A textbook case

Steve, Durham, NC — Tue, 27 May 2008 20:46:33 GMT

I read the New Yorker bit on the 'Fall of Conservatism' before reading your blog post here. At your prompting I read 'The Long View' as well. The 'Fall of Conservatism' was a new perspective to me. It is interesting, nothing more.

'The Long View' simply points out that the 'Fall of Conservatism' is simply Josh Marshall's hope.

Unfortunately elections are not long term trends until you can look at many in a row and observe those trends. The impact of trends to the 2008 presidential election isn't important. The election is a single point in time. If you play roulette and Red comes up 10 times in a row, you bet black, and then complain when it comes up red again. Same thing here...when you bet on roulette it is one spin of the wheel what happened before doesn't necessarily matter. (This is far from a perfect analogy, but the principle applies. What affects 2008 is now much more than what was).

Here is what I think about 2008. Barring something sensational, (death, major scandal, significant 3rd party candidacy e.g. Perot) John McCain wins in 2008. Maybe, just Maybe an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket has a chance. But if the bridges haven't been bombed out of existence yet, they are in full flame right now.

I think when you get into the campaign after the conventions here is what you'll see. Obama's central theme of change, unity , and working with the other side to solve problems.... for McCain it will be "been there-done that-will keep doing it". On those criteria, Obama's main campaign points...McCain is the better choice to execute just that.

The old divisions promoted by Buchanan and Rove to win enough electoral votes to win....gone and done w/McCain's candidacy.

A textbook case

Ted, Naples FL — Tue, 27 May 2008 20:52:59 GMT

Chris, In 1996, when I was taking US History II in my Junior Year of High school. I had no clue about any Cuban Missile Crisis, and all I knew of Nixon was that he was a Crook. I knew JFK RFK and MLK were all assinated, but had only vague ideas as to why and what was going on.

My point is this; I think it will be far to late by the time this election gets into a course of study that will have an impact on americans.

All too often people quote the fathers of this country in piecemeal, people use a quote out of context to further their political agenda. And the only History I ever studied was pre-revolutionary and up to the civil war. I would have gained more if i was taught about Ike and Nixon, JFK and Johnson, students do not get what they need in this regard. I feel that by the time anyone studies this it will be too far into the past that anyone could actually put any perspective on it by themselves, much like how we like to say "this is how the founders would have_____"

So to pose the question you pose in your posting (try saying that 5 times fast) are you asking it in terms of people 250 years from now? or do you think that student will be taught about this election in the next 20 years?

A textbook case

Vic Lynn, Manassas, VA — Tue, 27 May 2008 22:15:02 GMT

Future historians will talk about the role of the media in this election. It is abundantly clear that the media latched onto a candidate that they felt boosted their ratings, presented a picture that they wanted to see, and excited them, whether qualified to be president or not. It is sad that they chose to denigrate the other candidates in the race to do so. This is a pattern, however. The media did the same thing with George Bush against Al Gore and John Kerry. They chose to ignore Bush's foibles and lack of creds, and instead focus on what they could make fun of (Al Gore's internet claim and John Kerry's stiffness and windboarding). It is interesting that they chose a format that a columnist recently wrote about (The West Wing television show) to emulate in this election (candidate racial issues, young against old, change against experience). Historians will say that the media elected a president.

A textbook case

Diane Johnson, Roseville, Mich — Tue, 27 May 2008 22:21:07 GMT

I hope for the sake of the country we have dramatic changes. During Republican control we have lost many civil rights, got stuck in an unjust war by a group of war mongers who preach democracy and trample it at home. and who advocate torture under the guise of "terror control".

So far, every time the president has either allowed aggression against a mid eastern nation, and each time he has had a meeting with one of their leaders and state how they should run their country,demanding they become democratic the price of oil is raised to ever higher prices in retaliation.
Our reputation as a country has been ruined, businesses are failing, the middle class and poor are in desperate straits.

A textbook case

c scali, sandia park, nm — Tue, 27 May 2008 22:25:34 GMT

It is hard to say as the McCain will probably be president. There may be mention of a woman running for president and that a non-white was nominated for the Democratic party. History speaks of policies not politics. Whomever is president will have a short runway to change the culture of fear in Washington and actually make a difference. We have a long road to haul to undo the last 20 years of policies, since Reagan. And if anyone thinks that the next president is going to magically 'change' everything; they are a fool.

