In a probably vain effort to maintain order around here, I will henceforth be running separate threads for discussion of the US presidential campaign. Here’s the first.
Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth
928 Comments
Hillary is in meltdown and will be lucky to win another primary or caucus this month. Obama by at least 10% tomorrow
As for the GOP, McCain by 3-5% over Romney, the only other candidate seriously contesting the NH primary
The odds on Centrebet for Obama winning the presidency have shortened over the last 24 hours from 2.25 to 1.95, shame I didn’t get in earlier!
The rise and rise of Obama the Iowa cacus is remarkable. I think Clinton’s last chance will be super Tuesday where the strength of her party machine will assist her. On a state by state basis Obama is proving too good a campainer.
Mind you, if she keeps bleeding support at her current rate the sponsor’s might pull the plug before then.
Don’t know that getting all red-eyed and teary will do anything to arrest the Clinton slide …
It also plays into the hands of those sexist b@stards who held up the “iron my shirt” signs …
Who wants the leader of the free world to “tear up” when faced with almighty challenge? they will say …
Obama by a mile …
Personally I’d like to see Edwards get up for the Democrats as he appears to have the best policies across the board. Whoever thought being a white male would be a disadvantage in American politics?
For the GOP I’d like to see Ron Paul get the nomination as the front-runners all seem rather toxic to me.
Having been an Obama fan from way back, I am just a little hesitant at a hint of
hawkishness coming through now.
Just hope he is just trying to show a bit of muscle to sway the power-hungry,but is in fact a dove underneath!
From the previous thread, Glen’s observation:
“Still he’s (Giuliani) not getting favourable press with his strategy and it should hurt him but really can the Republicans win the Election with a baptist minister, a morman or a senior citizen???? The only logical choice for them is Giuliani and if he’s not nominated the Republicans will have no shot whatsoever.”
Much as I am wary of saying never say never and all that…
…I happen to think the Repugs have no chance in ‘08 no matter who they put up. Take the anger from ‘04, treble it, then multiply by 50,000. That’s how badly the Dems want to win this time. Normally the Republicans are well on their way to endorsing a candidate by this stage – this time, they’re a mess. Their field is so thin that McCain, of all people, is being thrown around as the ‘establishment’ candidate! He’s already died and been resurrected politically once in this campaign. Face it, the Repugs have no-one that’s going to galvanise them into voting. The Dems have at least two (Obama and Edwards – together on a ticket they will be immensely tough to beat) and even Dems who don’t like Hillary will probably get out and vote if push came to shove.
Anyway, Giuliani is a nutcase, although I suppose that doesn’t exactly make him unique amongst the Repug field.
“Personally I’d like to see Edwards get up for the Democrats as he appears to have the best policies across the board.”
I agree. But I wouldn’t mind an Obama-Edwards ticket, even if it’s the ‘wrong’ way around…
Megan Hillary is struggling and she will be beaten significantly in NH, the Democratic primaries the way they work assist Obama and Clinton but i think in the end it will help Obama.
For the record McCain will win NH for the Republicans with Romney a distant second followed by Giuliani and then Huckleberry that’s my prediction.
Firstly Democratic Members of Congress have votes thus Hillary wins big in NY 39 votes to 1 but more even elsewhere. Nevertheless Obama will be greatly assisted by the fact that most Democrat primaries attribute delegates proportionally thus even if Clinton wins some big States Obama will pick up a significant portion aswell.
Dave, RP whose name should not be mentioned for fear of his crazy internet supporters coming on here is to put it plainly nuts. RP is in the wrong Party IMHO, and he’ll bow out after Feb 5. I hope Rudy Giuliani picks up the Republican nomination being a moderate Republican i think should help out in the big States he just has to sit tight and weather the early primaries and bad press for his strategy.
My biggest concern about Obama is that he’s never faced a genuinely contested race with the Republicans. The GOP candidates are so lacklustre that they will simply go negative from the start, Edwards and Clinton have dealt with that pressure before but Obama is untested.
Glen, I agree that RP is nuts, nominating him would be like the Liberals deciding to accept Prodos as a candidate. I’d still enjoy the sideshow though.
So long as the republicans pick either McCain or guiliani they will win, the republicans are the daddy party, so the presidency fits neatky with their strengths, plus noone is going to link any republican with the Bush whitehouse, and Bush’s approval rating will not affect the result
however the congressional approval rating will affect the democratis contenders, because they are members of the majority party, and are therefore part of the pelosi/murtha/reid group of what has become unpopular incompetants.
the presidential elction is the republicans to lose, and obama is all puff and no sunstance
Has anyone found a good US pollbludger equivalent?
11 Brisbaner:
The polls and betting markets contradict you.
What say you?
Being the Clintons one would not be surprised if they put someone up to the “iron my shirt” thing as a get out the sympathy measure.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/08/nh.main/index.html
Citizens went to the polls in Dixville Notch a moment after midnight Tuesday to cast the first ballots in a 2008 presidential primary.
A good liberal Democrat site is Daily Kos.
Francis- I like these two, the first being about Repub and the second Demo. But they have up to twenty threads running simultaneously staring on the same day!!
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith
I think Obama, then Edwards and Clinton in a close tie for second. Hopefully Richardson will drop out afterwards, he’s just waisting his time.
The Republican primary, like all things the republicans have done so far, should be hilarious. The longer it’s a 5 or 6 way fight, the more stuffed they will be by november. The repub candidates seem to really hate each other.
Predictions for NH Primary
Democrats
Obama
Clinton
Edwards
Richardson
Republicans
McCain
Romney
Giuliani
Huckabee
Paul
Hunter
Obama will win New Hampshire. The only interest is in the exacta for second. I’m hoping Edwards. If Obama becomes the eventual democratic elect, I hope he can overcome the redneck vote.
Let’s get fair dinkum, Obama would be good for the state the world is in right now, but if I had to have a bet, I’d be backing a republican at the odds for the presidency, unless Edwards is the Democratic candidate.
On the republican side, McCain is expected to win over Romney tomorrow but not as easily as Obama.
Everything the Republicans can throw at Clinton they already have. If Obama gets in we will just see swift-boating all over again. The key lesson of the 1999 primary, and the 2000 and 2004 elections was if you can define your opponent before they define themselves you do a lot of damage to them.
Clinton is a centre-left candidate, woman, married to Bill, likes healthcare. She is defined. The republicans have already tried to slander her and have failed. She will defeat the republican in an election. But with Obama as the candidate it becomes an open contest again! Sigh.
I understand the Democrat members want a left-wing candidate, but I don’t understand why they are shooting themselves in the collective foot.
I read once that progressives hate success of their own side. I used to disagree but times like this make me wonder …
12 – Frances
Try http://www.politics1.com
Not as good as our own Poll Bludger of course, but not too shabby at all…
Romney will probaby win republican in my view. He is tipped to come second in all the republican primaries/caucuses. And as no other candidate is comming consistantly first, comming second in South Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada and florida will start to add upp. Giuiliani’s lead in Florida is not enough to counter that. Romney has also won Wyoming convinsingly.While Giuliani would probably do well in California on super Tuesday. A significant amount of medium sized states will show him some love. like his home Massachussetts, mid west states. Especially the home of Mormons Utah. (Prediction Romney 99%
). Mcain will take votes away from the others in plaes like Arizona and Maine. However it will remain close mayybe even after super tuesday and will be a war of attrition. I predict the real winner will be the democrats 
dembo, I was of the view that Clinton is absolutely above everything else, in it for herself. She supported Dubya all the way over Iraq simply to make it difficult for Kerry in 04, obviously with her own super selfish interests in mind.
Now it’s fine for any politician to have ambitions, but she acted in the detriment of her party. Also Hillary is more centre right from what I could gather.
Actually Dembo, the polls show that Obama has a better chance against any Republican then Clinton.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
Dave says: “My biggest concern about Obama is that he?s never faced a genuinely contested race with the Republicans.”
Indeed, and in fact Obama has never actually done anything. After a privileged upbringing he went from being editor of the Harvard Law Review in 1990 to the Illinois state legislature for a safe all-black district in 1996 to being elected virtually unopposed to the Senate all of three years ago. He has absolutely no record for anything except windy rhetoric of the “let’s all unite and feel good” type which Americans seem to love so much. If he didn’t have the novelty value of being black he would never even have thought of running for president.
It now appears that he may well be able to beat Clinton and bluff his way to the nomination, but if he is nominated the Repubs will absolutely eat him alive, particularly if they have enough brains left to nominate McCain, a man of real substance and integrity and with a distinguished personal and political record. Not only will they quite legitimately be able to attack Obama for his non-existent record and experience, and for the shallowness of his policies, which are mostly just slogans, they will also run a covert racist campaign that will undermine his support everywhere except on the liberal coasts. Given Bush’s record, the Repubs ought to be heading for a massive defeat in November, but the Dems might just have found a way to lose again – by nominating a candidate with zero credentials to be president and massive vulnerability to the kind of dirt campaign the Repubs do so well. It’s hard to credit, really.
adam
“If he didn’t have the novelty value of being black he would never even have thought of running for president.”
Can you substantiate that remark
Adam 25, are you from Queensland?
I would like to have a better understanding of how this nomination process works for both camps. What reading I have done so far has just served to further confuse me (admittedly not that difficult).
So far it seems that the votes in some state’s primary / caucus / hybrid / whatever, are binding on the eventual respective convention delegates and some are not, while the process in some states is conducted on a winner take all approach and in other states on a proportional approach, with yet other delegates being selected by the party organization in certain states. Some votes appear to be cast secretly while others seem to involve a show of hands, or standing in a corner of a room.
Meanwhile some states appear to have lost either all or half their entitlement to their party’s convention delegates for ‘going early’.
Also, it seems that people can roll up with a choice of participating in either the Democrat or Republican process. Is it a free for all available to any mug citizen, or do people actually have to have some sort of party affiliation to participate?
Can anyone please suggest a website(s) regarding each party that makes a reasonably clear and preferably succinct explanation of the process involved?
Finally, I read somewhere that come the actual presidential election itself, an independent candidate could stand but might only be able to get onto the ballot in some states (but not others). Can someone please explain how that works?
Brenton, everything you would ever likely need/want to know about Adam can be found by clicking on his name.
Oh, on re-reading my last post (29) sounded like I was being narky,
srry Adam, I didn’t mean it to sound like that
There is less of a policy gap between the leading Democrats than their partisans admit. The Republican’s only prospects are McCain and Guliani who have a cross-over appeal, however they are unpopular with the conservative base and their hawkish foreign policy views would be a liability in an election. Romney is the Brendan Nelson of American politics. Huckabee would terrify country-club Republicans into abstaining or voting for an independent
Barack Hussein Obama – as described by Gerard Henderson – will be the next President of the United States. His appeal is to the non-partisans. he will galvanize the unaligned voter. Expect the largest ever turnout in November – people who have never voted in their lives. And they will vote for Howard and Hendersons mate Obama. BTW I assume the Australian media, including Laurie Oakes, will follow up with Howard when Obama claims the nomination, and ask if he stands by his comments as Prime Minister that terrorists will be praying for an Obama victoy.
Well, call me narrowly focussed, but Howard’s idiotic and demented attack on Obama is what sways me to cheer Barack on.
It would be just another sweet nail in Rodent’s coffin of global irrelevance if Obama won Pres.
Geoffrey @ 30 -
The US Presidential Primary process is as heterogeneous as you describe. I’ve lived in 3 US states over my years (still a US citizen, for that matter), and each of these have been “primary” states. A primary is where the entire public can cast a ballot for the candidate of their choice. In some states you need to be pre-registered as a member of the party; in other states, with “open” primaries (such as NH) you can declare party affiliation when you walk into the polls, and then un-declare that affiliation on the way out.
Caucuses seem (to my untrained eyes) rather closer to the Australian process of party pre-selection for candidates – tiny, raucous, and highly liable to all the vicissitudes of branch-stacking.
The end result is to select most of the 4100-ish delegates to the Democratic convention, and the 3000-ish delegates to the Republican convention. Only the majority of those delegates are selected directly by voters. Others, known as “superdelegates” are party officials and elected officials of their respective parties; they are free to cast their votes as they please.
The entire national primary/caucus system emerged in the post-WW I period, and didn’t really take its final form until the 1940s; before that, candidates were selected in “smoke-filled rooms”, where cigar-puffing pollies picked a candidate without any input from the electorate. While this process had the advantage of consensus-building, the trend toward direct election of convention delegates has given more breadth to the candidates available to either party.
As for getting onto the Presidential ballot, each state holds its own election on the first Tuesday in November; thus, each candidate must file with the respective Secretary of State the paperwork to get them on the ballot. This often means they have to file a requisite number of signatures (somewhere between 100 and 10,000, depending on the size of the state) of registered voters who indicate their desire to have that candidate on the ballot. This is not a substantial barrier to any candidate running a national campaign: the presidential ballot in California (where I voted in 1992, 1996, and 2000) had at least eight different candidates running for president. Still, there are fifty states, and you’ve got to get paperwork filed with each state at some time long before the election (generally 90 days). Some candidates can’t manage that.
This Wikipedia entry might help out a bit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary
Also, in answer to a few other questions here, TPM Election Central is a good place to look at the current polls & tracking polls…
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/
Ah, just six weeks from our poll to their poll. Glory!
Ah, nice to see one’s money at work, and even more so when one’s heart is in it too. As noted, my money has been on Obama for quite a while, (plus a side bet on Huckabee/McCain), so yes, I’m relaxed and comfortable for now.
I disagree with Adam about Obama, he can easily beat any of the Repulicans for President, and it’s more than being about a ’shoping list’ of so called ‘achievements’ of so called ‘experienced’ politicians from Washington.
Achievements? Just take a look at America, take a look at the mess, from not even noticing 19 young men training to fly planes into your iconic buildings, to bungled wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a city flooded with thousands stranded in their own bodily wastes while the President rode around his holiday farm.
Achievements? Point to some, by any of them, left or right, it’s all the same. The country is wallowing in debt, financial scams of horrendous proportions, a tsunami of social security obligations they cannot possibly meet, and a Whitehouse run by a cabal of neocon nutters who think the Likud party and Mossad should be running the countries foreign policy, (and it does!!)
Achievements? Show me some! Anything!
Obama has the mojo working, has gotten the pulse of this p!ssed off country, and is riding the wave of its discontent with all things Washington…all the way to Washington.
Spare me the ‘achievements’ or the ‘experience’ or whatever it is that got them where they are.
They DO NOT WISH TO BE THERE!
Enter, Obama.
Make that “country’s” in my last past, and I’ll stand by every word of it.
The thing I’ve come to realize – talking to my American mates – is that there really does seem to be some sort of massive sea-change going on in the US right now. Obama is electrifying. My mates have seen him speak, and they’ve come away believers.
