Senator Obama VS Senator Clinton

[Hardball]

Clinton spending worries supporters
Can struggles be traced to lavish spending on accommodations, advisers?
By Michael Luo, Jo Becker and Patrick Healy
The New York Times
updated 11:26 p.m. ET, Thurs., Feb. 21, 2008
Nearly $100,000 went for party platters and groceries before the Iowa caucuses, even though the partying mood evaporated quickly. Rooms at the Bellagio luxury hotel in Las Vegas consumed more than $25,000; the Four Seasons, another $5,000. And top consultants collected about $5 million in January, a month of crucial expenses and tough fund-raising.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s latest campaign finance report, published Wednesday night, appeared even to her most stalwart supporters and donors to be a road map of her political and management failings. Several of them, echoing political analysts, expressed concerns that Mrs. Clinton’s spending priorities amounted to costly errors in judgment that have hamstrung her competitiveness against Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

The high-priced senior consultants to Mrs. Clinton, of New York, have emerged as particular targets of complaints, given that they conceived and executed a political strategy that has thus far proved unsuccessful.

The firm that includes Mark Penn, Mrs. Clinton’s chief strategist and pollster, and his team collected $3.8 million for fees and expenses in January; in total, including what the campaign still owes, the firm has billed more than $10 million for consulting, direct mail and other services, an amount other Democratic strategists who are not affiliated with either campaign called stunning.

High-priced help
Howard Wolfson, the communications director and a senior member of the advertising team, earned nearly $267,000 in January. His total, including the campaign’s debt to him, tops $730,000.

The advertising firm owned by Mandy Grunwald, the longtime media strategist for both Mrs. Clinton and Bill Clinton, the former president, has collected $2.3 million in fees and expenses for production costs, and is still owed another $240,000.

“Fees and payments are in line with industry standards,” Mr. Wolfson said. “Spending priorities have been consistent with overall strategic goals.”

But some Democrats are now asking if the money spent on a campaign that appears to be sputtering — $106 million so far — was worth it.

"It’s easy to be critical, but had she won Iowa, none of this would have mattered. It wouldn’t have mattered what she spent because money would have come pouring in,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a Democratic political consultant and a veteran of Mr. Clinton’s successful 1996 re-election bid. “But the fact that she did not has made everyone focus on where the dollars went — and where they think the money should’ve gone.”


Both candidates spending big
Mrs. Clinton came into January with a cash advantage over Mr. Obama, with about $19 million available for the primary, compared with about $13 million for him. She wound up spending at roughly the same rate as Mr. Obama, about a million dollars a day, but because she performed dismally compared to him in raising money, she ended the month essentially in the red and was forced to lend her campaign $5 million, while he had $19 million for the coming contests.

Over all, Mrs. Clinton has spent more than $35 million on media, polling and consulting. A comparison with Mr. Obama’s spending is difficult because of the ways the campaigns labeled expenses, but it appears he spent about $40 million in those areas.

In other notable expenditures during the lean month of January, Mrs. Clinton paid to $275,000 to Sunrise Communications, a South Carolina firm that was supposed to turn out black voters for her and collected nearly $800,000 in total from her campaign. She lost that state to Mr. Obama by a wide margin. Even small expenses piled up quickly in January: the campaign spent more than $11,000 on pizza and $1,200 on Dunkin’ Donuts runs.


Mr. Penn, the chief strategist, said in an interview that, since 2001, he no longer owned any part of the political consulting firm of Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates. He said the firm’s fees were capped at $20,000 a month and added that the “great bulk” of the overall payments went for direct mail.

He added, “I have no administrative control whatsoever of the campaign and do not participate in any purchasing or even budget decisions in any way.”

Joe Trippi, who was a senior adviser to John Edwards’s presidential campaign, said he believed that the Clinton team had made two fundamental errors in its spending strategy.


Different fundraising strategies
First, he argued, Mrs. Clinton built a top-down fund-raising operation that relied on a core group of donors to write checks early on for the maximum amount, $4,600 for the primary and the general election, which left few of them to go back to when money became tight. Mr. Obama, by contrast, focused on building a network of small donors whose continued ability to give has been essential to his success this winter.

And second, Mr. Trippi said, the Clinton campaign spent money as though the race were going to be over after a handful of states had voted and was not prepared for a contest that would stretch for months.