A textbook case

bob ,Atlantic Canada — Tue, 27 May 2008 22:26:57 GMT

this is something that does not seem to be addressed, what were the 19 people who were involved in 911 thinking. If we in North America try to have a dialogue with people with similar thoughts could we resolve these differences. It will have to come to this eventually. Great article.

A textbook case

Christoph, Berlin — Tue, 27 May 2008 22:30:22 GMT

They will look at the woman who delivered victory in one way or the other - she who has the experience and the ideas. And if Hillary gets to be president the rest will fade fast.

A textbook case

Ann, Atlanta, GA — Tue, 27 May 2008 22:31:59 GMT

That's a nice dream. I don't believe, however, that it will come to past. I think the historians, much like the press and Obama rivals, will spend most of their time on race, religion and the other minutae of this race. Senator Obama will either be able to overcome these or he won't, which means Senator McCain will not have to overcome Bush's failed policies. I wish it wasn't so, but unfortunately, that's the American way.

A textbook case

GG,ca — Tue, 27 May 2008 22:34:22 GMT

While I believe the broad sweep of your brush framing the question is correct, I think the answer will disapoint. I think who the public picks will come down to a familiar Bush word w/a slightly different twist-security. Ideally people want change, but as a practical matter, too much change too fast is scary. So it will come down to which candidate makes most of the public feel secure that he has the answers that will improve their lot-incrementally. Enough to see & feel it [sp in their wallet] but not so much that it spins their world around. Does McCain offer enough of a change? Dn't know. Does Obama offer change w/enough of the same? don't know that either but that's the very fine line the victor will have to walk in order to win.

A textbook case

Sharon, Boston, Mass — Tue, 27 May 2008 22:39:11 GMT

Well, up until today I would have said change. But Obama's total lack of concern and knowledge for Jewish history made me think change is too scary. The known is better. I know that McCain and Clinton are friends of Israel - but ecspecially McCain. He would never say something like BO said about the Holocaust - a time of suffering for many Jews. Change is not all its cooked up to be. I voted for BO, but wish I could take my vote back. I will stick with the known and the chances for Israel will be more certain.

A textbook case

Will Garner, Memphis, TN — Tue, 27 May 2008 23:16:44 GMT

History will say, “Doing a mean time in American history, American politics produced some Mean people”. America it does not matter if it’s black or white as long as it’s Right.

A textbook case

J, San Diego, CA — Tue, 27 May 2008 23:16:47 GMT

I believe the history books will say that the Democrats had a real chance to win the presidency but became divided due to Hillary & Bill Clinton taking the primary race all the way through to the convention. The Democrats were unable to unify the party in time for the November election and as a result the Republicans were able to retain control of the White House.

A textbook case

John Drennan, Evanston, IL — Tue, 27 May 2008 23:16:51 GMT

Dear Chris,
I'm hoping that this election cycle will be remembered as the catalyst that brings a 3rd, and perhaps 4th party into the political mix.

Many have grown disenfranchised with the two-party system and are looking for other options. Such dissatisfaction is evident by how much the existing candidates focus on "change", or differentiation from the norm in their strategy. Their strategies reflect that many voters are fed up hearing the same garbage with little results.

This is especially evident in the major strides made by the Green Party and "Constitutionalists" like Ron Paul. They have awakened many to the lack of transparency and critical issues both parties have ignored for far too long.

Simply put, people are waking up. They're realizing that the voting record of most Dems and Repubs resemble a corporate agenda more than one of elected officials.

I certainly hope it's the beginning of a new age: A return to Constitutional principles, government transparency, and accountability. ALthough I'm not holding my breath ;)

A textbook case

Scott J. B., Los Angeles, CA — Tue, 27 May 2008 23:40:44 GMT

This was an excellent essay, drawing on historical parallels, on how we might look at this election and its candidates. We may be at a crossroad too, for Americans to see if hope and change can pull them through. There may be a huge discouragement looming if we fall back into some sort of reactionary lull that bogs us down in "more of the same." I cannot imagine that this country's electorate, who have learned the hard way what their votes hath wrought for 8 long years, would vote anywhere near anyone close to what we've just experienced. I really think we are all looking for something BIG -- along the lines of FDR's new deal, or Truman's healthcare plan, Kennedy's NASA and Peace Corps Programs, something large that the government alone can get rolling...to attack the economic doldrums we're all in... Perhaps a whole new sort of MARSHALL Plan for the Middle East... We're due for big ideas.