All this talk about “electability” is nothing but pure spin. Obama is entirely electable, and – given that the US isn’t likely to put another Republican in the White House for at least a generation – this is his moment. It’s just really bad timing that Hillary waited until 2008. She could have gone after W. in 2004 – she had the opportunity, the means, and the motive – but she didn’t want the fight. Instead, she and her wing of the party supported Kerry desultorily. The result: Kerry lost, leaving the path clear for 2008. (Oh, and we all got another 4 years of W.) But Hillary miscalculated. She didn’t understand just how badly Americans would want to turn the page – not just on the last 7 years, but on the last 15 years.
Good to hear from Adam again, he is supporting Hilary.
Adam what makes you think that the Repubilicans will not do the same with boring Hilary.
And another thing is America a democracy Adam? A country where less than 50 percent of people vote and you need large amounts of money to run. That is not a democracy.
Adam
what do you think of Hilary’s chances?
Just read some interesting figures. The war in Iraq has cost the USA $483,836,000,000. The USA National Debt since the Bush Presidency has soared from $6,400,000,000,000 to $9,203,000,000,000. No wonder Americans are looking for fresh hope and hopefully for someone who is better at maths!
Yes, but does that take in to account efforts to make the pie higher, Brenton?
People, ranting about the evils of Bush (about which I mostly agree with you) is not an adequate reply to my post above about Obama. Bush will not be a candidate. In that sense it will not be a re-run of Howard v Rudd. It will be as if Howard retired before the election and Petro Georgiou had replaced him. If the Repubs are smart enough to nominate McCain (a big if, I agree), they will have a candidate with no links to the Bush administration, who was in fact Bush’s opponent for the nomination in 2000, and who has a vastly superior CV to Obama’s.
Yes Marky, the Repubs will do a smear job on whoever the Dems nominate, and yes Clinton has plenty of negatives of her own (although I don’t agree she is boring), but she has much more credibility than Obama. The Dems don’t have a perfect candidate (since Al Gore decided not to run), but Clinton is the best they have. The allegation that Obama has no qualifications to be president will not be a smear, it will be a fact, and McCain will flog it for all it’s worth. That, on top of the Bradley effect and the covert racist campaign the Repub grassroots will run, would make Obama’s job very difficult, whatever the polls say now.
You are all also making a big mistake in assuming that just because Americans have gone sour on Bush and the Iraq war, they have suddenly turned into hairy peaceniks. They haven’t, and regardless of the crimes of Bush they won’t vote for a candidate who is seen as soft on national security or terrorism. In a McCain v Obama race, McCain would have this issue all to himself, since Obama has no record at all, personally or politically. Also his middle name is Hussein, which no doubt the Repubs will draw everyone’s attention to at every opportunity.
http://www.shopmetrospy.com/cgi-bin/sc-v4/shopmecprod2.pl?client=shopmetro&catid=63&PRID=421
KR @37.
your post is spot on.
Adam can’t see past his *centre/right neocon nose* to see whats going on.
* socially liberal,right-wing everything else.
The people have never liked politicians, but the lot that have been in Washington the last decade are absolute poison to the people.
They don’t want any of them. Obama is the closest thing they’ve got to a big broom to sweep all the shit away. How he turns out is problematic and really not important.
Right now he offers Hope and he will win the Presidency easily.
Actually Adam, if you meant me , I wasnt replying to your post at all!
I think Obama should be pleased to be attacked by a completely nutcase website as linked in Adam’s post. Some of the other T-shirts were
Guns don’t kill People. Abortion Clinics Kill People.
My Jesus can Beat Your Allah
Kill Il Jong
9 of 10 terrorists agree…A democrat congress is good for Jihad.
Peace Through Superior Firepower
You can tell as much about someone by their enemies as by their friends.
Adam, don’t you think that Hillary’s high negatives are a very important negative?
Clinton will survive until at least Super Duper Tuesday simply on the basis that she has the money to keep going until then. Even then there might still be some cash in the piggie bank and she could keep going even if she by then she has no chance of winning the actual nomination simply out of spite.
I expect her to lose tomorrow and South Carolina. Then media’s love affair (and my own for that matter) with Obama will end at some stage. But if it is not before Feb. 5th then he will have it in the bag.
Bill Richardson will make a fine Secretary of State. Edwards is not sticking around to be VP again. If there is little chance of winning after tomorrow, he will stay just to hurt Clinton and keep a profile to have a crack at the election for Governor in South Carolina in 2010 or North Carolina this year.
Adam whilst your points are valid ones’ in a country full of innuendo and ugliness, and i agree with some, i for one think Obama can overcome them or Edwards if he is the candidate.
People i think are seeing through smear and trickery as was seen in Australia last year. People also do not like the Republicans due to the Iraq war and America is moving towards a nasty slowdown. Obama can win because he has the ability to overcome smear through his charisma and intelligence. Only two things worry me about Obama the white vote and the possibility that some wacko will kill him.
“governor of north or south carolina” hmmm just like running of mayor of South or North Sydney I guess.
Adam’s analysis is spot-on. The Dems will be crying if they knife Hillary in November the Republicans will absolutely go to town on Barrack Hussein Obama. Even if he somehow fluked a win – he would be another Jimmy Carter and keep them out for a decade or 2 thereafter.
The Audacity of Hope more like the Audacity of my bottom.
Barack Obama is hot favourite for the next president of the US.
So either the bias of Adam and Edward is showing or the betting markets and polls are wrong.
I know what I think.
Edward: What exactly would Obama do wrong that would keep the Democrats out for 10 years? Whereas you seem to contend Bush’s legacy has done no lasting damage to the Republicans.
I have felt for sometime now Obama will be swiftboated (or whatever group of liars the republicans digup is called this time) for sometime now. Almost all of the Hillary dirt is there already and, in MHO some of the foolish Dems are are factoring that dirt, but not factoring in how long the repulicans have to maul Obama if he gets the nomination.
I’m not sure Hilary will win, you’ve got to remember this is the bunch of clowns that elected little Bush the second time, having not done so the first time, but I’m pretty sure that once he leaves the Dem bubble of nominations he will find life a lot lot harder, and even a super floored Rudi might be able to defeat him.
I hate, on principal to agree with Edward or Glen but I think I do.
One last point the polls are stupid polls, they are all tainted by the nomination race, if Hilary got the nom the Obama fans have to chose between Hilary and the repub nom, American’s are stupider than I think if they go from Obama, past Hilary to a republican.
It is OK Jasmine by year end you and I will be in violent agreement on many many things.
Final point too wild speculation posed as a question – which group of supporters are more likely to get out and support a same party opponent should they lose, Hilary supporters or Obama supporters?
Assuming equal numbers of race only and sex only voters you’d have to think there is some chance the ‘change the world’ Obama supporters would switch to a Hilary campaign against which ever bloke get the republican gig. Or perhaps I’m speculating that Hilary would have a greater fall off the wagon entirely factor with voters not making it to Obama.
I’m not very well schooled in the issues of US politics, but it seems to me that this is far from a whitewash (no pun intended) for the Dems.
1st – Wasn’t there a release of the pressure valve of anti-Republican sentement at the mid -term elections? Why is the next Presidential race necessarily about repeating the punishment of the Republicans….
2nd – From the little of McCain I have seen, he has an entirely different vibe from Bush….Whenever he talks about Iraq, he seems to speak with calm competence rather than the comic book morality we hear from Bush
3rd – Bush’s lanslide victory 4 years ago was driven by some hard core support in the middle of the US – has that disappeared? I haven’t seen any polling to support that notion
You are a Rudd fan now Edward? I’m cooling a bit.
Marko # 36… Thank you, much appreciated.
Based on what I have just seen in Australia, I can only wonder this: if Obama wins the nomination and the Republicans go to town on his “weaknesses”, how many voters will actually care?
The Democrats will likely win, barring major stuffups, with any of Obama, Clinton or Edwards, though I have the most reservations about Clinton (not because she is female, but because she has a lot of historical baggage.) The Republicans are in a mess primarily because none of their candidates are anywhere near ideal, and also because they have been wrong-footed by the war in Iraq dragging on as if forever. Even by the standards of a very religious nation, Romney is too weirdly religious, and Huckabee too earnestly so. Giuliani is too liberal for their support base and his record is nowhere near as good as he makes it out to be, McCain is too old and too hawkish, Thompson is failing to inspire and Paul is an ideological one-trick pony. I think McCain is their best bet because he is a figure who commands respect and he can pick up the pieces most effectively if the Democrats stuff up.
Mr Sqiggle @ 57
the pressure valve of anti-republicanism has not been released by the mid-terms. Their is still deep deep resentment of what they have done on many levels. They have no chance of winning.
what the mid-terms have done however is waken the democrat supporters up to the fact that not any Dem will do as long as the Repugs are outed. The Dem led Congress has been a massive disappointed to most supporters.
2 years ago Hillary would have bolted in the Nom because she was the establishment candidate but now it is a different story after the people have seen the establishment Dems like Hillary, Pelosi, Ried, Stoyer, Levin etc do absolutely nothing to change anything.
They want change and by God they’re going to get change.
Hillary knows she is toast. her tears yesterday were as telling as Howard’s tearful plea on 7.30 Report. Realisation is emotional stuff.
I’m not saying Obama is a saviour, but he is relatively likeable, relatively inspiring and gives hope of change.
When the attack dogs of the Repugs attack someone likeable who carries the peoples hopes (unlike John Kerry), it will backfire.
Kinda like it backfired on the semi likeable and fresh Rudd.
The Clinton machine is as ruthless as the Repugs and they know they’re beaten.
Where is Possum when you need him to predict a statistically probable 48 state victory for Obama in November?
He (possum) probably has proof that Obama will in the general election win Alaska and Utah too!
Can somebody work out what on earth these figures are?
http://media.myfoxdc.com/YouDecide/race7.htm
Is there anyone left in Utah? I thought they were all over here! Everytime I try to cross the intersection at the local shopping centre, there they are , all from Utah! At least Mitt Romney is at home in the USA.
Obama seems to me to be the Racist Candidate.
Racists from the Right will hate him for the color of his skin.
Racists from the Left will love him for the same reason.
True, his skin is black, but he does not have a racial inheritance based on slave ancestors. But his skin color is the basis of his political presence.
Let’s face it… it can’t be experience, because he has next to none. He is a pretty, black face, and that’s about all.
If he is elected it will be because he is a black man, not because he has anything in common with either the whites who will vote agaist him, or the descendants of slaves and their supporters who claim him – wrongly, but conveniently – as one of their own.
He probably has many fine qualities, but being a genuine American negro – in the ethnic, physically descriptive sense of the word – is not one of them.
Hence: the Racist Candidate.
I personally don’t have an opinion either for or against him. I don’t care if he’s black, white or brindled. But his color is the great unspoken issue – love him or loathe him, take him or leave him – of this election, and quite mistakenly so.
America has long been a parody of itself. Now it is parody of a parody. Obama’s candidature is proof of the fact that modern American politics is kitschier than a cheap afternoon soap opera.
Adam: Given that a lot of politics in the US seems to be about getting out the base vote rater than winning the middle, are you sure that Hillary is such a sure bet? It seems that nothing unites the Republicans like their (rather irrational) hatred of Hillary. Their own field is vastly uninspiring to their base: a mormon, a slightly too crazy evangelical, a pro-choice pro-gay liberal, a lightweight actor and McCain, who might be argued to be a bit too pro-Bush for his own good. Most of those guys will have trouble turning out the base, but if they’re running against Hillary? It’s the one thing they’ve been praying for. I doubt even the racist vote against Obama in the south could get them turning out as well.
I agree that McCain is probably their best bet, as he seems most palatable (or least unpalatable?) to their base and has completely sold out to get support of the RNC. The important question is whether he’s been too pro-Bush administration (ie does that even matter to the Republican base)?
It does seem like Obama will turn out the Democrat vote like no-one else given the high participation in Iowa, but perhaps those numbers just show the strength of the Democratic field. Democrats could happily vote for any of the three current main contenders, I reckon.
On a separate note, the obvious thing for Obama to do would be to pick someone like Richardson as a running-mate to counter the foreign-policy-lightweight tag.
I fear if Obama gets up some American loon (and there are a plenty)will do something terrible.
Does anyone else fear the same
No my fear is that Obama is too inexperienced to be in control of US military weapons & policy
Pity Gore did not run…suspect he may have won
as it seems the Democrats will win the Presidency
Maybe of interest. Rod Quinn, standing in for Delroy is doing Obama as the issue of the day. On within minutes. 891 SA.
Ron @ 69: What do you mean? Afraid he’ll illegally invade other countries at will, kill and rape a whole bunch of their people and basically f%$# the entire country up for decades to come?
Seriously though, Hillary was the one who said that a president should “never take their finger off the nuclear button”. I’d be more worried if she got in.
Absolutely, Centaur. As not only Jen has posted. I worry that my offering is foolish and miniscule, but this is it.
On the serious matter of Obama and longevity, in my mention of the terrifying thought, earlier but barely, as if even words could somehow conjure the thing. Obama was provided Secret Service protection well before it was usually afforded a candidate. Last year, I think, which gave me pause at the time.
Remembering as an early teenager the bright morning, on entering my mother’s bedroom, having absorbed that I really was hearing this, over and over, placing my trannie into my mother’s hands as some kind of evidence, saying, I think President Kennedy has been shot. Mum’s horror and disbelief. The mixture of pain, enormous sympathy, realisation of a dashed hope and dream as I understood Kennedy, even at that age, I vividly recall. I remember too, the Cuban crisis, in my classroom, listening in certainty to the drone of a plane overhead. The bomb did not fall, that day.
Anyway, this is a bit of my life. And without doubt part of what shaped me.
Chilling and worse to contemplate any such fate for this candidate, or that nation.
Hmmm, Bushfire Bill. Was that you on the wireless? Saying:
‘I personally don’t have an opinion either for or against him. I don’t care if he’s black, white or brindled’.
Dave from Albury,
Clinton had no less of an armchair ride into the Senate than Obama.
let’s not forget that jfk started the vietnam war, presided over its expansion and began the tradition of unilateral us brinkmanship that resulted in lots of smouldering proxy wars around the world. beware the messianic politician. jfk is like benazir bhutto, someone who looks a lot better dead than alive.
when you look at obama’s positions re: iraq, israel (undying loyalty) and the middle east in general, his opinions on the role of the us, there is very little daylight between him, the other dems and the republicans. it’s one thing to talk about eventually leaving iraq one day, jfk opposed vietnam and wanted to leave before he became president and poured hundreds of thousands of troops in. it’s another thing entirely to say you’re leaving and set a date with troop numbers like rudd has done. maybe i’m wrong, and i hope i am, but i don’t think so.