“The problem is she ran a campaign like they were staying at the Ritz-Carlton,” Mr. Trippi said. “Everything was the best. The most expensive draping at events. The biggest charter. It was like, ‘We’re going to show you how presidential we are by making our events look presidential.’ ”

For instance, during the week before the Jan. 19 caucuses in Nevada, the Clinton campaign spent more than $25,000 for rooms at the Bellagio in Las Vegas; nearly $5,000 was spent at the Four Seasons in Las Vegas that week. Some staff members also stayed at Planet Hollywood nearby.

Trend seen in previous campaigns
From the start of the campaign, some donors had concerns about the Clinton team’s ability to manage money.

Patti Solis Doyle, Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign manager until she was fired on Feb. 10, also ran her Senate re-election bid in 2006. That campaign spent about $30 million even though Mrs. Clinton faced only token Democratic and Republican opposition.

“The Senate race spending in 2006 was an omen for a lot of us inside the campaign, but Hillary assured us that her presidential bid would be the best run in history,” said one major Clinton fund-raiser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations within the campaign.


Yet the Clinton campaign at times found itself spending money on items that were not ultimately helpful. As part of their get-out-the-vote effort in Iowa, the campaign came up with a plan to have a local supermarket deliver sandwich platters to pre-caucus parties. It spent more than $95,384 on Jan. 1 at Hy-Vee Inc., a local grocery chain in West Des Moines, Iowa, in addition to buying loads of snow shovels to clear the walks for caucusgoers. Mrs. Clinton came in third in the Jan. 3 caucus. It did not snow.

Mr. Obama’s fund-raising surged after his Iowa victory. In January, he brought in more than $2.50 for every $1 she was given, and from Jan. 5 to Feb. 5, Mr. Obama spent nearly $16 million on political advertisements — more than $4 million more than Mrs. Clinton, according to a survey by the Campaign Media Analysis Group at TNS Media Intelligence. Mr. Obama broadcast 3,000 more advertisements than she did, and he was able to air those ads not only in the states that were immediately up for grabs but also in contests on Feb. 5 and beyond.

For instance, Mr. Obama spent nearly $480,000 on 1,331 spots in Missouri; he won the state’s primary, a closely fought contest and a national political bellwether, by one percentage point.

‘Losers are dumb and wasteful’
Mr. Obama’s campaign is not without highly paid consultants. His top media strategist is David Axelrod, whose firm received $175,000 in January and has collected $1.2 million over all. Mr. Obama’s polling is spread between four firms that have received $2.8 million collectively.

“Obviously, some campaigns are more careful and wise with their money than others,” Jim Jordan, a Democratic consultant who ran John Kerry’s presidential campaign until November 2003. “But these budgetary post-mortems tend to follow a familiar pattern; winners are by definition smart, and losers are dumb and wasteful. In truth, campaign budgeting is hard and complicated and three-dimensional and just impossible to understand without the full time-and-place context of the whole race.”

This article was reported by Michael Luo, Jo Becker and Patrick Healy and was written by Mr. Healy.


Copyright © 2008 The New York Times
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23286123/


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MSN Privacy . Legal
© 2008 MSNBC.com

[Ghost]

I was looking at the foreign policy stuff that each of them has been putting forward, and something I saw today concerns me a great deal. The part that worried me initially was Obama's statement that he wants a blanket withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but it tied into another statement he made (as reported by Reuter's):



Now I follow foreign affairs - especially the war on terror - with interest, but I thought I'd open the floor to outside opinions.

Does anyone here want to guess what it might mean to BOTH:

( a ) Withdraw all of our troops from Iraq
( b ) Attack inside Pakistan without government cooperation

In order to make a more clear point of this, what do you suppose it would do for the War on Terrorism to abandon all ground in Iraq AND attack the only strategically placed "ally" we have in the area?


Obama's horrible lack of experience (understanding?) of foreign policy shines through, and it makes me wonder ever more what the hell Ghost is talking about in terms of Obama being exactly the kind of guy we need...

The point about Obama being black and the internation implications of his election have been discussed in the media and on the news. Its not some new out there idea ive just come up with and im not going to waste a ton of time going over what is already known.

As for these questions, the second part is interesting. You assumed he is talking about attacking Pakistan, whereas the news has covered this in depth and there has been mention of this happening anyway under the current administration.
Do you really think hes talking about attacking Pakistan?
Or are you just twisting it to mean that because it suits your argument.