A textbook case

Carol L., Crockett, CA — Tue, 27 May 2008 23:46:48 GMT

Great post - really great. Here's where I'd place my bet - if the economy continues on its present downward slope, and gas prices continue up (especially from Labor Day to Election Day), we'll change parties in the White House -- unless the current fratricidal war in the Dems leaves Obama too bloodied to win.

For the first time, after watching today's show with that very angry Joan Walsh, I fear the latter is increasingly likely. I don't understand the anger - and I'm a 50-year-old white professional woman, definitely consider myself a feminist. I haven't seen media bias - sometimes Hilary's favored - like all through 2007, sometimes Barack - and no one has asked her to drop out, that I've seen. Anyway, what's so bad about dropping out when you lose? Better people than Hilary did it earlier this year (Biden, Edwards, Dodd). That unreasoning anger, that drive to win, fairly or not (and it's looking more like not, given the "new math" being used to argue for Clinton - despite her losses) - it's shocking, and I'm not sure how much of it really is dreary old racism (perhaps unacknowledged) and how much is a lifetime of rage against unfair treatment by men now being channeled against Barack Obama. Both are unlovely, and unhealthy. The superdelegates should have shut this down two weeks ago - I'm afraid it's now too late.

A textbook case

jane — Tue, 27 May 2008 23:54:22 GMT

I have been a Republican most of my life, but I want this war to end because we are sacrificing American lives to a war we should have been able to win, but chose not to. I no longer trust the Republican leadership. If you are doing the right thing you do not need to lie about it or keep secrets from the American people. This war has been lost, no matter what McCain says. We have not only lost the war but we have also lost our beloved respect around the world. We have spent our much needed money on this folly and indebted our unborn children as a result.
Sen. McCain talks about an honorable ending. This is only after first supporting staying in Iraq for 100 years. He is too much the "war hero" and comes from an outworn foreign policy. Viet Nam was a disaster from which we have yet to recover. Many of those vets spent their lives on bar stools throughout this country. The honor that McCain would like to obtain for America was surrendered at the moment this "fake" war was started.
So I am going to vote for Sen. Obama, and remain a democrat or independent until the Republican party gets its senses back. I will not support sacrificing more American lives while our present dishonorable government tries to manufacture a "fake" victory.

A textbook case

Penna Omega, Mill Valley, California — Tue, 27 May 2008 23:59:04 GMT

As an Iraqi-American woman, Barack Obama has shown me that not only is he the most compassionate person for the job as President, but the most intelligent.

He has already shown us that he will help us take this country into a new trajectory, one who's intentions are based in positivity, not fear. His high standards will bring back to this Country what we have long lost, better education, self reliance, productivity and true leadership.

He has already brought this Country together in ways that NO ONE thought possible. We are already changing this country for the better.... we are NOW awake!

A textbook case

feeling better in ne — Wed, 28 May 2008 00:05:32 GMT

Chris,

We will either change or fail. We do not have the luxury of time. The world is moving around us, past us and possibly beyond us. It will not wait for us.
It never has and it never will. Our history is littered with remains of past great civilations; some of whom we now use as vacation destinations.

This is not a political question. We will forge our future with our good sense and ability to come together as a nation.

John McCain is the past and he can't be expected to be otherwise. He knows the 20th century. Hillary Clinton can sense the future but cannot take us there as she too is a product of her times. Barack Obama cannot cure all the ills of this nation; but he can set us on the pathway. He can open the door for those who really will take us forward.

We will do this as a nation or we will slowly lose our abilty to see forward and will just clutch the past and all of it's glories (real and supposed)until we find ourselves on the worlds sidelines.

A bankrupt nation, broken in spirit and finally broken in fact. Eventually a vacation destination.

If we're lucky there will be someone interested in what we did or thought in 2008.

We evolve or we don't.

Help us remember what it was like to be the nation of change - when we offered the world hope and a future.