‘Ullo me Lovelies! Fancy finding you mob of desperates here. And how very kind of you, William, to help us in our weakness with a “separate thread”.
Adam and Eddy, I’m very much in accord with Kirribilli Removals. Reckon you’re both dead wrong about Obama. He has the game to rise above the flak of swiftboaters and bigots.
Posted this at LP ealier today.
Francis at 9: above are excerpts from Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire. It’s worth a rung in your favorites column during this campaign.
CBet latest. There has been major movement.
President – WINNER
OBAMA, Barack 1.95
CLINTON, Hillary 3.50
MCCAIN, John 7.50
GIULIANI, Rudolph 8.00
ROMNEY, Mitt 13.00
HUCKABEE, Mike 14.00
BLOOMBERG, Michael 21.00
PAUL, Ron 26.00
EDWARDS, John 34.00
Obama has stormed into market favouritism in the last 48 hours.
Don’t wish to sound trite, but Significant History is happenin’ here.
If Obama stays alive, he’ll romp in. The guy is a vote magnet the likes of whom pop up only once every generation or two.
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/mikeluckovich;_ylt=AqJF8wMaP9YFjaidtBkaQPpU_b4F
Hey all, i have a question for you poll gurus. I am surprised to see Obama go from about even to a 10% lead in the polls in 5 days in NH. Would you ever see anything like that in Australia? The avg American is surely no more fickle than your avg Aussie punter, so why the sudden and massive swing? For what it’s worth, Go Obama!
Because Obama’s victory in Iowa victory has increased his profile and standing elsewhere, including New Hampshire. A win in the first contest generates momentum heading into the second contest and so on. That’s what makes the early states so important.
In the Australian context we might think of Mundingburra 1996 or Frankston East 1999. In both instances, the party that did better than expected at the general election went on to enjoy an important victory at a crucial subsequent content.
From LA Times today: Look out Dems,……here come the BFG’s.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-chamber8jan08,1,5346679.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true
Looks to me like McCain will struggle for relevance in this campaign. There are good reasons why he is not the class candidate some here would have us believe.
79 Megan, why not link to accessible sites?
Ok,not just Dems….any bleeding-heart candidate who thinks that winner shouldn’t take all. Cringe to see such naked greed.
Steve,sorry, thought I had. Will go forage.
Steve, new to all this so pls excuse. Hope this works.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-chamber8jan08,0,4301350.story?coll=la-home-center
And one on ‘Change’ from The Nation,where the last paragraph hits it on the head:
“Where before it seemed that thick, impenetrable gloomy clouds were rolling across the landscape, a bright and shimmering but so far empty screen has been hung. Soon, something will be projected there. Then we’ll know what this season of change–or at least of the word “change”–meant.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-chamber8jan08,0,4301350.story?coll=la-home-center
Oops…wrong one!
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080121/schell
Enuff!!
Adam it is a county where the majority praise the lord, they may be looking for a messier, not solutions. As an aside you do sound a lot like Howard attacking Rudd, now how did that work out? Of cause on the logical plane you are right.
I think the democrats will win whoever, without the religious vote ( or the economical radical vote if HUCKABEE gets up) the republicans are nothing. Unfortunately I think Obama will be elected and Edwards will end up being president, the USA have form ( and I’m not willing to be as blunt as Phillip Adams).
A mountain out of a molehill here methinks…
While this oppinion is all interesting, it nowhere near alligns to polling and/or fact. Obama is well ahead in all betting markets, and the historical analogies would suggest that the leader after Iowa and New Hampshire goes on to win nomination. If Hillary can’t beat Obama, she doesn’t deserve the nomination.
For all the talk of Obama being in charge of weapons and the military and how scared that make us…please. A president like Obama would have offers of help flowing in from all sorts of advisors and experts. He’d be no less inept than someone who went into the job with more connections and legislative experience like, say, dubya.
And finally, on the point of attacks on lack of policy substance? That is not what wins or loses elections, either here (remember Rudds lack?) or abroad. The US voted for Jnr Bush cos they thought he was a good guy (and remembered the name from somewhere), Clinton cos he was charismatic, and Reagan cos he was folksey. Obama combines what was so immensely popular in those last two.
Oh and the ‘Hussein’ bit has already had one run. It was ceremonially dumped, seen through as more Rove-like muckraking, and ignored. Americans – even Republicans it would seem – like Obama, and dislike such attacks. I have no doubt some ’swift-boaters’ will release ads calling Obama ‘BHO’, but I think that Roveism has passed its high water mark for the moment.
…dislike such attacks on particularly popular figures…
Turnout is huge and some towns look like running out of voting papers.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/new-hampshire-t.html
morning firends, and Glen-
todays favourite is … (and actualluy Hillary might borrow this one)-
“I want to thank you for taking time out of your day to come and witness my hanging.”
-At the dedication of his portrait, Austin Texas, Jan 4 , 2002.
JUst had a quick perusal of formed blogs :
B Bill
I disagree with your premise that Obama is only there because he is black. The man is showing some passion and vision and as naive as that might seem to hardened political cynics (yes, I mean you Adam), it is what people are crying out for. And it’s why we elected young Kevin.
Policies, debates, slogans whatever – if there is the possibility of change (even if it is only a perception) then people are jumping at it.
Nothing could be as awful as what we’ve had with the neocons taking us to an iillegal war, f@#king the environment and alllowing insane fundamentalists to influence public policy, to name a few issues.
Hillary is part of the establishment (and therefore the old order). Obama is new, committed and winning: that’s going to surge him ahead, and hipefully get him over the line.
The argument about experience doesn’t cut it, as a lot of people don’t value the way things have been done anyway. Ask Howard.
This from the NY Times magazine on electronic voting machines, it may not matter who wins the Dem nomination if the abomination of rigged voting machines can not be overcome. Most of these machines are manufactured by Diebold, a major contributor to the Republicans in the past:
“[Voting machines] fail unpredictably, and in extremely strange ways; voters report that their choices “flip” from one candidate to another before their eyes; machines crash or begin to count backward; votes simply vanish. (In the 80-person town of Waldenburg, Ark., touch-screen machines tallied zero votes for one mayoral candidate in 2006—even though he’s pretty sure he voted for himself.) Most famously, in the November 2006 Congressional election in Sarasota, Fla., touch-screen machines recorded an 18,000-person “undervote” for a race decided by fewer than 400 votes.”
See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html
“No Republican in the modern era has ever won the nomination without winning Iowa or New Hampshire. In this year where all bets seem to be off and something new happens every day, that trend seems like one that is destined to continue.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/politics_nation/2008/01/nh_crucial_to_mitt_mccain_1.html
Interesting that the latest poll had McCain falling away. It will be the most comical part of the campaign so far if he gets rolled today.
Glen — why the hate for Ron Paul? If I recall correctly, you’re a Liberal member, and the liberalism (US-Eng = libertarianism) he espouses is more or less what our Liberals are supposed to stand for.
I’m a Lib and if I was in the U.S. he would have all my support. Non-interference, less tax, individual rights? — I thought that was what we stood for.
Adam, I am not sure where all the hostility to Barack Obama comes from. From what i have read, he did not have an easy ride into the Senate, in fact he was a way-out outsider when he started that campaign (both in terms of getting democrat support and then beating the republican candidate).
On the issue of expierence and other bits mentioned above, it just reflects the Hillary song-book of a kitchen-sink attack on Obama:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/portrait-in-cynicism-hil_b_80289.html
From what i have heard from Hillary, all that she has said is that she has experience, but has not really actually explained why anyone should be interested in the experience she has: to what use will she put it? The only thing she has said is that she is afraid (fear campaign) that the country will go backwards, if she is not elected, which just smacks of arrogance and a sense of her being entitled to the presidency because she has done her 35 years of penance.
Hudson, the bellweather seat for New Hampshire.
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080108/NEWS01/993676243
Well interesting, people thought Kerry was riding the anti-republican wave, people thought Kerry could rise above swift boating too … how did that go?
Some of the points above are interesting. The levels of complexity in the US system make it more fun, the dems should be trying to pick who is going to have most appeal in the swing states … I should go find my list of them.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
For this interested in Dr Ron Paul
“If Romney wins today, the key symbols could be a broken-down bus versus hundreds of cell phones. Yesterday, McCain’s auxiliary press bus broke down, months after the campaign downgraded its famed Straight Talk Express because of cash shortages.
Meanwhile, the Romney campaign had rented extra office space and laid in 270 cell phones to boost phone-banking capacity. On Sunday, the campaign reached 50,000 voters with telephone calls or a knock on the door, said Jim Merrill, Romney’s state director. Yesterday and today, Romney also deployed his five sons across the state.
At a 500-strong rally in Bedford last night, Romney described some family characteristics as told in a book about his great-great-grandfather.
“There’s an old family saying that if a Romney drowns in a river, look upstream for the body,” Romney said. “So regardless of how things are we’re going to keep battling and fighting, and so regardless of how things are, you can expect us in the fight every day, every night.”
Today, Romney will dispatch 20 passenger vans for get-out-the-vote efforts, Merrill said. For his part, McCain’s campaign will have vans in each of New Hampshire’s 10 counties, said Mike Dennehy, a top McCain strategist.
If television advertisements were decisive, Romney would win by a landslide. He’s spent nearly $4 million on ads on WMUR, the only statewide television channel, according to numbers compiled by Dante Scala, an assistant professor of political science at the University of New Hampshire.
That’s nearly four times the $1.1 million spent on WMUR ads by McCain, the next biggest-spender of the Republican race.
The Romney campaign hasn’t just been pricey, it’s also been precisely targeted. All along, Romney’s campaign has zeroed on New Hampshire’s Republican base, expecting the independents who can vote in either primary to flock to the Democratic race”
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080108/FRONTPAGE/801080318
Bungs, I would have thought people would know better. Evidently they don’t. This issue has been brought up several times in the last decade, always at politically oppourtune moments — as is being done now. Paul’s newsletter, written not by him but by others, contained things he was not aware of. His speeches and consistency in his political life go against much of what is in these newsletters. If you look at his article on Wikipedia, it states “New York Times Magazine writer Christopher Caldwell concurred that Paul denied the allegations “quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own,” but added that Paul’s “response to the accusations was not transparent.”
It is also worthy to note that the journalist behind the article knows that the newsletter articles have already been released and the controversy had, but he is a hard Giuliani supporter, and wants to damage Paul at this moment. His motives are plain and easy to see.
Some action at last. Counting has begun.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/
Thankyou Steve for the link.
Thanks Michael. I do find it disturbing when people put out newsletters without bylines (but the whole newsletter under their name), and then disown them when inconvenient. For what it is worth, I don’t know why people are impressed by Guiliani at all. All he seems to do is say 9/11 all the time (and i still don’t know what he actually did after 9/11 that brought him respect).
Giuliani really scares me. If you search YouTube for one of his ads “Ready” it is scaremongering — to the extreme. That the U.S. is under attack by hordes of Muslim infidels (sigh) who hate liberty and freedom, and that they must be held at bay by bombs. His proposed police state and military machine is horrible.
I contrast this with Paul, who says they’re (Muslims, and, well, everyone) angry for a reason, and rather than keep hitting back, should fix the initial reason they’re so angry — U.S. interference in their lives.
Sorry if I sounded accusatory when I responded earlier, Bungs.
Interesting that the counting has only just started by the bookies have already given it to Obama.
You can get 100-1 on Hillary right now if you wanna take a punt.
HRC leads Obama by 2% at present.
100-1 could be worth a shot. Hillary is just ahead after 6% counted.
McCain is 10% clear of Romney after 8% counted
Oh dear, it seems with just under 10% counted white americans still lie to pollsters about supporting black candidates.
Its not told you so time yet – but lets see what its like at 30% counted for Barrack Hussein Obama.
Does anyone know about the accuracy of the Concord Monitor site? CNN still has them down as ’still voting’
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#NH
The 100-1 is gone now – back to 4-1. Someone picked up a sweet bet.
If the US is anything like Oz the more conservative booths/precincts may be coming in first. As you say, ESJ, it will tell us more at 30%. On the Rep side, McCain is streaking ahead on 37% with Romney on 28% and Huckelberry and Guiliani well back.
Going by the number of voters in Iowa and NH, no matter which democrat wins, the Republicans are stuffed. They are outnumbered 2-1!
Thank g.d for the US elections, there is going to be a whole year of this, lots and lots of it for a confirmed junkie.
With just 28 of the 301 precincts counted HRC leads by just 300 votes – 10,588 to 10,300. The big NH towns/cities have not yet posted. Obama will win.
Just back from a wonderful time touring around Tasmania with Mrs. Moderate. First holiday for 18 years with no kids-fabulous. But it’s great to catch up with the (mostly) intelligent and insightful political commentary here on PB.
IMO, Obama is completely unelectable. Sad, as he best reflects my views of what the US should do with its future. But does anyone seriously believe a 46-year old coloured man with some Islamic family background apparently, has a snowball’s chance in hell of becoming POTUS? Any of the republican candidates would easily blow him away when the attack ads and fear campaign gets cranked up. Don’t assume that because he probably would do very well with Australian voters, that he will have broad appeal in the US-the US has a totally different culture and value system to us, you can’t compare them at all. It won’t happen.
I’m not convinced that Clinton is viable either. I don’t quite know why, but right-wing Americans I’ve met seem to think Obama is a reasonable fellow at the personal level, but have a passionate hatred of Clinton. Maybe it’s her husband. But a Clinton candidacy I suspect will really motivate the republican base to get to the ballot box to stop her. It’s also true that most Americans I’ve met are bitterly critical of GWB, but that’s irrelevant in the next election.
I don’t know much about Edwards, it looks like he will run third. Pity Gore isn’t available.
While I see a republican win as a reasonably probable outcome, I console myself with the knowledge that the ongoing economic ruin of the US will gradually limit the potential damage another right-wing extremist or evangelical friutloop as POTUS can do to the world. But then again, just imagine a world where the US has collapsed, and China, that beacon of democracy, freedom, justice, workers rights and environmental protection, dominates the world stage! Let’s be careful what we wish for!
Actually ALPAL you are wrong, it is actually the larger towns that have reported.
New Hampshire is interesting because it is a open primary, basically you do need to be a registered Republican or Democrat to vote, a lot of independents vote in open primaries like that in New Hampshire, where as in Iowa you needed to be a registered Democrat or Republican to vote in the caucuses.
John McCain is more popular among independent voters than he is among registered republicans and is expected to win the New Hampshire Primary. The more number of independents is favoring Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama who is popular among registered Democrats.
Even at this early stage of Counting – the big news seems to be that Clinton is back in the overall race.