He is quite clearly talking about attacking the huge terrorist network that is there which, if you watch the news and endless documentaries on CNN about it, is out of Pakistani control( and therefore out of control).
I dont get where the it suddenly becomes attacking Pakistan. Its been done to death on tv already.

[Hardball]

The MSN viewpoint



Clinton jabs Obama over plagiarism
Candidates also diverge on Cuba, health care at Texas debate
MSNBC staff and news service reports
updated 9:50 p.m. ET, Thurs., Feb. 21, 2008
AUSTIN, Texas - Hillary Rodham Clinton accused Democratic presidential rival Barack Obama of political plagiarism Thursday night and said he represented "change you can Xerox."

Obama dismissed the charge out of hand, adding in a campaign debate, "What we shouldn't be doing is tearing each other down, we should be lifting the country up."

The exchange marked an unusually pointed moment in an otherwise civil encounter in the days before March 4 primaries in Texas and Ohio — contests that even some of Clinton's supporters say she must win to sustain her campaign for the White House.

Top advisers to Clinton had accused Obama of plagiarism Monday, pointed to a speech Obama delivered at a Democratic Party dinner in Wisconsin Saturday that lifted lines from an address by his friend, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick. At the time, Obama shrugged off the criticism and noted Clinton has used his slogans, too.

In a university auditorium in the heart of Texas, the two agreed that high-tech surveillance measures are preferable to construction of a fence to curtail illegal immigration.

They disagreed on the proper response to a change in government in Cuba in the wake of Fidel Castro's resignation. Clinton said she would not sit down with the next leader of Cuba until he implements political reforms, but Obama said he favored a meeting without preconditions.

"A presidential visit should not be offered and given without some evidence that it will demonstrate the kind of progress that is in our interest and the interest of the Cuban people," Clinton said.

Sparring on health care
They also sparred frequently about health care, a bedrock issue of the campaign.

Clinton said repeatedly that Obama's plan would leave 15 million Americans uncovered.

But he, in turn, accused the former first lady of mishandling the issue by working in secrecy when her husband was in the White House.

"I'm going to do things differently," he said. "We can have great plans, but if we don't change how the politics is working in Washington, then neither of our plans are going to happen."

Clinton largely sidestepped a question about so-called superdelegates, members of Congress, governors and party leaders who were not picked in primaries and caucuses. She said the issue would sort itself out, and "we'll have a united Democratic party" for the fall campaign.

But Obama, who has won more primaries and caucuses said the contests must "count for something ... that the will of the voters ... is what ultimately will determine who our next nominee is going to be."

Immigration and the Spanish language were also among the topics in the first of two debates before March 4 primaries in two battleground states, Texas and Ohio.

Univision anchor Jorge Ramos greeted the candidates in Spanish after their opening statements in the debate at the University of Texas, televised on CNN.

He then asked the first question: Would they willing to sit down with whoever succeeds Fidel Castro, Cuba's longtime leader? U.S. presidents since John F. Kennedy have rejected diplomatic relations with the Caribbean nation's communist government.

"I would not meet with him until there's evidence that change was happening," Clinton said.

Obama concurred. "The starting point for our policy in Cuba should be the liberty of the Cuban people," he said.

But Obama said, "I would meet without preconditions," while adding that there should be an agenda dominated by human rights.


He denied moderator Campbell Brown's characterization of his statements as a change in position, saying he supported normalization that was based on actual change in Cuba.

Clinton and Obama articulated well-worn campaign themes in the opening moments of the encounter, she stressing years of experience, and he underscoring a need for a change in the way business is done in Washington.


"I offer a lifetime of experience and proven results," she said, adding that "if we work together, if we take on the special interests," the lives of middle-class Americans would improve.

Obama, too, scorned the power of special interests. "The problem we have is that Washington has become a place where good ideas go to die.... They go to die in Washington because too many politicians are interested in scoring political differences rather than bridging differences to get things done."

On immigration, both candidates said they had worked on comprehensive reform. Obama said the issue had been approached as a political tool rather than a problem to be solved.

"It is absolutely critical that we tone down the rhetoric on the immigration debate," he said.

"We are a nation of laws and we are a nation of immigrants, and we can reconcile the two," Obama said.

On the issue of a fence being constructed on the border with Mexico, Clinton noted that both she and Obama had voted for a fence as part of the immigration debate.

But, she added, "There is a smart way to protect our borders and there is a dumb way to protect our border." She cited the University of Texas at Brownsville, which she said "would have part of its campus cut off."