A textbook case

Dee, NY — Wed, 28 May 2008 00:21:14 GMT

There is a stark difference between this administration and a future Obama presidency;
and it is this. Obama is comfortable with himself. He doesn't use fear to attempt to win elections. I think Obama can meet with leaders who are our enemies and size them up: Are they beyond hope?, What are their true motives? What would make them move toward peace? What areas would they compromise? What policies of our own do we need to change? What are their interests? ETC. When you are authentic you wouldn't fear these meetings but use it for our countries good. You get a FIRSTHAND view of who and what you are dealing with. As a counselor, can you imagine if I just went by what was written about a person? You learn so much by each encounter with a person face to face. Obama is not naive as McCain tries to paint him. He has a solid vision and believes in creative interventions to dealing with complex problems. As far as McCain; he seems annoyed by having to go into details about issues. He in my view, doesn't have a solid command on how to improve our economy nor have I heard any unique foreign policy ideas. I am a independent but in this election I am voting all democrat because they seem more concerned with the working class issues. I hope they follow through on their promises because our country is in deep need of leadership that will stop the American Dream from being unreachable. We the people deserve so much better.

A textbook case

Carole Theaux, NY, NY — Wed, 28 May 2008 00:23:56 GMT

What should be discussed is not the differing opinions of McCain and Obama on Bush's catastropic war in Iraq, but the colossal stupidity of Americans, who want it to continue and would vote for McCain - despite what our country and countrymen have already suffered - and are suffering - as a result, and the irrefutable, irrevocable, and exponential harm it will cause to our economy, our children's futures, and the future of our country.

I think such unbelievable stupity warrants a discussion!

A textbook case

mary dudley, new hope, pa — Wed, 28 May 2008 00:24:07 GMT

I would like the students to read: How courageous the canditates were - to sacrifice themselves to undue criticism-to serve us! regardless of what affiliation you are - It finally stopped in 2008-they all agreed the preservation of our democracy comes first-the news media agreed to go back to true journalism-and report the facts - and " not spin the facts". The candidates all agreed- if we do not respect one another- our children will only know chaos and never know compromise - It was agreed that the majority of the people are simple - they want security for their families- exactly the same as all people

A textbook case

Brian Burnham, Los Angeles, CA — Wed, 28 May 2008 00:25:54 GMT

More than any time in recent history, I believe we need a fundamental shift away from the policies of the last 8 years. We are entering an important time in our democracy where serious problems need to be addressed and a fundamental change in direction is needed for us to survive both economically, socially as well as our standing on the world stage. For the first time in American history we are about to nominate, however not wholeheartedly, an African American man to head a major political party as it's nominee. Besides being African American he also is endowed with a different sounding name, a young age and a virtual lack of national experience and minimal exposure to the American public in recent years. In an apparent rush to nominate someone who was perhaps un-vetted just because we wanted a 180 of the Bush years and everything they stood for, could prove detrimental in the fall. Are the times bad enough for Americans to take a chance on something that different? This could very well be the true test to the American psyche. As the future political and history students look back at the 2008 election. Will they read that America took a giant leap and fundamentally changed the direction of American political and social policy while overcoming all past judgements and prejudices? Or will they learn that the American public of 2008 was mired down by past prejudice, suspicion of dramatic change and an overall fear of the unknown. Only time will tell.

A textbook case

Kinger, Somerville, MA — Wed, 28 May 2008 00:44:28 GMT

I agree, Chris. I thought this would become an issue in 2002 or 2004 or even 2006 instead of 2008, but better late than never. We easily swallowed the "they hate our freedoms" line without realizing that all people like freedom, even if it doesn't look exactly like ours. We never peered behind superficial cliches to see why there was resentment, whether there were grievances that had popular support beyond the extremists - and what we could do about it. Our public outreach was limited to trying to spin our same foreign policies without actually modifying them. Better packaging and marketing, without improving the underlying product. Our media would do well to better inform us of what the world thinks, like Gallup's study of attitudes in the Islamic world, or Pew's polls on our reputation in various countries.

These were some counterintuitive discoveries according to Gallup's "Who Speaks for Islam?" study:

Who speaks for the West?
Muslims around the world do not see the West as monolithic. They criticize or celebrate countries based on their politics, not based on their culture or religion.

