," as Hillary Clinton humbly stated, "We are so different from the Republican's on all of these issues." This statement was genuine and sincerely accepted by her fellow party competition, and greatly appreciated by a largely indecisive audience.

MSNBC aired the debate with light humored moderators Brian Williams, Tim Russert, and Natalie Morales, while viewers were given the opportunity to voice their concerns and questions to the hopeful candidates via the Internet.

click "read more!" to continue...

This debate revolved around hot topic issue including the economy, immigration, health care, the environment and Nevada's personal issue with Yucca Mountain and nuclear waste. All responses from each candidate seemed thought-out, important, and honest, although each contender at some point of the night resorted to old tactics despite the pleasant light-hearted tone of the debates.

Surprisingly Barack Obama, who has experienced media success since he was first announced to be running for President, including his win in Iowa doing nothing but boosting his fan base, seemed to be on the defense most of the night. His defeat to Hillary in New Hampshire must have jogged his natural smooth-talkin' self, because for the first time he seemed to be losing. What was his biggest mistake of the night? When asked what his biggest weakness was he responded, "my greatest weakness, I think, is when it comes to -- I'll give you a very good example. I ask my staff never to hand me paper until two seconds before I need it, because I will lose it. You know. The -- you know. And my desk in my office doesn't look good. I've got to have somebody around me who is keeping track of that stuff. And that's not trivial." Although I'm sure it was intended to be a joke it still seems a little uneasy to me that this candidate doesn't even believe that he himself can manage something as simple as organization. Clinton used his answer as a way to attack him in a later question. She very brutally compared his lack of managerial skills to that of the Bush administration, a cold slap to the face indeed, but a correct one at that. Of course, though, Obama being the media favorite did not get much negative press from his response and no matter how terrible it was it will be forgotten tomorrow the same way Edward's is forgotten even when he's on the top of his game.

Hillary was talking heavy, and was the only candidate to express her same old ideas in new and interesting ways. This debate made me want to tell Edwards to keep the message but get some new sob stories, and to tell Obama to explain what "bringing people together means" and to find a synonym for the word change (EDIT: after looking up the synonyms I can see why this is the only suitable word to use, but still he should find a new approach to his ideas). Rethinking Hillary's win in New Hampshire, I'm starting to think that perhaps it was deserved, despite the incident that "humanized" her.

Edward's seemed to be the winner of the debate, yet still, somehow, does not receive the media attention he has deserved for over a year. A viewer from San Diego asked Edwards a vital question concerning many voters, "the policy differences among the remaining candidates is so slight that we appear to be choosing on the basis of personality and life story. That being said, why should I, as a progressive woman, not resent being forced to choose between the first viable female candidate and the first viable African American candidate?" When it comes to Edwards campaign I think this is the most important question to be asked. Edwards did his best to respond, reminding us of his poverty stricken past, and relating that to his fight for the middle-class, health care, unions, and the struggle of the American people. One thing he said that differs him from his fellow candidates is how he believes "the system in Washington is broken." Claiming he is a candidate that can bring the change that the democratic party has promised, because of his passion, and personal connection to the average American needs. With this beautifully construed answer I still don't logically understand why he continues to be to be third in this race.

Clinton remained cordial and verbally considerate, making me like her the way I did before the race became a chicken fight. However, her earnest side that she discovered right before New Hampshire came alive when she revised her opportunity to drill a fellow candidate with a question, and instead asked Obama to buddy up with her to help stop our current president from invading Iran. She did so, mind you, beginning with a long rant leaving me to wonder if she understood what she was asked to do. Although a courageous effort to end her aggressive campaign against Obama, and to bring up a vital issue regarding our current administration, I still don't understand why Edward's wasn't asked to party up with them as well. Also, why that had to be done at that moment? I wanted to hear real questions, from each of them, but instead it became a publicity stunt. I found myself rolling my eyes just like I did when she was eating that meal, and answering that question with "something in her eye" in New Hampshire.

Despite each candidates represented mistakes, this is the first time that I felt in a while that I was actually getting my questions answered with real answers. No one was selling me hope, slamming their competition, or making me vote out of guilt. All three of these candidates are advocates for change, and I wish that they could all be in apart of the future 2009 administration, but, in the end, only one can sit in that chair, and only one can change the damages created in the past seven years.

written by: Jessica Erven (c) 2008

For more information visit:

OFFICIAL DEBATES TRANSCRIPT

Read more!