She advocated a bigger say for people living along the border.

Both candidates said the burgeoning population of Spanish-speaking people in the United States did not pose a threat to American culture.

Clinton rejected any attempt to declare English an official language but said, "I would like to see English remain the common unifying language of our country."

Obama said every child should learn a second language.

The two rivals sat next to one another in swivel chairs in a University of Texas auditorium for the 90-minute debate, one in a dwindling number of opportunities for the former first lady to chart a new course in the presidential race.

Clinton has lost 11 straight primaries and caucuses to Obama — including an overseas competition for support among Americans living aboard — and fallen behind in the delegate chase.

Obama's strong showing has made him the man to beat in a historic struggle between a black man and a white woman, and even some of Clinton's own supporters conceded she needs victories in both Ohio and Texas early next month to preserve her candidacy. Rhode Island and Vermont also vote that day.

The Democrats have had at least 18 debates and forums of the campaign, a series that has ranged from highly civilized to hotly confrontational.

The last time the two met, in Los Angeles, they sat side by side and disagreed politely. But in an earlier encounter last month, in Myrtle Beach, S.C., each accused the other of repeatedly and deliberately distorting the truth for political gain in a highly personal, finger-wagging showdown.

The Associated Press delegate count shows Obama in front with 1,336 delegates to Clinton's 1,251. NBC's delegate count has Obama with 1168 and Clinton with 1018 and does not include superdelegates. It takes 2,025 delegates to win the Democratic nomination.

In a further sign of his growing strength, Obama won the endorsement during the day of the Change to Win labor federation, which claims 6 million members. The Teamsters union announced its support for Obama on Wednesday.

The candidates also were asked about how they would handle strains on the economy.

"There are steps I would take immediately," Clinton said. "One is on this foreclosure crisis. I have been saying for nearly a year we had to crack down on the abusive practices of the lenders. But we also need a moratorium on home foreclosures.

"We also need to invest in our infrastructure. We don't have enough roads to take care of the congestion, we have crumbling bridges and tunnels. We need to rebuild America, and that will also put people to work. And, finally, we need to end George Bush's war on science."

Obama said, "We have to restore a sense of fairness and balance to our economy."

"Number one, with our tax code: We've got to stop giving tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas and invest those tax breaks in companies that are investing here in the United States of America," he said.

"If you are making $75,000 a year or less, I want to give an offset to your payroll tax that will mean $1,000 extra in the pockets of ordinary Americans. Senior citizens making less than $50,000, you shouldn't have to pay income tax on your Social Security. We pay for these by closing tax loopholes and tax havens that are being manipulated."

The debate was sponsored by CNN, Univision and the Texas Democratic Party.


The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[Hardball]

I missed the debate but here is what CNN had to say about it.



AUSTIN, Texas (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton told voters she "offers a lifetime of experience and proven results" in her opening remarks in Thursday's debate in Texas.


Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are facing off in a high-stakes debate.

more photos » Clinton and rival Barack Obama are facing off for the last time before the crucial Texas primary.

Obama said "what's lacking right now is not good ideas."

"The problem we have is that Washington has become a place where good ideas go to die."

When asked how a President Clinton would be different from a President Obama on the economy, both candidates stressed that they have similar plans for the economy, because it's the "Democratic agenda," as Clinton described it.

On immigration, Clinton said she would introduce a path to legalization within her first 100 days in office.

Obama said it is critical to "tone down the rhetoric" when it comes to the immigration debate.

"We are a nation of laws and we are a nation of immigrants, and we can reconcile those two things," he said.

Both candidates said the country needs comprehensive immigration reform.

On Cuba, Obama said he thinks the United States' policy with the country has been a "failure."

When asked if she would meet with the person who takes over for Fidel Castro, who resigned this week, Clinton said she would not do so "until there was evidence that change was happening."

Obama said he would meet with the future leader of Cuba without preconditions, but added, "Sen. Clinton is right that there has to be preparation."

The last time Clinton and Obama debated was before the Super Tuesday contests. Both scored big in those races, splitting two dozen contests from coast to coast.

But in the two weeks since Super Tuesday, Obama has swept every race. He's heading into the debate on an 11-contest winning streak, and Clinton is doing everything she can to stop his momentum.