She might not win NH but it does appear she’ll get, at the very least, a close second (just as hubby did in 1992 to become the “comback kid”).
I guessing that mythology will be re-visited now.
I do not believe Obama will win the democratic nomination, however this could change. I know a lot about US politics, probably more than some Americans.
I am not sure who will win the Republican nomination, my feeling is Mike Huckabee given the importance of Fundamentalist Christian bloc in today’s Republican party.
In November it will be either an Obama/Huckabee or Clinton/Huckabee race.
McCain has already been declared the winner according to Concord Monitor
Hilary is pulling ahead. Her lead is now 1,223. It was 659 a few minutes ago.
Is Dal LaMagna (currently with 0 votes) a write in?
McCain the projected winner. Clinton is slightly ahead.
http://www.cnn.com/
Huge lead to Hillary. 2000 votes.
EJS,
Your comment about people lying to pollsters about voting for a black candidate is very telling. I wonder if Obama’s surprising showing in the Iowa caucus is related to the arcane voting method (ie not a secret ballot but show of hands or standing in a particular spot).
I wonder if people will publicly support Obama but in the privacy of the ballot box think otherwise.
Is http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#NHDEM the most comprehensive exit poll you have ever seen!!
Still 2002 votes seperating them.
15% counted.
FOX: Exit polls said McCain 35, Romney 30 and Obama 39, Clinton 34
@Nayto
We need that here in Australia.
129, The responses to ‘If Bill Clinton had been running’ are telling. A huge pro-Bill vote has come across to Hillary. I expect we’ll see a lot more of him in the coming months.
Hillary’s lead is holding rather than moving. She must have had a couple of good returns somewhere.
Also if 60 places have returned for 20% of the vote, it must be a combination of big and small, or just all average sized places. I wouldn’t think that the biggest would have returned yet.
If it is Obama v Romney/Huckabee, then expect Michael Bloomberg to enter the campaign as a third party candidate, trying to win the middle. He can win New York, and that would be a great start to trying to win the electoral college, or forcing a vote for President in the House of Representatives, which would be very interesting and most disastrous.
Clinton now the favorite to win NH on sportsbet. I wish I was the lucky punter who got $20 on at 200-1 about an hour ago.
Just goes to show that its always the last large sample poll that counts.
Hillart is getting more ahead. 3400 ahead now. 6%.
Some refreshing political honesty from Obama.
‘told voters Monday that he is “riding a wave, and you’re the wave,”‘
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/07/AR2008010701449.html?hpid=topnews
The gap closed to 1500.
Where did you see that Ball Lightning?
The gap back out to 2500.
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#NH
It keeps changing as new results come in.
I guess Edwards didn’t get much bounce from his 2nd.
It is clear that Barrack Hussein Obama will not be the Democractic Presidential nominee, even if he does win NH now it will not be a killer margin.
It is also apparent that the Clintons will go to town on him before Tsunami Tuesday (5th Feb).
Oh well – it looks like there is a little bit of possum in many of the posters on this site, a la jen, asanque etc etc.
Hillary’s lead is 3383 with 26% counted. I’d say the Lady is back in the race.
Something is fishy here. On CNN, it has called McCain to win based on 29% of votes counted. But it said it cannot call the Dems based on the same 29% votes counted. BTW: Hillary is holding well at 40% (29050) with Obama (26359) at 36% and Edwards (12157) at 17%.
You see some significance in Obama’s middle name ESJ?
Edward St John:
I predicted a Democrat win, not necessarily an Obama win.
However, I’ll take it as a misguided compliment as its far better to be affiliated with Possum then with you.
FG,
Whatever my personal prejudices, yes the middle name is a big time loser for him in terms of electoral politics.
144
Edward StJohn Says:
January 9th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
It is clear that Barrack Hussein Obama will not be the Democractic Presidential nominee, even if he does win NH now it will not be a killer margin.
It is also apparent that the Clintons will go to town on him before Tsunami Tuesday (5th Feb).
Oh well – it looks like there is a little bit of possum in many of the posters on this site, a la jen, asanque etc etc.
Where do you get the Clinton is going to win totally on Tuesday?
Yes revisionism all round it seems is the order of the day now that the audacity of hope has indeed turned out to be the audacity of my bottom.
ESJ
I don’t mind getting it wrong. But I am sorry that Obama may not win, and my reasons as previously stated stand.
BL,
Because the Clintons will pound him for lack of experience between now and then (5th Feb). It appears to have worked in NH and will do so doubly well in Calfornia and New York.
Who will be the first to misspell Barrack Hussein Obama as Barrack Hussein Osama – that’ll get ESJ going.
146
The Finnigans Says:
January 9th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
The lead isn’t very big, just before it was 1500, then out to 3500 and went back to 2700. Its changing alot right now.
I told you all the “iron my shirt” was a stunt from the Clintons. Appears to have worked on the female vote.
Hillary needs to balance being the insider candidate seen as experienced and compotent and the change candidate by reason of her gender. She has overplayed the experience card, hence Obama outpolling her among female voters in Iowa, perhaps in NH however she has been able to regain some ground on the change front by an appeal to female voters. The US TV coverage is poor quality, they can’t do the basic vote projections the ABC manages every election.
Yes the article on Paul is by a neo-con with a barrow to push but the paleoconservative poltical movement is like this, rather different from the fantasies of free-market bloggers.
Re Hussein, have a look at this Post editorial: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/27/AR2007012701097.html?source=cmailer
Peter Brent has some follow up about it too. mumble.com.au
I just think it is a bit predictable and tired. I may be wrong.
I’m going to call it to clinton. I don’t want to. But unless the polls move quiet a bit, it is going to her.
ESJ@149 That’s a very sad commentary on American voters. On what do you base your view?
You’re a little quicker than all bookmakers and most analysts to write Obama off ESJ. I think you might be letting ideology cloud your judgement.
And now Edwards should withdraw ( he might be able to get an ambassadorship for his amusement rather than making his hobby running for president) and Clinton can get on with finishing BHO on 5th February. AND THEN we get to enjoy the Republican bloodbath.
Clinton will not go to well in the general election. Many people (including woman) don’t like here and have said that they would even vote republic if shes the candidate (these are normally democrats people)
Compare and contrast the current Clinton 40 Obama 36 with the last 3 polls as listed on realclearpolitics
Suffolk/WHDH 01/06 – 01/07 500 LV 39 34 15 4 Obama +5.0
American Res. Group 01/06 – 01/07 600 LV 40 31 20 4 Obama +9.0
ReutersC-Span/Zogby 01/05 – 01/07 862 LV 42 29 17 5 Obama +13.0
Unless there is a late swing it suggests about 5-6% of white democrats will not vote for a black man.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2008/primaries/states/
Nice interactive maps there, and updating results
Giving it to McCain for the GOP.
34% of Dems counted –
Clinton 40%
Obama 36%
Edwards 17%
Lyndon La Rouche not trying to win Democratic endorsement, for the first time in a long, long time.
ESJ-
I was assuming that you would support the Repubs based on your fondeness of Howard. Have I misjudged you?
Hillary is now 3091 ahead with 37% counted. I’ll call it for Clinton
Clinton 39%
Obama 36%
Clinton by 2900.
Ball Lightning, don’t take Edward Hussein St John too seriously. He’s a conservative stirrer who has no interest in the Democratic Party.
Polls in Iowa showed Clinton ahead and she lost. Will 5-6% Iowans not vote for a woman? The fact that maybe 20% of people vote in primaries and caucuses, and pollsters need to take this into account when tabulating results makes your comment pretty unscientific ESJ.
I don’t, i was around during the election..
Michael @ 96
Both the Australian Liberal and Labor parties in my opinion are neutralists just at opposite ends to one another. Libertarians are very much as extreme. Calling Australian Liberals Libertarians is like calling Labor Populists. There are some who might be that way inclined but not the majority. At least I hope not.
“No my fear is that Obama is too inexperienced to be in control of US military weapons & policy”
Most of you here who are saying that Obama cannot or will not be President because he lacks experience are the same ones who were shouting down Glen and others for using the same argument against Rudd.
Experience is irrelevant. Most people vote on gut instinct. In Rudd’s case, they didn’t care how short his parliamentary career had been, they took a look at him, listened to a few things that he said, and then concluded that he was intelligent, competent, sensible, and an opportunity for positive change.
The same thing is happening in the U.S. with Obama. People don’t care about experience. They see a razor-sharp intelligent and competent man and someone who is promising a new “brand” of politics, and therefore offers positive change.
And this is why future attempts by Republicans to smear Obama, to draw attention to his name or his skin colour will backfire, just as it did for the Liberals every time they tried to smear Rudd. The Rove tactics no longer work because 1) people actually want a change in the CURRENT style of politics, and 2) they now see through the fear tactics.
On this note, it is VERY interesting that Obama has been repeatedly saying that a vote for him will be a vote for hope to triumph over fear. He seems to be highly clued into the public’s general sentiment for a whole new brand of politics, one that emphasises the positive over the negative, just as we saw with Rudd’s campaign and his elevation to PM last year.
And as for the “racist” element. Those who are racist and would never want to see a black man as President would probably never vote Democrat anyway.
Obama is in the running NOT because he is black – many political wiseheads would have regarded this as a negative not a positive – but because he is an excellent orator who also comes across as an intelligent man. He has a way of inspiring the public, and hope and inspiration is what the U.S. public want. We saw the same thing here in Australia last year.
ESJ162
“AND THEN we get to enjoy the Republican bloodbath.”
ESJ, given your past postings, I had not realised that you had seen the light and are also hoping that this is what happens to Team Bullshit (US franchise) in November? With a looming recession and still being stuck in Iraq, I agree it is likely. I take it you now agree Howard deserved to lose as well?
experience means failure. You do know how the country works, but your experience is from back then, you need people who are with the times to tackle the challenges which face the current generation. This was shown with Rudd, and i hope the american people see that Obama is the right choice.
1200 Between Clinton and Obama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A polling type qquestion for those who know US politics:
What is the correlation between winning Iowa and/or New Hampshire and then winnign US Presidential elections? I realise that these two marginal states are trying to keep their absurdly unrealistic influence over the candidate selections by wanting to still go first. Question is – how well does it work?
Ball Lightning: Where are you getting your figures?
Back out to 3000 )-:
CNN
Thanks BL: CNN seems to be a lot more volatile than what I’m getting from Concord Monitor
Anyone know where Edwards’ preferences would flow (If he had them).
I know this is FPP, but if some of the lower ranked candidates drop out, then the later primaries may have a different complexion.
4400 to clinton.
Not to clinton, probably obama.
Clinton leading by 4000 at the halfway point yet a hefty 1.6 at Betfair.
Another interesting note on New Hampshire. Overall it is a Republican State – 26% of registered voters are Democrats, 30% Republican and 40% independant. Yet once again the Democrats have gotten a bigger turnout than Republicans. Regardless of who wins, that should be good for Donkey in November.
Socrates, in 2004 Howard Dean was frontrunner before Iowa and NH. John Kerry was third placed from memory, but strong performances gave him exposure and money, and he went on to win.
That’s what I suspected, given that Clinton is so polarising.
I also notice that the CNN site is reporting that Clinton and Obama both get 2 delegates. Is there some sort of proportional allocation going on here?
If so, is it possible that Clinton ends with fewer delegates than the combined voting bloc of Obama plus Edwards.
Of course now as I read the posts, it is clear no one here ever thought BHO had a chance.
Rather than criticise me I think some of you owe Adam an apology, I believe he in fact was the first to correctly call the trends.
Socrates still working on my re-education through manual labour.
If the stats so far are anything to go by a Clinton nomination will give the Republicans at least an even chance of winning the presidency where an Obama nomination will be almost impossible to beat. You can’t pick up record independent voting crowds and not be an almost certainty. A couple of months ago I believed the US would not vote for a black or female president. Now I just believe they will not vote for an old robotic female president.
Interesting . . .
Earlier someone posted a link:
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080108/NEWS01/993676243
The article describes Hudson county, NH as a sort of Eden-Monaro of the primaries – for the last 52 years the two winners of that county went on be the candidates of their respective parties. The results have just come in from Hudson:
Dems
Clinton 46%
Obama 31%
Edwards 18%
Reps
Romney 36%
McCain 34%
Huckabee 11%
Rates Analyst, yes that is what happens – happened in Iowa, too.
Interestingly enough, when Edwards recently ‘intervened’ in the debate between Obama and Clinton, it almost sounded like he was fishing for a Vice-Presidential nomination under Obama. Don’t know how that would go down with voters, but sounded like it to me.
I agree with Parramatta moderate. Both Obama and Clinton are too polarising to win the presidency. Only Edwards, or better still Gore, an beat the Republicans.
I’d heard various whispers that Edwards was considering becoming the VP on Obama’s ticket…. Or trying to, rather.
That would create a nice North/South split for the Dems
dyspnoeia,
accoding to that it will end in a Clinton/Romney contest.
???????? Do you reckon???????
With 55% reporting it’s C 39% to O 37%
Sorry to be completely stupid about US elections, but what does 2 Delgates each indicate??
And ESJ-
as disappointed I may be if Obama does not get up as the candidate , the real issue is to see the end of the Republican/neocon/ fundies hold on the US, and by association the entire western world.
To this aim I think Adam and I (and most bloggers on PB )would be completely aligned.
No matter your political inclination, the betting markets for the US election have been beyond wild.
There was serious money to be had on NH for the wise punter.
If the Repugs win, the Supreme Court lurches even further to the right.
Nice article at http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080107/OPINION/801070309/0/FRONTPAGE
Jen
I’m holding fire until Super Duper Tuesday – only 4 weeks away. Unless of course the next few primaries establish a clear trend (Florida should be interesting). Craven, I know – but I feel that this race is less well defined between leading candidates than ever before. Right now Obama and Clinton are too close together to say who has the momentum and the spending strategies of Guiliani et al will skew the results on the GOP side of the sheets.
Feb 5 will see almost half the states and over half the population go to the polls.
But Clinton v Romney would be fascinating! And scary . . .
BTW, the US ABC site has a ‘Which Candidate Do You Agree With?’ poll. For the record mine were Kucinich and Gravel – looks like I bombed out big time!
The link to the ABC candidate site (a la 202) is:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/page?id=3623346
Hillary continues to streak ahead. Lead is now 4374 with 62% counted.
dyspnoeia, you are probably being very wise holding off until feb 5: it’s just been very exciting considering the possibility of such a huge shift in the American psyche. Ah well….
(I also got Kucinich`- obviously the favioured choice for lefties/Greens etc.
wonder who ESJ would get?)
I take my hat of to Adams calmness and thank my lucky stars I had placed my bets on Hillary. I really thought I had done my doe.
Clinton 65 129
Obama 60 766
with 63% counted.
