Disclosure: I am on the board of trustees of the Clinton Foundation. Having said this I would like to comment on Obama´s recent rise in the polls. Personally I think USA and the world is more likely to be a better place with the Clintons back in power. If that means more of what we had in the 90s, if that means “nothing new” so be it.   As far as I am concerned the 90s were a period of mostly peace and prosperity. This decade instead has been a time of mostly war and economic bankruptcy. But as things go maybe we won´t have the Clintons back in power. We may get Obama instead. And that would be fine. I like most of what Obama stands for. But my fear is that Obama turns out to be a Carter. A well meaning yet ineffective President. Moreover I think that the Republicans are more likely to beat Obama than the Clintons. Presidential politics is less about Presidential power per se, which is only great in foreign affairs, and more about the ability of the President to convince Congress, Governors, Mayors and others to implement policies that can steer USA in the right direction. Hillary Clinton and the Clintons in general know how to do work with local politicians better than anyone to get things done. Obama mail fail at that.  But in any case the good news is that whoever wins, even McCain, will be better than George W Bush. In the meantime the whole Republican News machinery Fox included is behind Obama so we are likely to see more of him in weeks to come.

Follow Martin Varsavsky on Twitter: twitter.com/martinvars

No Comments

Francisco on January 7, 2008  · 

If Hillary takes on power I suspect in 8 years time Bush daugthers will want to be president and vicepresident.

What about the American dream?

3.0 rating

olivier on January 8, 2008  · 

Of Course the republican machinery is behind Obama, they see him as the “beatable” Democratic candidate mainly because of his color.
I can understand then your support for Clinton. It seems also for me a pragmatic choice, Clinton has definitely a higher chance to become the next president than Obama . Nevertheless are you not afraid of the development of some kind of dynastic democracy in the US. Bush dynasty, Clinton dynasty. Don’t you think that this is a real danger for democracy

3.0 rating

Gustavo L on January 8, 2008  · 


You are spot on. Just today I debated with some of my good friends about the upcoming election. The last thing we need in the US is another Republican administration that lacks the global diplomatic finesse. I was half joking with my friends that the current administration has taken this country back 25 years.
Obama has the appeal with the younger crowd, but, I just don’t believe he can be effective. This is not to say he’s not sincere. On the other hand I believe you really get two for the price by getting Hillary in. If this happens (God willing) then Hillary needs to ship off Bill to tour the world as a “peace officer” and rebuild confidence and relationships that have been destroyed by the current administration.

3.0 rating

Perell on January 8, 2008  · 

Hi Martin,

This article could have been further more sinthetic.
Just keep the first line of it till the first stop.

Blah, blah….

3.0 rating

John Paul on January 8, 2008  · 

I am in the “Anyone but Hillary” group exactly for the reason Olivier and Francisco mentions. Hillary’s candidacy would be a bad precedence for American democracy.

And thanks for the disclosure, Martin.

3.0 rating

Elena on January 8, 2008  · 

Good thing you all don’t vote in U.S. elections.

Hillary is the same as Bush. She voted for every piece of legislation supporting George W. Bush’s war in Iraq and even voted in support of his pre-war law to attack Iran.

It’s time the U.S. moved into the 21st Century without either the Bushes or the Clintons. Give Obama a chance. Nobody hates him yet; while Hillary has hated by a heck of a lot of people in the U.S., and the U.S. doesn’t need more hate in its politics.

3.0 rating

Antoin O Lachtnain on January 9, 2008  · 

I don’t think it is right to talk about hillary as ‘the clintons’. I’m sure Hillary would be her own woman at this job. If she is president, it will be her, not the two of them together. There are a lot of advantages to this too. Bill’s presidency was definitely seriously damaged and undermined, even if it was for really stupid reasons. Hillary should be able to rise above those problems.

But she needs to put the right sort of distance between herself and Bill, in my opinion.

Also, the reason why Obama is not electable is not because of his colour and the fact his name ends with a vowel. It is also a very big issue that the public doesn’t know much about him. No doubt there are going to be scandals and whisper campaigns as a result. Certainly his voting record is going to become some sort of issue.

3.0 rating

ismael on January 10, 2008  · 

I do not know how you can ignore that Hilary’s position on international politics is more right-wing than Bush’s. That has been her political position, and it does not beckon a better world. I share Elena’s point of view in this respect. In fact, during her husband’s presidential stint, we saw how Iraq was bombed every time anyone mentioned the name Monica – great show of value for others’ lives.

I share your fear of Obama turning out to be Carter like, however, in his speeches he has shown himself to be a more balanced person than any of the other contenders. If he is not given a chance, we will never know whether he can make the world a better place, and I honestly feel that he is the one who has this aim close at heart.

Hilary is really just a political opportunist, going wherever the political wind blows – in fact, I am convinced she was not a presidential candidate in the last election because the Republicans were too strong now. My feeling / hope is that now she has missed her boat, she has waited four years because it is more likely today than then that the Republicans loose the election, but fortunately her time might be up.

3.0 rating

Martin Varsavsky on January 10, 2008  · 


I see your point about Hillary. Maybe Hillary would try to be a Thatcher to prove how assertive women can be and that would be very negative in foreign policy. But, personally, I think that if Hillary had been given the same decision making power as Bush she would have invaded Aghanistan, but not Irak. Also, I believe the invasion of Afghanistan was justifiable. The problem is how it was handled afterwards and all the unnecessary death and destruction that came over Irak a country that had no WMD and no Al Qaeda before it was invaded.

XL on January 10, 2008  · 

If Hussein Obama is the candidate we will have “4 more years”
We must be realistic, what we preffer follow a dream under other republican administration or put a woman in the withe house and give a big step in the women rigths… Something that will help to change the people’s mind

3.0 rating

Leave a Comment

Español / English

Subscribe to e-mail bulletin:
Recent Tweets