"There is a difference between rhetoric and reality," Clinton said while campaigning in Texas Thursday. "The reality of the people here ... is what I am focused on." Go behind the scenes at the debate »

Clinton is facing an uphill fight. She's faced loss after loss, and Obama raised more than three times as much money last month.

Even former President Clinton admitted while campaigning in Texas on Wednesday that his wife must win in Texas and Ohio when those states, along with Vermont and Rhode Island, hold primaries March 4.


Democratic Debate
Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama face each other in Austin, Texas
Tonight, 8 ET

see full schedule »
Texas, with 193 delegates, is the most valuable prize that day.

A stumble from either candidate could change the state of the campaign. Obama, however, has an easier night ahead, CNN senior political analyst Gloria Borger said. Watch what to expect at the debate »

"All he has to do is not make a mistake. She's got to get under his skin. She's got to get to him. She's got to differentiate herself from him without appearing to be nasty," she said.

Clinton has done well with Latino voters, who could play a big role in the primary. Obama, however, has been steadily chipping away at Clinton's base, and his campaign is hoping that trend will continue. Watch how pressure on Clinton is building »

"He's riding a winning streak and leads Clinton by more than 140 pledged delegates, but he faces some challenges in Texas, a state with a large Latino population. Clinton's done quite well with such voters so far this primary season," said CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll out Monday suggests the Democratic race in Texas is a statistical dead heat.

In the survey, taken before Obama's Tuesday victories in Wisconsin and Hawaii, 50 percent of likely Democratic primary voters support Clinton as their choice for the party's nominee, with 48 percent backing Obama. The poll's margin of error is 4.5 percentage points.

Don't Miss
I-Reporters: Analyze the Texas debate
Clinton looks to Texas, Ohio to stop Obama
Obama, Clinton wrangle over delegate math
Teamsters endorse Obama
Two other recent polls also show the race statistically even.

"One reason the race appears to be tight is that Texas Democrats are having a hard time choosing between two attractive options," CNN polling director Keating Holland said.

"Likely Democratic primary voters would be equally happy if either candidate won the nomination, and they don't see a lot of difference between them on several top issues."

The economy is among the top issues that could come up in Thursday's debate. According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll out Thursday morning, 62 percent of Texans think the economy is in a recession. Because Texas is a state that borders Mexico, the odds are good that the divisive issue of illegal immigration will come up as well.

The debate is taking place on the campus of the University of Texas. It is airing live on CNN, CNN International and CNN.com until 9:30 p.m. ET. The debate will also air in Spanish on Univision at 11:30 p.m. ET.

It will be replayed on Saturday and Sunday at 8 p.m. ET.

Texas Democrats held an online lottery for 100 seats to the debate, and more than 43,000 people entered the drawing.


"We've got rock stars for candidates, that's the truth," said Boyd Richie, who heads the Texas Democratic party. "People are excited about that. They want to see this debate."

The remainder of the 1,600 seats, most of which were controlled by the Democratic party, were distributed by invitation only. E-mail to a friend

CNN's Paul Steinhauser, Jessica Yellin and Ted Rowlands contributed to this report.

[Hardball]

whats the point? hillary dont got shit on obama.

It can help certain forum members with their debating skills.

[DickHardman]

Be sure to watch the Clinton vs Obama debate tonight.

whats the point? hillary dont got shit on obama.

[Hardball]

Be sure to watch the Clinton vs Obama debate tonight.

[FitnessRubber]

Jubs,

Equally unlikely, but an intelligent choice to support Barack's "unity" message would be good ol' Joe Lieberman. His party would never support it, though.

.

I suspect a lot of voters wouldn't get behind it either.

[FitnessRubber]

Clinton's chances seems to diminish a bit every day lately...

[jubaji]

So the next pertinent question is, who will be their running mates?

[Hardball]

As an Independent I love reading these political threads especially when Brewer skillfully gives his input. I can't help but wonder why no one discussed Hillary's chances especially since she may end up the Democratice Nominee. In other words, like a Master Politician, Brewer and Friends cleverly turned this thread into a discussion about the Pros of Mr. McCains' Campaign. I'm not mad (He He) but what about Senator Clinton? She does have a good chance.

[FitnessRubber]

As mentioned in previous posts, McCain is popular among a wide range of political backgrounds here in the States - something the rest of the world selectively ignores when they look at the man and the reason for his popularity. They see a white guy named John who is a Republican, ex-military and automatically assume that he's a trigger happy warlord.