Democratic primaries are conducted on a proportional system – i.e. delegates are won in proportion to the vote, provided the share of the vote is more than 15%.
Hmmmm perhaps democrats there agree with Adam, very wise of them.
For the Democ-rats this appears to be their election to lose. That being said, I’m surprised to see that their two frontrunners (Clinton and Obama) have such serious shortcomings that they may actually manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
McCain (and probably Guiliani) represent the GOP’s only hope to retain control of the WH this November.
I don’t think all the Obama supporters should get too pessimistic yet. There is along way to go in this race yet. How Edwards and Richardson react will be crucial. They may well see themselves as VP and Sec of State under Obama. If they support him, he will probably win.
And on the bright side, EVERY candidate is better than Bush (perhaps except Thompson), so we can’t lose. It’s just a matter of how much we win by.
I got Kucinich, Gravel then Bidden. Would have been worried if it said Huckabee.
ESJ, you were right, adam was on the money. The more I read about US primaries, and how unrepresentative Iowa is, I agree with the call to stop them (Iowa) going first. It is bad for both sides. How much money did Republicans waste on Huckabee after Iowa? It would be if we started with the Northern Territory and ACT, and assumed they were representative of the six States.
I got Gravel and Obama. Phew
(On a new computer so I’ll try again William)
I don’t think all the Obama supporters should get too pessimistic yet. There is along way to go in this race yet. How Edwards and Richardson react will be crucial. They may well see themselves as VP and Sec of State under Obama. If they support him, he will probably win.
And on the bright side, EVERY candidate is better than Bush (perhaps except Thompson), so we can’t lose. It’s just a matter of how much we win by.
Jeez, I was reading this a couple of hours ago and given to understand that Obama was about to become President. I guess Edward and Adam might have had a clue after all!
After 7 years – you lefties still can’t help yourselves with the Bush-bashing can you? The pathetic thing is, he’s not even on the ticket.
According to CNN, The Associated Press just called NH for Hillary, go girl.
Can I crow? Can I effing crow a bit?. This is what I wrote on the previous thread:
“#644- The Finnigans Says:January 7th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
I predict Hillary will win NH. Why? Because on the debate yesterday, John Edward “ganged up” with Obama to
have a go at Hillary. I am quite sure that Obama wasn’t too pleased about it, judging from his expression”.
Yes Jen – that exactly what I was saying –
#649 – jen Says: January 7th, 2008 at 10:29 pm – The Finnigans-not sure that I understand. You appear to be saying (correct me if I’m wrong) that Hillary will win because her rivals are strongly opposing her? ie: she would lose if they supported her?
#645 – asanque Says: January 7th, 2008 at 10:11 pm – I predict Hillary won’t win NH. She is $5 at the bookies compared to $1.10 for Obama.
All polls are pointing to Obama. Why wouldn’t Obama be pleased at Edwards backing him up?
Please explain.
I’d be pretty confident that Clinton has New Hampshire won.
A-C – The Bush Presidency has been an unmitigated disaster for the US and the world.
His current approval rate is 30% and he has made mistake after mistake.
For anyone to continue to support him beggars belief.
Its great he’s not on the ticket, and even if he was, he would have lost even more heavily then at the mid-terms.
Good riddance.
Congrats those that called it for Hillary, commiserations for the Obama supporters. But let’s not forget it’s all about getting rid of the GOP.
CNN has finally plucked the courage to call NH for Hilary after 79% of votes counted. Effing idiot!!
You don’t have to be a lefty you just have to have open eyes on ANY objective measure he has been a failure for his nation and much more importantly the world. In fact give me any objective measure on which Bush has been a good administration?
If Clinton won with a massive turnout (which all the Obama fans indicated was a sure indication Obama was energising independents) then I think our analysis needs to go a bit deeper than fox news grabs.
The Finnigans: Obama was actually down to 1.01 and Hillary at 100-1 to win prior to counting.
Its rare to see the betting markets and polls both wrong, but I guess it does happen.
I don’t mind predictions that Hillary will win, however your reasoning for the Hillary win was not logical. How Edwards teaming up with Obama in the debate would assist Hillary is still unclear.
Hillary looks like taking the win, and it comes down to the long-term trend in polls, which did show Hillary ahead in NH for most of last year.
Although I predicted the Obama win on polls and betting markets, never let idealism outweigh pragmatism as I said in my earlier post.
Although I really should have hedged at 30-1
Got Biden, then Obama, then Clinton. given that Biden has dropped out, I am happy with that.
I don’t actually think that Clinton (or Obama) were out of the race before NH primary, nor should they be. Raising any candidates as winner is far too early.
I just don’t think that Obama would be unelectable as Adam seems to imply straight from the Clinton campaign speaking points. Way too strong to say he is unelectable – seems to be simple prejudice (not because of race, but probably ideology or a simple liking for Clinton).
To me, I find Obama more interesting because he speaks positively about the future, whereas Clinton does not. Overall would be happy with either one of them.
#218 – Jen, Obama’s time will come. But not yet. I just don’t want to see a good and beautiful life cut short by the lunatics.
Oh really? I’d say revamping the military (raped by the other Clinton) and preventing anymore S11 style terror attacks on US soil gives him some bragging rights…
But (sigh) according to Asanaque, an approval rating in the 30’s is indicative of disaster.
Wait! What about St. Paul? Mr 17%? How does that dazzling success of a PM fight into Asanaque’s logic?
I actually got McCain, Gravel then Obama.
As I said, I don’t mind McCain but I think at 72 years of age, he is getting too old for presidency.
A-C: How exactly is revamping the military a success?
The military needed revamping due to the unmitigated disaster of Iraq which showed just how stretched the military was.
This is not mentioning the tremendous cost in money and human life.
Preventing September 11 terror attacks is good. However, those who sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither. Terrorist attacks in the US are hardly prevalent in any case. The question should be: Has Bush’s presidency reduced terrorism worldwide? The answer is no.
Who cares about Paul? What does that have to do with Bush’s presidency?
The ‘inevitable’ candidate pipping the distant second is not a great result. Hillary will be heartened to have not lost both opening states, but she will still be shaken by Obama’s performance. It is now a 2 horse race, not what she was expecting.
It will also be interesting to see what Edwards does now – whether he chooses to battle on, and if not, how his supporters fall.
A-C, change horses boss! Get on a new Republican. The Bush credibility has long bolted, along with most of the Project for a New American Century arguments.
For anyone to claim that Bush “prevented” a terrorist attack is pure speculation unless a definite attack was proven to be imminent, and it wasstopped. At best another one hasn’t happened – yet.
And given Bush’s assistance in intensifying hatred of extremist Islamics towards the west Many people believe the likelihoos d is even greater than before.
So , what else has he done that was worthwhile?
Along with Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al. The “Hawks” (vultures).
“I want to congratulate Sen. Clinton on her hard fought victory in New Hampshire,” Obama said in a concession speech moments ago.
I wonder whether Hillary’s win will garner more strident support form the Obama supporters at he next vote, or whether she will benefit from the Momentum factor?
Which Democratic candidate would fare better in the one-on-one debates that come later with the Republican nominee, whoever that may be, but probably John McCain? I have absolutely no doubt it is Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama is great on the inspirational high-blown rhetoric – stirring stuff no quesiton – but on the few occasions I’ve seen Obama engaged in specific debate on specific policies, he looks somewhat at sea, far less assured, far too inexperienced.
A-C, does revamping the military equal the walter reed debacle, a military at breaking point, and desertions, recruitment shortfalls and plunging morale?
how about preventing a repeat of sept 11? because something that had never happened before hasn’t happened again is an endorsement of the incumbent? if you’re australian you must be a liberal. that’s exactly the kind of bobble-head-elvis-on-the-dashboard lucky charm candidate that liberal party voters love.
grown ups know that nations aren’t run with bags of magic fairy dust and that leaders don’t come with magical pairs of underpants that exert a protective field over one’s nation. i know you’re just a troll but you’re also an excellent example of the irrational voter, which, sadly, seems to be a rather large component of the electorate.
gam -don’t despair.
The A-C’s of this country just got shafted don’t forget.
revamping the military … you have to be kidding …
dropping entry requirement to account for inability to hit recruiting targets
insufficient troops to do more than lose in Iraq
significantly at fault for the tide turning against democracy in Afghanistan….
leaking billions of $
oh it is a great military story…
preventing a second … you have to pretend the first one wasn’t on his watch to even get to that point … but nice try….
for the record I’ve not predicted Hillary will win either the nom or the presidency, it is just my view she should. The Americans have paid NO attention to my view since Clinton. Think they can slide a Chelsea presidency in say in 16 – 20 years?
Obama needed NH more then Hillary.
Hillary still maintains a 20 point national lead.
Unless Edwards joins Obama it will be extremely hard for him at this point.
I see its U-2 for Obama vs. Tom Petty for Hillary in the firing-up music.
Hillary leads by 6202 – which is 2%. A small margin (McCain trumped Romney by a 10% margin). I imagine this means Clinton and Obama will have a similar number of delegates from NH – which will make it, in effect, a draw.
i might also point out that bush recived a breifing entitled “bin laden determined to strike in us” on august 6th 2001.
it had warnings such as:
* the title was Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US
* a large attack was planned
* the attack would be on United States soil
* target cities of attacks included New York City and Washington, D.C.
* the World Trade Center bombing was explicitly mentioned
* hijacked plane missions were anticipated
* people living in, or traveling to, the United States were involved
* recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York was witnessed.
it’s quite a leap to then turn around and heap praise on bush for the fact that an unlikely even he was given cause to be alert for hasn’t happened again. if the fire department slept through a blaze that killed your family would you give the. a prize 6 years later because your house hasn’t burned down again?
gam- I also am amazed that the Neocons would bring up 911 as well. It happened on Bush’s watch! Thet will never live that down. Tough on terror evidently means allowing the greatest terrorist action against America to succeed.
Flash @ 234
Rasmussen Reports have interesting polling on different match-ups and indifferent states – also an interesting article by Dick Morris on Hillary’s campaign. But of course their polling on NH (37%-30%) was wrong!
CNN now showing that the 22 delegates are Split
Clinton 9
Obama 9
Edwards 4
So essentially, neither Clinton nor Obama won the primary… Edwards now has the deciding vote!
The momentum will of course re-invigorate Hillary, but there’s still a very long way to go.
re; accuracy of polliing.
I’ve been checking out some of the sites Bludger’s have recommended, and am struck by the large differences between some of the polls. Don’t think our pollers had quite the disparity shown in the US. Is there any particular reason for this?
Pollsters, that is.
Rates Analyst-
this is the bit I don’t get. If the vote goes to Hillary, but the Delegates are equally divided then what happens next??
Agree Jen. We need an American William (perhaps Billy) or Possum (perhaps Chipmunk) to help guide us through this maze of polls.
Non-compulsory voting makes it much harder.
Here you just need a representativ sample of a known relatively well-defined group – there you need a representative sample of a self-selecting amorphous group.
And the 3-way and 4-way elections make it more difficult too.
Primaries also have less of a “rusted-on” factor. So there’s actually likely to be more scope for large swings. Look at the Republicans – legitimate candidates have between 37% (McCain) and 9% (Guiliani).
Clinton has won, but in reality it is a draw. 9 Delegates each meaning that overall Obama is in teh lead.
Jen,
Approximately nothing happens next.
We move to the next primary with the 22 delegates selected here.
In the proportional representation wash-up, Clinton has been marginally dudded, in the sense that she got more votes but the same number of delegates (read seats).
When all the delegates gather the delegates vote – and the difference between 37% and 39% in NH is meaningless….. I believe you need marginally over 2000 delegates to win the Democratic nomination.
The effect on the media story-lines and the momentum will be big, but the actual delegates won: worthless.
Although Clinton has not won a majority of the delegates here, she currently is likely to have an inbuilt advantage in that she has the support of most of the ’superdelegates’ who get to make up their own mind who to vote for.
Jen @ 245
The pollsters work on previous election to work out the numbers of republicans, democrats and independents that will vote. In this case the numbers have changed quite a far amount and the pollsters are trying to compensate. The problem is that every state is different and will have very different turnouts from one another. In Iowa it appears that there was a much greater number of independents voting on the Democratic side than usual. In New Hampshire there was a greater number for the Democrats but not to the same magnitude as Iowa. It appears they liked the idea of voting for McCain in the Republican race as much as Obama. This may have a lot to do will the media giving an easy win to Obama before the polls had even opened.
This story from 4 years ago tells some of the problems of polling.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A41186-2004Jan23?language=printer
If ‘experience’ means anything, the Republicans have more of it:
Guiliani, New York Governor at time of 9/11.
Huckabee, Arkansas Governor.
Romney, Massachusetts Governor.
McCain, long time Arkansas Senator.
versus
Clinton, President’s wife, governor’s wife, New York Senator.
Obama, Illinois Senator, former state senator.
Edwards, former North Carolina Senator.
Richardson, New Mexico Governor.
Phil @ 255
I think you mean mayor with regard to Giuliani
The polling in these small state primaries has been umm, disappointing.
Only the Des Moines Register in Iowa was close to right. That coup was apparently based on excellent local knowledge driving the sampling (they did they same job in 2004 as well). All the others in Iowa and every single one in New Hampshire have been well off. Sometimes by twice their margin of error. Not realiable, to quote Toby Zeigler, not within driving distance of reasonable.
This year is different for the following reason.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/08/561999.aspx
Phil Robins @ 255 – I suspect that having been a state governor doesn’t count for much. State premiers here haven’t fared that well when they’ve moved to federal politics. Indeed, state politicians rarely make an impact federally.
Seems to me that the second most important bit to being a good Prez is picking the right cabinet – which is surpassed only by not being an ignorant, lazy fruitloop!
Sorry, yes Guiliani was mayor.
Governors count for something. George W was Governor of Texas, Jimmy Carter Govrnor of Georgia, Bill Clinton Governor of Arkansas, Ronald Reagan Governor of California.
Senators rarely become President. I think JFK was the last one to do it.
I suspect a Senator is going to do it this time!
Senator Obama!!!!!!!
MayoFeral@259
It is problematic to compare US and Aust politics on any level. In the US State Governers tend to do much better than Washington insiders. Here are the Presidents of the last 30 years:
Bush – Governor (2 terms)
Clinton – Governor (2 terms)
Bush snr – VP, CIA Director, UN Ambassador, Congressman (1 term)
Reagan – Governor (2 terms)
Carter – Governor (1 term)
I can’t believe it! I have egg on my face! I predicted that Obama would win this primary. What about the bookies? They were offering 100/1 Hillary. What a joke! Only in the mighty US of A!
The place is a dive. You can sue over a hot cup of coffee!. You can sue over throwing a snowball! You can sue McDonalds for making you fat!