Dream jobs
When asked to describe their dreams for the future, Muslims don't mention fighting in a jihad, but rather getting a better job.

Radical rejection
Muslims and Americans are equally likely to reject attacks on civilians as morally unjustified.

Religious mainstream
Those who condone acts of terrorism are a minority and are no more likely to be religious than the rest of the population.

Admiration of the West
What Muslims around the world say they most admire about the West is its technology and its democracy -- the same two top responses given by Americans when asked the same question.

Critique of the West
What Muslims around the world say they least admire about the West is its perceived moral decay and breakdown of traditional values -- the same responses given by Americans when posed the same question.

Gender justice
Muslim women want equal rights and religion in their societies.

Respect
Muslims around the world say that the one thing the West can do to improve relations with their societies is to moderate their views toward Muslims and respect Islam.

Clerics and constitutions
The majority of those surveyed want religious leaders to have no direct role in crafting a constitution, yet favor religious law as a source of legislation.

A textbook case

Paul Turpin, Palmdale, CA — Wed, 28 May 2008 00:45:25 GMT

This topic really hits the heart of what this election will be about.
Undoubtedly, if the Democrats were running a well qualified and sound white male candidate, then the issue of "change" vs "stay the course" would be the central theme of the general.
However, other significant winds of social change also swept through the democratic primary - some due to timing, others due to chance. So what we are now looking at is not only an election of change regarding foreign policy and domestic policy, but also some potentially profound social change issues as well.
Is America ready to vote a black man into the highest office in the land? Or, is America ready to elect a white female?
These are going to be almost impossible to sort out, given the backdrop of Iraq, the Economy, Oil Prices, etc.
If a Democrat is elected, many of these questions will be answered, but perhaps not as clearly as we would like.
However, if John McCain wins, then the picture is very muddy.
Would it be because we choose to stay the course, or because as a nation we are not ready for a woman or a black man to be president? We may never know the answer to that question, if this is indeed the result.
But I am sure many will try and claim they know the answer. If nothing else, many hours of debate on shows all over the news channels will be devoted to debating those answers!

A textbook case

R.W. Pierce, Kapaa, Hawaii — Wed, 28 May 2008 00:47:02 GMT

I believe what future students will view and discern from the 2008 election will be based more on the results of the answers to the problems voted on, rather than which winning party or historical markers are achieved.

If Obama or Clinton are elected they obviously create history, but it will only be a redeeming achievement if peace, economic stability, healthcare reform, the reversal of social injustice and/or any significant and positive change is forthcoming and long-lasting.

Likewise, if McCain is elected and somehow the extension of the war to achieve peace, combined with continued dependence on the benevolence of the rich and the free market trickling down to the needy, can achieve those same goals to any significant extent.

In my humble opinion, the Democrats in general at least seem aware of the fact that each generation has all types of peoples that must be represented and given the basics of life and health. An uphill battle at best.

Also in my humble opinion, the Republicans seem to have a “winner/loser mentality” toward society and that the losers have been warned, informed and therefore deserve what they get. That if everyone would only be the same all their ills would be solved. This has never happened in history and cannot be expected to. This approach seems to create a sense of denial of the fact that generation after every generation will always have those “losers” and they will always suffer. To not account for them and their concerns seems only self-serving at best.

How students of the World view the outcome can determine future hatred or livable compromise. This seems a possible crucial juxtaposition in our history. If so, are we up to the challenge?

So, the answer to the question of how future students will view the 2008 election is based on another question they will have to ask themselves. Are they, America and the World better off after the election’s outcome. Time will tell.

I guess answering a question with a question is sometimes all that one can do.

A textbook case

G. Anderson, Fayetteville, NC — Wed, 28 May 2008 01:12:38 GMT

Chris,
Good article, but read it yourself. Do you think that HClinton's reference to Bobby Kennedy will be in the textbook? I think it's more likely that the fact that many called for her to get out of the race in March and April. I love your show but tonight's was especially ridiculous. Go back and look at some of your shows where you looked at that very question. Tonight you act like that was the craziest thing you ever heard. You don't have to turn into Fox to compete with them, do you?

A textbook case

Northern Virginia — Wed, 28 May 2008 01:23:34 GMT

The students will learn about "change" for both women and blacks. The broader picture will be that American changed a lot, but some things remained the same. Students will learn that in 2008 many people "openly" stated they would not vote for Hillary Clinton because she is a woman as well as others "openly" stated they would not vote for Senator Obama because he is black.