Sad thing is that, on a lot of levels, while McCain does have some popularity, and while there may be judgments made about his intentions, I don't know. . . I don't assume that he's trigger happy, but I can see where people might. Of course, that's not any less of a judgment than saying that Obama has an advantage because of his race and name.

[Tom Yum]

America understanding what the world wants and needs is its biggest problem at the moment..

When you say America, I'm assuming you mean leadership in Washington DC. I believe its a great idea for leadership to do what it reasonably can to help other nations through different channels - financial aid during crises, human aid orgs etc, but what the world wants and needs is largely up to what each country in the world can do for itself.

A few emerging nations have pulled millions out of poverty due to slow and consistant changes in their political ideology and largely through their own efforts.

We could have saved alot of lives and money if we listened to the sensible countries of this world rather than UK and USA. The most destructive countries in the world bar none. Obama represents the opposite, change and the kind of modern forward thinking america that the world needs.
Him being black firmly indicates that things are changing and people will look to america with new hope. To say, **** what the world thinks is exactly why the world hates america and why america is so destructive.

Luckily forward thinking and educated americans are voting for him in serious number because they recognise this.

At one point Ret. General Colin Powell thought about running for President. He would have made a very suitable candidate and would have had my vote, not because he's black, but because he's an experienced and battle-tested leader.

To say that we need a President who is any particular color is turning this into a race issue and that's the last thing we need to add to the ugly side of politics.

There are plenty of forward thinking and educated Americans who will vote for McCain - he's a different man than our current President and certainly different than Obama.

As mentioned in previous posts, McCain is popular among a wide range of political backgrounds here in the States - something the rest of the world selectively ignores when they look at the man and the reason for his popularity. They see a white guy named John who is a Republican, ex-military and automatically assume that he's a trigger happy warlord.

He's more of a Ronald Regan - considering his age, vast political leadership experience and his relaxed but focused tone. He doesn't have to be over the top or forceful like a younger man proving himself; he's been to hell and back, probably gave Satan a kick in the pants when he got the chance to and every American knows this.

He doesn't have to make huge claims about being a unifier because he's always had support from a diverse political base in Washington DC as well as the American people.

Again, I think he'll get along fine with foreign leadership once he gets time to sit down and discuss the issues. He might not seem as sleek as Obama or Muslim sounding, but he's so much more experienced - probably has extensive contacts with foreign leaders and is certainly capable.

[jubaji]

omae wa do aho da na

America understanding what the world wants and needs is its biggest problem at the moment.

I wish.

We could have saved alot of lives and money if we listened to the sensible countries of this world rather than UK and USA.

Lemme guess, the "sensible" countries are the ones YOU happen to agree with on any given issue, right? What a joke.

The most destructive countries in the world bar none.

Gosh, imagine more empty editorializing coming from a noisy powerless little gnat like you...

Obama represents the opposite, change and the kind of modern forward thinking america that the world needs.

The way that you keep repeating the same empty, superficial bullshit over and over leads me to conclude that you are a remarkably weak-minded little gnat.

Him being black firmly indicates that things are changing and people will look to america with new hope.

You racist shit.

To say, **** what the world thinks is exactly why the world hates america and why america is so destructive.

Its exactly that part of the 'world' that would type something so stupid that can go **** itself, and you seem firmly a part of said group, so

Luckily forward thinking and educated americans are voting for him in serious number because they recognise this.

Even the people voting for him in the primaries aren't doing so (with the possible exception of some mentally defective deviant cases) because of what some nosy, noisy, impotent foreign chatter boxes think they are somehow qualified to lecture us on regarding what 'the world' wants us to do, so your "because they recognize this" bullshit is just bullshit.

[FitnessRubber]

America understanding what the world wants and needs is its biggest problem at the moment.
We could have saved alot of lives and money if we listened to the sensible countries of this world rather than UK and USA.
The most destructive countries in the world bar none.
Obama represents the opposite, change and the kind of modern forward thinking america that the world needs.
Him being black firmly indicates that things are changing and people will look to america with new hope.
To say, **** what the world thinks is exactly why the world hates america and why america is so destructive.

Luckily forward thinking and educated americans are voting for him in serious number because they recognise this.

It has been a big part of why the USA has lost a lot of reputation points throughout the world - the bullshit "we're right and if you don't think so, you're against us" attitude has destroyed everything that diplomacy works for... Change is important, re-establishing world relationships is important - getting to that point, well, I suspect it's going to take a lot of work.