An idiot like Dubya has won two elections! The terminator is govenor of California! (Arnie can barely speak English for god’s sakes).
At least I got the Republicans right (McCain 1 Romney 2).
I feel for Kirribilli Removals, mate, the silent majority have kicked your butt purple.
Slate’s take:
More at http://www.slate.com/id/2181584/
Meanwhile the 50 state PJ drip feed continues with Michigan on the 15th. Ain’t this fun?
I think that Democrats want a fighter all right – against the Republicans. The trouble with Obama is that he doesn’t talk about taking the fight to the Republicans but pretends it’s not necessary. I think he is more a result of the demoralisation of the Democrats than their hopes (which is much the same thing).
Obama is also much more of a hawk than some people on this thread seem to suggest.
Just imagine how destructive all this public infighting and hostility within the parties must be during the primary process, Dem and Rep. It must give the opposition a lot of ammo when it switches to Dem vs Rep.
Centre @ 264 – Did you take the 100/1, or did the odds cause a rethink?
If they did, Google “Bill Waterhouse” + “Felipe Ysmael” + “Red Handed”
It is fun, but if a couple of dainty barbs from Hillary and Big Bad Bill can deflate Obama’s balloon (I not convinced that happened, it could be other factors, it could be crap polling) just think what 10 minutes in the full glare of Republican attack attack could do to that fragile balloon.
I am as convinced as ever that the vast ‘unknowns’ of Obama will be a weakness far far greater than vast known ‘evils’ of Hillary.
And to put ‘President’s wife’ as if she was some kind of cookie baker while her husband ran the country would be quite unfair. She was actively involved, and in some failures (medicare I think). Just because her husband had time to smoke (or not) cigars is no reason to think she didn’t know what was going on. The current incumbent in the job doesn’t really know what is going on so it is hard to measure experience in purely job description terms. And the MSM are playing her as the hardened inside professional politician with bucket loads of experience. I don’t think that will be her area of weakness.
Good afternoon Bludgers
Having twisted my ankle climbing over Khmer ruins yesterday, I am having a quiet day at the keyboards.
Now I’d like to say “I told you so” about NH, but I did in fact think Obama would win, and that Clinton would catch up with him only on Super Tuesday when the big cities start to vote. I should have backed my instincts (or prejudices) and picked her for NH. I did however correctly identify the REASON why Clinton won.
So what happened? My answers:
1. The white working class – moderately liberal on social and economic questions, hawkish on security questions, not keen on Harvard intellectuals or people called Barak Hussein – turned out in force to vote for Clinton as the mainstream Democrat candidate.
2. Women voters seem to have rallied to Clinton after the bucketting she got in the press. Her little emotional moment yesterday must have helped.
3. Obama’s forces (young college-educated liberals) seem to have got a bit complacent and failed to turn out. (Don’t forget the distorting effect of voluntary voting on predictions and expectations).
4. The much touted independents seem also to have decided that Obama had it won, so they went and voted for McCain in the Repub primary.
5. The Bradley effect, sadly, showed itself to be still with us. As I said last week, the white liberals in Iowa, who had to declare their votes face-to-face, had to vote for the black guy to show how liberal they were. Given a secret ballot in NH, they didn’t.
It seems support for Obama is quite soft amongst the Poll Bludgers.
At the moment Obama and Edwards are splitting the progressive vote between them, together they are winning a clear majority. If they can join forces they can beat the Clinton camp. Have faith bludgers. Obama in ‘08.
Edwards has said he won’t drop out come what may, so that’s a vain hope right now. (But if he doesn’t win South Carolina he’ll come under a lot of pressure to withdraw.) If Clinton carries New York, California and Florida on Super Tuesday, she’ll be pretty unstoppable.
Mayo F, no I did not take the 100/1. It’s so incomprehensible to offer such odds about a second favourite in a three horse race unless she had absolutely no chance.
Although I will say this about the Americans. They couldn’t even pick their nose in front of a mirror. Their markets are very volitile over there and they seem to weigh last start form or hype too heavily.
Whilst I am strongly opposed to the US style “first past the post” collegent voting system where the party with the most votes gets to elect 100% of the state representatives on the electoral college, I find the method used in the primaries to determine who is preselected to represent a given party to be of interest. I wonder how a system of primaries would work under the Australian multiple party preferential voting system?
#Adam, always trust your instinct. Never do a Gerard Henderson. Another reason that Hillary will win and go on to win the Prez is that She is finally saying that “elect me, I am the first female Prez candidate”. Carl Bernstein said that this afternoon.
She said it herself that she has found her own voice. The teary moment also confirmed this and when she said: “It’s hurt” whe she was asked why many people don’t seem to like her.
I also wrote on the other thread:
“Edward did not “back” Obama. He was simply trying to hop on the “change train”. If I were to advise Hillary, I would suggest that she could kill the “change train” stone dead with one statement: “You want change? I am offering the biggest change in the US history. The first US female President. How many female US Prez has there ever been? These gentlemen are the status quo, not me”. That’s the risk she has to take. It might not work, but it will kill the “change train” stone dead.
The Finnigins (275), I think the problem with Clinton’s tactics so far is that she has not picked up on the anti-politics mood like Obama has. Also she keeps on focussing on Bush rather than the Republicans that will replace him. Where I think she started to be more effective was in talking about the ‘invisible’ people, e.g. on gas prices, which is the type of anti-politics move used by Rudd. I think as the primaries move on Democrats will have to start thinking of taking on the Republicans and Obama has much less to say on that. Obama is a feel-good candidate for a demoralised party.
Australians would expect any primary elections to be preferential. So if Labor voters were choosing a Labor candidate for a seat, there would be multiple candidates and they would do preference deals among each other, just as already happens in internal Labor Party elections. The difference would be that Labor VOTERS would choose the candidate not Labor MEMBERS, so the whole dynamic would be different. Since it would be a private election, voting would of course be voluntary. The real problem would be determining who is a Labor voter. In the US this is done by partisan registration – when you enrol to vote you register as a Democrat or a Republican (or whatever else you like). Depending on state law, that entitles you to vote in your party’s primary. To do this in Australia would require a law allowing partisan registration.
Adam, if Australia had the primary system for leader of each party before the election, do you think Rudd would have won it. I know the system is different, but I think one of the popular State premiers like Beatty would have won. And I bet Nelson would not be in, it would definitely be Turnbull.
Quatrain 2008
The mavens of old familys will be expelled,
The black fraud will be shamed and exposed,
The old warrior will rule in the mightiest kingdom and be honoured.
OK now we’re discussing electing party leaders, not primary elections for candidates. British Labour has a three-part election process, with members, affiliated unions and MPs all getting a vote. The ALP could copy that system, or it could go to a vote in which all Labor VOTERS choose the party leader. The problem with that is that it’s a very slow and expensive process. How could Rudd have challenged Beazley under such a system? It would have paralysed the party for months, and allowed Howard to call a snap election while Labor was leaderless. Personally I’m in favour of sticking with Caucus choosing the Leader. A Leader must have the confidence of his/her parliamentary colleagues, and Caucus members are best placed to judge the calibre of their colleagues. I think primary elections for candidates, plus Caucus election of leaders, gives a proper balance of mass participation v inside knowledge.
That’s not a quatrain, you clot. A quatrain always has four lines, duh.
Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?
The Finnegans @ 275
By your logic Obama undoubtedly will say he will be the first black president. personally I do not care if the person is black white, make or female or in between. Whether they live in an electorate or not. I am also totally opposed to presidential system of government preferring the democratic parliamentary model. “Where there is no counsel the people fall but in the multitude of councillors there is safety”. There are more checks and balances under a parliamentary system of governance then there is under a presidential “rule by decree” dictatorship.
Adam: Your comments on the system of primaries is interesting but you failed to outline your opinion.
Diogene yes I agree I think you are right as opening up the preselection to non-party members would run the risk of a more populists government but I would think Australia would still maintain the parliamentary model and hopeful reject any notion of a directly elected head of state or prime-minister. The prime-minister would still be elected from and by the elected parliamentary representatives.
If we had a primaries system of preselection who do you think would have been preselected to Represent the Greens in the Victorian Senate. Di Natale or David Risstrom? Should a primaries pre-selection system apply to both the Senate and House of Reps. or just one house only? I suppose the other question is do we really need a Senate? and should the states have equal representation disproportional to the number of constituents?
Quick question to the experts
What happens to Edward’s delegates if/when he drops out. Can he unilaterly direct then to one candidate?
Guys if ur gonna talk about howw many delogates they won u should stop wasting ur time and wait until super Tuesday and then ignore every state except California.
In my opinion this was very bad news for Obama. In my opinion his position was far more fragile than it appeared. It will now be far harder and more important for him to do well in South Carolina.
Clinton has a far greater advantage in Super Tuesday. More conservative states like Oklahoma, kansas,Tennessee, Colorada, Alabama,Georgia and Arkansas (plus Bill effect). She will also do well in New York and New Jersy cause of her Senatorship.
Although if he regains momentum ,California can be his. And could get good showig from a significant portion of the black community in Alabama and Georgia. He could also do well in his home Illinois and nieghbouring Missouri.
I would expect him to do well in democrats abroad(22 delogates i think).
Unfortunatly for Obama many of the states i would think that would be kinder to him are after Super Tuesday. Pennsylvania, Washington, Oregon,Wisconsin, Maryland. AS well as the Blackest states Louissiana and missipi.
Adam you might know. under who’s jurisdiction is the Senate elections conducted. federal or state? Who issues the write for the Senate? The GG or the State Governors?
I saw a report where they said that if one candidates does not receive 14% of the vote then supporters of that candidate can decide who they wish to support or they can decide to obtain from the vote.
Another question to Adam. What was the outcome of the Instant Run-off referendum in the US
Senaye watch/ Melb city
how do you manage to still discuss Risstrom/ DiNatale on a thread about the US primaries?
sorry: SenaTe watch/Melb city
An important reason why Obama will find it much tougher going forward is that the primary is now moving to states where in some, independents are not allowed to vote.
Senate watch, my opinion is that I favour primaries, at least for Labor. (I don’t care what the Libs do.) But I am aware of the great practical problems involved.
Work to Rule: If a candidate drops out their delegates are freed to vote for whomever they like. The candidate cannot direct them.
Senate watch 2: What do you mean by “conducted”? The AEC conducts Senate elections, as I’m sure you know. The writs are issued by the state Governors on the advice of their premiers, at the request of the Gov-Gen, who is acting on the advice of the PM. Ah the joys of Westminster federalism.
I have no knowledge of an “Instant Run-off referendum” in the US.
Two weeks ago Hillary was supposed to have had it ended by now. Three days ago, Barack was meant to have already won. Now we are really back where we started. It is a genuine 2 horse race – Hillary came back from the dead today. It was by no means a decisive win, particularly in a State where the Clinton brand is very popular. From here Hillary has the machine, Barack the charisma (just like at the beginning). It really could go either way, and I’m not sure there will be a decisive winner until a while after 5 Feb, unless someone has a big stumble, which seems unlikely. For now, I still have my money on Obama, given the support he has in the presses, plus his overall performances in both Iowa and NH.
Jen, it must be difficult, but madcap determination can take one far.
I’m not really fussed, all the Democrats seem to be a little bland vanilla to me, 6 of one, half-dozen of tother, but 10,000 % improvement on their predecessor.
Such a large country, 3rd most densely-packed country on the planet – no wonder it has such strong and diverse local region-based cultures that would swing all over the geographical spectrum, further complicated by voting-on-a-whim of the day, the weather, attention-span and interest of diverse demographics.
My wild guess-bet goes with Obama for Nom & Pres, because sexism still trumps racism, in the OK-to-hate category.
Its OK to be sexist, quite normal and acceptable for liberals and right-wingers alike. Its not OK to be racist.
My guess is Clinton will be trashed-and-burned. Setting them up that way in opposition to each other (while weird to me, coming from two-party systems which has a strong public-face ethic of Party Platform Unity etc)
also breeds publicly sanctioned ‘horizontal hostility’, for the media vampires, much better to see a woman go down, than the mild-mannered black man who reminds people of Martin Luther King Jnr.
As Gloria Steinem op-ed’d in the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html
“Black men were given the vote a half-century before
women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women..”
“….he is seen as unifying by his race, while she is seen as divisive by her sex…… she is accused of *playing the gender card* when citing the old boys club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights struggles …”
According to French’s late 80s essay “Men, Women, and Power”, women only get into positions of power when:
a) They are no longer positions of power in fact ; or
b) they out-man the men (or “men-with-boobs” model eg Thatcher); and/or
c) They have strong male support from within the ruling class (as in some Asian, Middle-Eastern etc). Better to have a wife/daughter/sister etc of a ‘Great Male Lineage’ from a high caste, than a lower-caste male. (aka “honorary man” model)
Though arguably the USA might be declining, temporarily, or starting a longer-term decline, (as other great empires have risen and fallen over time), its still very powerful and its Presidency is one of the most constitutionally powerful of all Republics.
I just can’t see them giving it to a woman, let alone one who might actually think for herself
I wonder if those twats with “Iron My Shirt” placard that turned up at a Hillary rally, actually gave Clinton a small boost. From what I saw of the news coverage of the incident she actually handled those fools very well, had a killer comeback.
If the Republicans supporters act like that in November, and appeal to a small portion of their base that are a couple of centuries behind collective consciousness, they’ll lose a lot more than New Hampshire.
rain.
I’m in a quandry. As a long-time feminist I would like nothing better than to see a woman as POTUS. However , as admirable as Hillary is in many ways (and if she is the Dem candidtae then clearly I hope she trounces the Repugs), but she is too connected with the recent history of the US, and I really want to see a change of culture. And I imagine my dilemma as an Australian,with no capacity to influence the outcome, may be echoe by many American women and male liberals. I can’t get past the fact that she supported the invasion of Iraq, and Obama opposed it.
Rain- I put this survey up earlier. American are more racist than sexist according to this. They are even more religionist (?).
Gallup poll in the US asking whether they would vote for a candidate who was otherwise well-qualified if the candidate was
1. a woman (95% would)
2. Roman Catholic (94% would)
3. Jewi#h (92% would)
4. black (92% would)
5. Mormon (79% would, incidentally not a good sign for Romney)
6. homosexu#l (79% would)
7. atheist (49% would)
Diogenes,
That is what I am thinking. The fact the the Bush Maladministration had Condi (black AND female) has probably lessened the First Female In Power factor. I still think that a black candidate will be harder to get across the line.