I believe textbooks used in history classes will compare the 2008 Election to the 1950s & 1960s - the time where women were not politicans and
black people were "not allowed to vote" in some areas of America. The term "change" will be used as it relates to "Civil Rights Leaders" loosing their lives to "change" America. The "I Have A Dream" speech will be linked to Election 2008 as it pertains to "the length" of time it took for a black man to have a serious chance of becoming President of the United States.

If the books/teachers are not biased the books will will also compare Senator's Clinton's 2008 campaign to Shirley Chisholm's '72 campaign. Students will learn that the first woman to run for president was black, but had no chance of winning the election.

A textbook case

Michael B — Wed, 28 May 2008 01:59:00 GMT

Beltway prose. Indoctrination 101. Are you on Obama's payroll? W-2 or 1099? Good grief.

Firstly, it isn't about "Bush," it's about the some highly critical near-term policies that will shape the future. Secondly, it less about change than it is about whether or not a short-term or a long-term vision of the future will serve to help guide the change that is inevitable. John McCain represents that long-term vision and concomitant long term stability, not Obama, who is trading in some very standard vote grabbing ploys and politically attuned charm.

A textbook case

Nicholas: Minnesota — Wed, 28 May 2008 02:13:31 GMT

Nice sentiments Mr. Matthews, I think you lay it all out very nicely.

I think it's a change year. With those who back 'stay-the-course' relatively demoralized, Barack Obama brings a new and enthusiastic brand of change voters. The best that John McCain is offering as a challenge right now is to regurgitate Sen. Clinton's arguments that lost.

[Is it to take a sharp turn from Bush's doctrine?]
--For some yes, but for others it is to take a sharp turn from Bush's style. Both of the Democratic and Republican contests brought forth a different type of candidate: more open, more direct, more honest, less politics so-to-speak. Whilst one can argue policy 'til they are blue in the face, I would contend that Bush's true failure as a President comes from his inability to lead and think outside a hypothetical political box. Simply put, it's a game to win, I feel, with Pres. Bush, and that is no way to run a country.

[Or is it to stick with the basic Bush policy but strengthen it with a new ideological toughness?]
--Once again, I opt for change, and I believe the majority of the American population will also, I believe. Ignoring N. Korea allowed them to develop the bomb, ignoring Iran is now giving them the relative freedom and seclusion to develop the bomb. I ask, is our message to other country's that we won't talk to defunct regimes unless they have a nuclear arsenal, because that does not seem to me to be smart policy. And what might be the hawk's consequence to Iran ...bomb, bomb bomb? With the Russians lining up behind Iran? The U.S. of A. couldn't bomb, bomb, bomb N. Korea (China! plus there really was no direct provocation in doing such), so I think enough Americans will recognize our nation's failures and will rise up to change it, certainly not to further it. I could be way off base with this question of bombing feasability, but I doubt I would ever get an answer from either the candidates or the press. But unless Barack Obama truly does intend to 'appease' (which I don't think), I cannot see a downside at least trying, putting forth a little effort, in comparison to furthering a strategy that recent history keeps proving ineffectual. I only hope that Obama is capable of making his arguments more pointed, clear and direct to the American voter. Perhaps less intellectualism is needed.

Whatever the answer to this broader question that reaches above the horserace, it should tell us a lot about America, what we think and what we believe.

**All-in-all, very insightful, and that is what makes Chris Matthews (despite what some may consider his mistakes or short-comings) one of the pundits that is worth listening to, and really, actually listen to.

A textbook case

Nicolette, Washington, DC — Wed, 28 May 2008 02:18:27 GMT

While the election hype is entertaining, there is too much at stake to simply get caught up in latest gaffe or poll, or even the race and gender of a candidate - regardless of how groundbreaking.

With suggestions to "more usefully grasp the realities" and "gauge our own policies" - perhaps Chris should be on the short list for VP!

Thanks for offering a great challenge to 'we the people!"