Jen – This is like the argument that Nicole Cornes shouldn’t have been a Labor candidate because she once voted Liberal. You can’t win marginal seats without persuading people who once voted Liberal that they should now vote Labor, and who better to do this than someone who themselves once voted Liberal? Likewise, since the great majority of Americans initially supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime, no Democrat will be elected President without winning the support of a lot of those people. So who is better placed to do that? Someone who says, like Obama, “I was right and you were wrong, so now you have to admit you were wrong by voting for me”? (That’s what McGovern said in 1972 about Vietnam and it did him no good at all.) Or someone who says, like Clinton, “We were right in principle but the Repubs have totally stuffed it up, so let’s get them out so we can fix up their mess without handing Iraq over to the jiahdis”? My money is on the latter.
Diogenes, the “won’t vote Black” figure needs to be at least doubled to get close to the real figure, unless the poll gave them a secret ballot.
Interesting question.
Is racism more influencial than sexism?
Benazir Bhutto/ Indira Ghandi/ Margaret Thatcher/ Queen Elizabeth, Victoria etc.
All in inherently misogynitic societies got to the top by birth or election.
Not too many blacks heading those parties/ monarchies.
Adam,
I half agree with your line, except the Nicole Cornes bit: she lost.
(BTW – hope your ankle is better.)
Jen, Obama also never had to vote on Iraq in the Senate, like Clinton, and when he had to vote on increased funding for the war, he did so. So his purity is even more annoying. He is a Wall Street backed hawk but gets no scrutiny.
Jen, the proposition that Queen Victoria inheriting the position of British monarch, while no black person has ever inherited that position, is evidence for the view that racism is more influencial than sexism is so breathtakingly dumb, even for a greeny, that I feel a sudden need for a cup of tea.
Cornes lost for other reasons, which don’t affect my argument. The ankle has responded well to a foot massage, thanks. Bye for now.
Hilary having a cry about not getting any media coverage, and a cry literally to win the election. What next? I want Obama to win because i think he will do more for the little people, Hilary with her machine will be l ike Rudd a nothing.
Especially when Murdoch is backing her.
In the end i think Hilary will get the nomination because the Democrats are very conservative and are not ready to have a leader who is black.
Cornes lost because of the Labors’ arrogant disregard for the electorate.
And because she was a dill.
Hang on, PS
my (admittedly limited) understanding is that voting to increase the funding etc is like voting to allow supply here -ie: you might disagree, but it’s the only way to
allow the fiscal running of the country to continue, without leading to whatever their equivalent of blocking supply is. (Feel free to correct me if I am wrong).
And again , I may be wrong, but I thought that Obama voted against the Iraq invasion and Hillary supported it. Simple as that.
Actually, marky mark, Clinton will probably win because she has more to say to the ‘little people’ than someone who tends to appeal more to college-educated middle class kids. Which is why she won in NH. Where is your evidence that Obama will do more for these ‘little people’?
Simplistically, the answer to the racist vs sexist question is easy. 50% are female and about 15% (guesstimate) are black in the US. I’d prefer to be female than black if running for election there.
Polls! Polls, damned lies and statistics more like it!
Anyway, if New Hampshire went down to the wire for Clinton, then it’s not quite the ‘good look’ that many of her admirers were expecting. So what does it prove? That New Hampshire women would rather rally for a ’sister’ than their Iowan ’sisters’?
Something like that I expect.
The race, (as opposed to the race card), is still wide open, and it will be largely determined by South Carolina in a couple of weeks. Edwards may have been born there, but I seriously doubt he can win it, and if he can only come in a long way back third, his claim to be in this race until the end may take a serious knock.
And how many voters for Edwards will then split to Clinton? There’s the rub. And my hunch is not as many as will go to Obama.
Let’s see.
So far, it’s pretty much a draw, which from Obama’s viewpoint is very good, and a big worry for Clinton, who has only just managed to claw herself back into the race.
If Clinton garnered some ’sympathy’ vote in New Hampshire, it may dissolve just as quickly if she is percieved to be, once again, Hillary the invincible.
I’m still bemused by this notion that a black man with the middle name Hussain cannot get the Democrat nomination or win the vote as president, as it’s sooo 20th century. But hey, that’s just my sense of humour.
I think McCain is the only electable Republican, though he would be much more so if he were 10-15 years younger. McCain has elements of greatness in his life story, and views of his that we might perceive to be too right wing won’t necessarily play that way in America.
I have to agree with Adam that Obama might struggle to beat McCain. Obama has manifest weaknesses and these will have been pointed out, first by the Clintons and then by the Republicans, ad nauseam by November.
Although I liked The Piping Shrike’s analysis of the anti-politics mood during our election, I am not convinced this mood fully applies in the US. I suspect what Americans want more than anything is a competent President (they’ll have had eight years of Bush by election day). Obama may be seen as a risk in this department whereas McCain won’t be, nor probably will Clinton. Whereas here I don’t think lack of competence was what undid Howard with swinging voters, it was more WorkChoices, trustworthiness, age, and the anti-politics mood captured by Rudd’s “let’s end the blame game”.
Although Clinton (and McCain) also have weaknesses, they’ve both been around so long that the current polling probably factors in all the negatives. Obama has plenty of room to sink as people find out more (or discover that there’s nothing of any substance to find out).
I think you can forget the rest of the GOP candidates having a chance at the White House, though someone other than McCain may get nominated. Religion will sink Huckabee or Romney if they get to the main event, and the rest (including Giuliani in my view) fail the competence test.
Adam , no need to be spiteful – you take my point.
Women (alright,not the Bitish Monarchs) get it to power in some unlikely political systems.
Hope you recover a sense of humour along with your improved ankle..
No jen, Obama was a state senator at the time of the vote so did not have to vote on it. He did to his credit speak out against it, but it was much easier to do so from the position he was in. Listen to him at the NH debate, when he supported the Bush pre-emptive strike doctrine on Pakistan.
Actually Jen both supported the invasion. Only person who did not support it is Dennis Kucinch the candidate who i would want out of all the candidates. But he is not a frontrunner so i want Obama or Edwards.
Adam.
Actually, I have to agree with you – it was pretty dumb suggesting that a black male could inherit the British throne. My apologies.
#282 – “The Finnegans @ 275 – By your logic Obama undoubtedly will say he will be the first black president” –
That is exactly the point, Obama will never dare to say that. It will kill his candidacy stone dead immediately. Whereas, Hillary is now saying or showing that she is the first woman candidacy. It was a fantastic year with Kevin07. It will be just as good with Hillary08.
OK fellas – which is it:
He supported it?
did not vote?
did not support it?
Dyno (312), I am not sure I agree with you that the anti-politics mood is any less strong in the US than here but it is less of an electoral issue because of voluntary voting. But I think the difference is that parties are less demoralised than here (especially the Republicans v the Libs) and I think they are less certain to be defeated than the Libs were. I do think Obama is a sign of the demoralisation of the Democrats as he offers them the promise that they can avoid a direct confrontation with the Republicans, which is what they are worried about with Clinton. But again, I think the party machine backing Clinton is less willing to give up and hand over power like they have here with Rudd.
Hmm I think the whole presidential system sucks and is a extreme waste of money an dlimited resources. The so are US lead wars based on false facts and misinformation. The US presidential race must cost well over one billion dollars and look what they got last time. In France they wasted millions of dollars in having a two-round ballot when they could have had just one with a preferential Instant Run-off option. Georgia’s politcial stuggle is still being played out. russia is not much better in the Presidential race. In the USA they do not directly elected the President. I am not so much concerned about the fact that there is an electoral college but more concered about the fact that the highest vote elects 100% of the state representation. Maybe the college should be elected by proportional representation, but then again I can not support any direct election of a head of state model. If I had to vote for a directly elected head of state Australian republic versus a monarch I think I would vote to keep the monarch. (Happy to support a republic on the basis of a parliamentary appointment) Why can not the US Senate and Congress in joint sitting act as the electoral college and appoint the President? And then there is the Florida factor.
Interesting that the US would not support a declared atheists. I guess if they do not like the person elected they will opt for the tried and proven assassination option. How many US presidents have been assignated? Must be the highest number in the so called Western democracy.
Fascinating to watch but thank god we are a parliamentary democracy.
I wonder what Canadians think of it all?
Stephen Hill @ 295
The “Iron My Shirt” signs and the crocodile tears and the ‘finding my voice’ line in her victory speech are classic Clinton, no holds barred campaign tactics. Do you really think that anyone who was motivated enough to do that of their own accord would come up with such a naive, news-friendly slogan to write on their sign?
Of course she had a killer comeback, it was written by the best strike breaking speech writers that money can buy.
Speaking of sisters, flippantly, a moment ago, here’s the arch sister slayer, Maureen Dowd in today’s NY Times:
Hillary sounded silly trying to paint Obama as a poetic dreamer and herself as a prodigious doer. “Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act,” she said. Did any living Democrat ever imagine that any other living Democrat would try to win a presidential primary in New Hampshire by comparing herself to L.B.J.? (Who was driven out of politics by Gene McCarthy in New Hampshire.)
Her argument against Obama now boils down to an argument against idealism, which is probably the lowest and most unlikely point to which any Clinton could sink. The people from Hope are arguing against hope.
At her victory party, Hillary was like the heroine of a Lifetime movie, a woman in peril who manages to triumph. Saying that her heart was full, she sounded the feminist anthem: “I found my own voice.”
…ouch!
Talk about b!tch slapping! Ha, old Hill and Bill don’t get many accolades from Maureen.
Isn’t it also the case that the people elected in various US State primaries are also not able to be controlled by “their” candidate. While the relevant candidates will have approved the delegate list, there is nothing to stop the delegates jumping ship down the track.
That’s exactly what happens eventually if there is no candidate with a majority by the time of the Party Convention which could happen for both major parties this time. Horse trading would then commence in earnest.
That’s why some candidates like John Edwards and probably Romney and Huckabee carry on even though not a chance for No 1. It gives them clout in deciding both No 1 and No 2 positions depending on the washup. They also get more say on the policy issues debated by Conventions (although like our Federal party conferences there seems to be more PR than policy most of the time).
Also does someone know how many of the Convention delegates are elected by each Parties machine and Congress members.
Jen,
Obama spoke out against the war from the beginning. He was against invasion. However he was not a member of the Senate at that stage so did not get a vote. Both Edwards and Clinton voted for the war. Edwards has since said this was wrong and apologised. Hillary has not shown any remorse about her decision for better or worse.
How much of the US presidential race is about positioning to become vice president. How would a Obama and Clinton team fare in the US electorate? My old neighbor Ray use to follow the US elections closely. One of the most informed and knowledgeable commentators on US election system I have met. But give me a Parliamentary system any day. Thanks to Westminster.
Oh its our old friend KR (322) come back, your “predictions” re Obama turned out to be tosh
By the way, someone (Piping Shrike I think), mentioned that Obama was a tad more hawkish than some starry-eyed liberals would like to believe. This comment was prompted by his New Hampshire debate line that he would not wait for Musharraf if he failed to act on ‘actionable intelligence’ regarding al Qaeda or it’s mates.
Funny, but I remember that debate argument as showing that Obama was fully cognisant of Musharraf’s, shall we say, ‘ambivalence’, and would not let him stand in the way of taking out bin Laden or al Zawihiri if it was an urgent matter.
Hawkish? Sounded more like common sense pragmatism to me, in that Musharraf is an ‘inherited’ dictator we ‘had to have’, but not one we have to coddle.
Hawkish? If you will, but it struck me as sounding far less evasive than Hillary’s compendium of South East Asian politcal history that she trotted out as a non-answer.
Thank you Pancho.
So allow me to rephrase my position:
The thing I cannot reconcile is the fact that Hillary supported the invasion of Iraq, whilst Obama opposed it.
God help you if you are catholic (The US religious factor is a real worry) or want to marry a divorcee in Britain. What if William decided to marry someone from India or African decent who was Church of England where would the monarchy be then? Still better then a directly elected head of state as long as they have limited power.
326
Edward StJohn
Firstly, I’ve never bothered to answer your posts on this site before, so this is probably the last! (Serial abusers and pompous gits are not my cup of tea)
I did not make any ‘predictions’ about Obama and New Hampshire, although I did note he was making up a lot of ground in the polls. (I’ve been incommunicado during the last two days EDST).
Secondly, it’s a long long way from ‘over’.
Thirdly, bye bye.
Kirribilli -
sad as I am about today’s result (not very actually, the sauv blanc is doing wonders), the outlook for an absolute drubbing for the GOP is looking very sweet. So, despair not my friend,, and at least Hillary has got the message that if she gets the gig people want a whole new approach, not more of the same shades of grey.
jen,
Don’t forget that plenty of people (including one Kevin Rudd as I recall) supported the invasion on the basis of the info that was made public at the time. Which turned out to be wrong info, of course.
jen,
Hate to be a party-pooper but there’s no reason to assume the GOP will get thrashed. Bush isn’t running this time.
It’s all up to who gets nominated (by both sides).
320
Senate Watch
Agree with you on not wanting to directly elect a president! But from memory, it was Howard’s great gift to act as a ’spoiler’. He wasn’t called a ‘lying rodent’ by his own minister for no good reason: cunning little rat.
Good riddance!
Yes Dyno, and others (including 1 million in Sydney alone) marched in opposition. If the guy on the street can see cooked books, something is up. The universal falling into line on Iraq was supreme weakness, and the fact that there were a whole bunch of them doesn’t really make it any better.
That’s absolutely correct Dyno, which is why I support and do my best to represent, the Greens who were avidly opposed.
Jen how can anyone support the invasion of another sovereign country without UN sanction or justification. The first Gulf War I thought had some justification up to the point of expelling Saddam from Qwaite. The US foreign policy has little to desire. I saw on the news today a protest where the Australian flag was being burnt. (Did I get upset by that act. No). Did not catch who was doing it but I am sure it has more to do with US policy then it has to do with Australia at the arse end of the world.
Rule 1 of Racism. Only White people are racist.
Rule 1 of Sexism. Only men are sexist.
I dont thin it is very fair to compare sexism to racism. For starters women are hardley a minority. In a MDC with womens longer life expectansy they would probably have a longerlife expectansy. To say sexism is the sole cause of well qualified women loosing elections is a massive oversimplification. Those who invoke feminist retorique have trouble. Particualry as to significant younger demographics it sounds like archiac rhetoric from a by gone era not really relevant(living in the past). In many cases particularly if a woman is substantially attractive men are vrey important to getting them elected due to what ive heard called the “bitchiness factor”. Think for example Nicole Kornes. Many of the people who played a role in critisising her throught the media were women. She was held to a higher standard than other back benchers. I also vaguley recall from a poll that Mia Handshin in nieghbouring sturt that more males than females intended to vote for her. As a younger person i know femist rhetoric makes me think of people like Germaine Greer. The civil rights from a retrospective view had less of an “them vs us” tone. That is why it may be seen that being sexist is seen as more socially acceptable than racist.