A textbook case

Brian Bowles — Wed, 28 May 2008 02:53:13 GMT

I believe that the view that will go down in the textbook as a result of this election will be primarily the novelty of the likely winner, Barack Obama. Sure there are many "problems" that are speaking to the voters, things that we want to fix with our vote, but generally these things are fixed simply by chucking the old party out and going with the other. Really nothing new there, historically speaking. The real change in this year's change candidate is the literal fact that he is progress embodied, societal change writ large. In the grand scheme of things, this is the outward sign that the struggles of King have truly paid off.

A textbook case

IndayHill, Stockton, CA — Wed, 28 May 2008 02:57:58 GMT

I say that history textbooks will show how mean the network & pundits to the first female presidential candidate, who has been a public servant for over 30 years. She was attacked viciously for her courage to break the door, so she can paved the way for future female presidential candidates.The pundits will look like they are the evil forces to stop the advancement of women in this great nation, which is suppose the leader of democracy! What a shame!!

A textbook case

Frank Walsh, Auburn, Ma — Wed, 28 May 2008 02:58:38 GMT

Chris you have asked the right question, how will this election be viewed in the future. I would suggest that the pundants focus on the important issues not on the silly missteps of the candidates. Health care, Social Security, Immigration, would be a few issues that need some sort of coverage. Please do your job, You and other political reporters failed to question the present president's policy and look what your inaction has left our country with, a war that never should have been started, a foreign policy that leaves us isolated from the rest of the world, an economy that is in shambles. We can protect Bear Sterns but nothing for people caught in the fraudulent practices espoused by bankers and mortgage brokers. It seems to me that you and other news people have failed in your responsibility so don't focus on details that divert attention from the issue that effect average Americans. I understand that this will mean that it would prevent you from speculation on the impact of "bitter" or "RFK died in June". real issues take time and are harder to explain but that is your real job.

A textbook case

Chris Allen, Chicago, Illinois — Wed, 28 May 2008 03:06:58 GMT

It's about degree of change-how much change is Middle America looking for? Hope vs. Security, Tomorrow vs. Tradition, Peace vs. Victory. Missouri, Ohio, New Mexico, Iowa, and PA will likely write the textbook.

A textbook case

Dina Buagas Gesulga — Wed, 28 May 2008 03:10:20 GMT

I don't have any Comment in your site it is very excellent ,Please add me in your site for the improvement of my works it is very helpful with meyour recommendation,Please and thank you .

A textbook case

Darnell — Wed, 28 May 2008 03:33:22 GMT

HI Chris, I think in the future the political text book standard of the year 2008 will be that Barack Obama was the first African American who became the President of the United States Of America. He was the people's choice for change, change that brought hope.
Because we have a two (three) party system we have unlimited hope, for when one party screwed up we can look to the other party to straigten up the mess, and it keep hope alive unlike Russia who just one party and if that cause ills in governing, you screwed. I guess that's why alcoholism is very high in Russia because they have no hope.
Y

A textbook case

Jesse Darrow, Oconomowoc, Wisconsin — Wed, 28 May 2008 04:13:46 GMT

Chris, you couldn't have hit the nail any better. It's very easy in this 24x7 information age to loose sight of the major issues that will undoubtedly affect the course of not only long-term U.S. policies, but of the entire world. Like it or not, we are living in a world economy, the likes of which has never been seen in the history of the world. We (U.S. citizens) can no longer afford to disillusion ourselves that a policy of isolationism will work to our advantage. We have made enemies in the world and must deal with them, one way or another. Our economy is fundamentally tied with foreign investors, namely China. We must look at this election and the nominees on their policies, experience and character, not so much on the day-to-day mishaps and misspeaks. Who is best to lead this country through the next four years?

A textbook case

Cory (SC) — Wed, 28 May 2008 04:24:21 GMT

Barack Obama has certainly come along at a time when the nation is truly begging for a complete change from the last 8 years.

Obama knew how important this election was and tailored a message that spoke directly to the hearts of the people that really want change. This is where I believe Hillary Clinton made her mistake. Her plan was to run on experience, thinking that would contrast Bush so much that her nomination would be in the bag.

I think the Americans have proved that experience can only get you so far. Voters are more concerned with the message than they are the experience behind the message. Obama has certainly changed the face of American politics, and it could not have come at a better time than now.

As Obama said in one of his victory speeches...

"We are the ones that we have been waiting for."

http://www.politivine.com