And surely Bush, Rumsfeld and co. have done such damage to the GOP that they are a long, long way behind.
Kirribilli Removals @ 334 I thought it was the moth from Wills that screwed up that one. But Yes John played his hand. Wonder if Kev07 ill try his hand at getting it right. I would love a flag that I get upset about being burnt.
333 – except for polling, bookies odds and the turnouts at Dems primaries so far. All signs point to yes. Or at least a clear favourite team.
Senate Watch (337),
Are you sure that Aussie flag wasn’t in India? (In which case it probably had more to do with the attitude/actions of a Tasmanian than a Texan!)
Perhaps KR you would have more credibility if you didnt resort to abuse like calling people paed..ophi.es (like you did on Sunday) when your inanity is exposed.
Cheers
Pancho (341), yeesss, but in the absence of any idea about who the Republican candidate will be, I’m not sure if you can take polls as gospel this far out.
Dems are favourites but far from being certs in my view.
senate watch- sometimes you surprise me.
Scotty –
not quite sure what you are getting at, but I’ll see if it gets clearer after coffee.
331
jen
Oooh, yes Jen, many a nice wine sunk tonight, here too!
Don’t get me wrong, I think Clinton is an excellent choice for Democrat nomination, but only for Democrats, and not even all of them. (Look at the numbers, none of them even get over 40% of their own voters). But if we like to think there are some ‘haters’ in Oz politics, we are pure amateurs compared with the Yanks!
So, anyone who can bridge the divide, be competent, have that magical ‘appeal’, can outdo Clinton against the Republican choice: either a superannuated war vet or a Southern Baptist with a good line in pseudo-self-deprecating humour.
I’ve still got money on Obama, and if I’m wrong, tough, but I won’t be trying to insult anyone who chooses Clinton, (Unlike another unsavoury poster who spends a lot of time being the ‘passive aggresive’ around here!)
I have some idea…it’s a 72 year old ‘maverick’ who is praying that the tactic of securing a few blocks of central Baghdad isn’t uncovered for the fraudulent tripe that it is within the next 9 months. I really don’t think that he could beat either Clinton or Obama.
340
Senate Watch
nah, not much interested in flags per se, but I’d love our own head of state, and let the parliament choose one, so we don’t get this circus that we are so avidly watching at the moment!
348
Pancho
Yep, if ‘events, my dear boy’, happen to catch up on this charade that Iraq is some kind of ’success’, then the wheels will fall off the Rubpicans jaloppy entirely.
(Only Ron Paul had the guts to speak the truth: nothing to lose, I ’spose)
KR (327) Obama was asked in the NH debate what he would do if he was handed intelligence that Al Qaeda leadership was in Pakistan. He answered that he would organise a pre-emptive strike based on intelligence and over-ride the sovereignty of Pakistan. The moderator of the debate quite rightly pointed out that this was in line with Bush’s doctrine which said that a pre-emptive strike on Iraq was justified based on ‘intelligence’. The answer was more hawkish than Clinton who highlighted that such ‘taking out’ of Al Qaeda has not worked before.
Now Obama has spoken out against the Iraq War, sure, but did not have to decide how to vote because he was not in the Senate at the time. I also understand that he has said he is unsure how he would have actually voted if he had had to. When he joined the Senate his voting record with Clinton has been identical including on the Patriot Act and more Iraq funding.
KR, your most recent comment about ESJ has been deleted. Please stop behaving like a child.
Must say KR -
think you’ve been a tad misquoted on #343.
I agree that Obama has the unquantifiable ’something’ that makes him a very different candidate from the Tried and Trues, including Hillary.
However that may mean nothing as the sub-prime mortgages plummet, and more body bags get unloaded at JFK. (notice there are no photos these days??).
Then who would you go for?
Personally, I’d be trying the cleanskin in the hope that something, anything could change.
342
Dyno 342 Yes it could have had something to do with Cricket. A stupid sport if you ask me. The Sea Gull count on the pitch is often more interesting then the match itself.
Jen I have no love for American politics, religion or their foreign policy.
As I understand 40% of Americans vote and you can get selected with less then 40% of the vote. That means the US president represents around 16% of the electorate. The US religious vote frightens the hell out of me. They will be the cause of armageddon if it does eventually I am sure. It is their divine desitiny and goal in life.
Adam what was the outcome of the instant Run-Off referendum?
350
The Piping Shrike
I recall his comments slightly differently. He said, I think, that “if Musharraf failed to act, he would”.
It’s a significantly difference to just acting unilaterally, and as I recall, he explained that difference.
351
William Bowe
Sorry, William, but I didn’t realise ESJ was a ‘protected species’ and allowed to make any obcene innuendo without being challenged.
My apologies, I’ll just do as usual, and ignore his posts from now on.
cheers
(BTW, thanks for this thread, it’s a great balm for an otherwise politcally dull summer!)
KR, which “obscene innuendo” might that be? Saying you called him a paedophile when you had merely called him a molester?
That’s your view, KR (354), and fair enough. I just don’t think the US has the right to over-ride the soveriegnty of another country and make a military attack on that country, whether unilaterally or not.
Jen, you asked whether Obama actually voted for the Iraq war.
as others have pointed out, he wasn’t in the Senate at the time and didn’t have to vote. As TPS said, i think, Obama did speak against it though. However ,that is just cheap rhetoric.
AIPAC, and others, only pressure Senators and Congressman. If Obama had a vote, the odds are are 99-1 on that he would have voted for the War. Like all the candidates on both sides, except Kucinich and Paul, he has shown zero inkling of resisting the pressure from the 51st State of the USA.
However, i still think he offers a tad more hope than another term or two of the Bush/Clinton cartel.
sigh
If there was a vote for a world leader and only head of governments were candidates who would you vote for and who do you think will win assuming a first past the post system was in place? My choice would not be any US politician. Although on the face of it Obama appears to be the best choice of a bad lot. Its Obama, or the boy with the Tom Cruise smile or Hillary who looks all worn out and outdated along with McCain. Again I prefer a parliamentary democracy any day. More checks and balances. Under the presidential system it is the security council that operates as a star chamber executive. Or is there really a masonic like club that calls the shots and unless you have the nod you not going to get anywhere. What happend to Rice
Bernard Black.
Harry H.
i don’t follow your logic.
Obama spoke out against the Iraq war, but if he had been able to vote you know he would have supported it.
Evidence please.
Was just saying sometimes these issues of Race and gender get oversimplfied. There are many contributing factors as to why good “minority” candidates do not always get to the top.
Sheesh -
and Adam gets cross at me for suggesting that Queen Vic should have been black.
Jen,
The logic is called AIPAC pressure. Obama is(atm) an AIPAC man. Obama would have voted for the war if he was a Senator at the time.
take that to the Bank.
And to end on a lighter note
(and this one is also for Hillary)…
“The administation I’ll bring is a group of men and women who are focussed on what’s best for America, honest men and women, decent men and women, women who will service our country as a great privilege and who will not stain the house.”
what’s AIPAC?
You only need to look at the Chasers take on Americans to realise why they vote the way they do.
One thing I like about Australia is that we do not get so upset, as the Americans do, if someone take the piss out of us or makes fun of Australia. But Americans really get defensive. I recall sitting down with some guy from NZ and outcome the sheep jokes and do you have a wide comb in your pocket. The Americans with us could not understand the ANZAC humor which the NZ’s and myself took for granted. They still do not know what “your shout” means. I am sorry but most Americans think they won the second wold war and the cold war. One American I met tired telling a group of East Europeans how much America sacrificed in winning the second world war. I was socked and the American mistook the look on the East Europeans face that they did not understand his English. I do not want to bash-up on the Americans but I see them more as the problem then the solution.
“And how many voters for Edwards will then split to Clinton? There’s the rub. And my hunch is not as many as will go to Obama.”
If Edwards pulls out, then most of his supporters will break for Obama – they are far closer than either is to Clinton.
But in any case I doubt it will happen for a while. This poll makes for interesting reading:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/07/media_coverage/index.html
America Israel Public Affairs Committee. The pro-Israel lobby in the US.
Thanks again Pancho.
So is Obama really a member?
Senate Watch, I think there is a case for direct election of Presidents. Think of some of the great results: Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Lincoln, FDR, Trueman, Kennedy…How many of them would have won a congressional ballot?
And think of some of the shocking duds of the last century that have won in a Westminister system: Chamberlain, Eden, Callaghan, Major, Blair, not to mention our very own Hughes, Bruce, Menzies, Gorton, MacMahon, Howard etc etc…
It is worth asking why so many people don’t bother to vote in the USA. The answer must have something to do with the manipulation of voting districts in the House of Representatives, the abuse of electoral enrolments in many states and the big-money corruption of the Senate. Why would you want to entrust anything serious to the Congress?
HmmmmI do want a republic and I DO want to elect the Head of State. the HoS will not be the head of government, that remains the PM. Like the present GG the HoS will cover mostly ceremonial functions but has his own power base from his election. There would be no millions of dollars of dollars spent on Presidential elections.
All this would be on the Irish model which has worked well for a long time.
Turnbull betrayed the Republican movement IMO by acting for Howard in having the Pres be appointed by Parlt (i.e. Howard) made the model to be brought to the referendum.
Jen and Harry H
I do not think the war on Iraq is seen by American’s as being the big issue this time around. Very few polls are showing Iraq as the major issue and there is quite a big support for it to continue even by those who dislike Bush. Some proof of this was the strong pull of independents by McCain. McCain is a very strong supporter of the war and was one of the key people behind the increase in troop numbers.
How many women have been Governors in the USA
How many black men/women have been Governors in the USA
The failure of the polls to predict Clinton’s win raises some interesting questions: Can it be explained by voluntary voting? Can it be just a matter of wide margins of error? Can it be explained by “machine-politics” – that is, did Clinton have a superior get-out-the-vote apparatus? Or at least, good enough to out-score Obama on the day?
I noted in the exit-poll data that women came out in huge numbers for Clinton, and that the less-well-off also favoured her more than Obama. Is there a well-organised democratic machine in NH, but not in Iowa, where the results were well-predicted by the polls?
If the NH result is machine-driven, what are the implications for other democratic races? Can Clinton win in states where the democrats do not have strong precinct-level teams?
Is Obama the democrat you chose when you’re not really choosing a democrat, in the same way that McCain is the anti-establishment republican?
Tom @ 372
If you vote for a president then s/he is automatically a politician and will have to run on something. If s/he wins s/he has a mandate for what they ran on. This give that person a great deal of power over what happens on a policy level and a government level.
Blindoptimist @ 375
The problems with US polls was talked about earlier in this thread and is interesting reading. What many Australians don’t understand about the US is the wide cultural diversity across states they have. Somebody living in Iowa is very very different for somebody living in New Hampshire.
I’m not a royalist, but I think it is just about impossible to fuse a directly-elected president and a system in which parliament is sovereign. Until this dilemma is solved, we’re stuck with the vestiges of a monarchy. It could be worse. We could have elective Presidents and Governors that we could not easily get rid of. Think of Hollingsworth and Butler. They were problems one day and gone the next – a very good system, that.
I see while I have been away out yonder, there has been a roller-coaster ride with the NH primary, and it has been confirmed that the different voting arrangements in NH compared with Iowa, with a large component of independents voting, plus a secret ballot, has made quite a difference to the result. I also wonder, as Blindoptimist does @ 375 above whether the party machine has started to put the screws on the voters they can control due to its preference for Hillary. But it seems Obama is still thereabouts anyway, which is good.
The other element of interest is the potential for punting on the primaries given the example of the prices obtainable on Clinton. Did I see reported by Asanque 100/1 about Hillary just before the vote, as I scanned through the posts?
There is money to be made with big ‘overs’ like that. The polls weren’t that far wrong. While the polls generally don’t seem as accurate as we’re used to here, because of the US’s arcane voting processes, but a result of that is good value being available on the markets.
Blind Optimist there is no way you could convince me that the costs associated with selecting a president no matter how good they are can be justified. Uliek America we are not governed by 16% of the electorate or one person. Safety in numbers. There is no checks and balances in a presidential system. The US Democrats have the number in both houses and the president issues a directive to ignore the directives of the Senate/Congress. I favour the European model where a head of state has minimal power. Would we have the likes of William Dene as head of state under a direct election model. I doubt it. We would most likely end up with a Bob Hawke. God help us. At the conservative estimate of 1 billions dollars look what America got GW Bush. Putin is looking much much better every day. At least he is supported by a majority of his electorate and not just 16%. The USA is far from what I call a democratic state. Wrong voting system wrong system governance. Little wonder why Europe is leaps ahead of the USA in terms of tolerance and understanding.
Senate Watch @ 367 – Perhaps the cultural tradition for taking the mickey out of ourselves, (as well as anybody else within reach) is something we inherited from the brits? Their TV sitcom humour is much closer to ours than US ever was, total irreverence – along with pots of tea, roast lamb and unfortunately, cricket (in light of recent events – many aussies, as well as Indians seem to have lost their sense of the ridiculous on that scoreboard) Is cricket too sacred a cow to laugh at?
I thought it was hilarious to see the Oz flag burning on the streets of Delhi or wherever, over cricket – but also with a tad of aussie-conditioned fear of open fire in summer… *shudder*
But you are right, Americans do get defensive- not all, I’ve known some otherwise. On my last trip, I figured it’s possibly due to 2 things – one is the constant nationalism and patriotic rituals in schools etc, but the main one is a kind of cultural difference over what is considered good manners and what is “rude” when interacting with strangers in public. They are taught from babyhood, to be very socially formal and polite with strangers, even beggars on are sooo polite – especially in French-Canada, the beggars are bi-lingual polite.
Must be all that Thanksgiving and Show-and-Tell for public speaking training eg I was struck by how children in public, generally tend to be better behaved than Aussie ones are. Our kids are feral in comparison
At one point I was having lunch with an american friend in a hippy-trippy veggo diner in northern California, and the cake bar display had these very large platter-size flat fruit-cake/bread things labelled “Homemade ANZAC Biscuits”. I smiled to myself but didn’t say anything while ordering.
The waitress who served us, overcoming shyness, embarrassment etc – and initially apologising at great length for appearing “rude” – but she had noticed my accent, and my checking out the so-called ‘ANZAC biscuit’ etc,
and apologised again for being so curious, but if its not a personal question, “what did ANZAC stand for?” I told her, along with an its OK, no need to be embarrassed
My friend later explained that, Americans think its very rude, or inappropriate, like an invasion of privacy, to be too “personal”, make irreverent joking conversation in public, or make “personal” comments, or ask questions of strangers (eg “where are you from?” is considered rude), and so on.
I thought …Ohhhh… and we think you are “rude”, unfriendly, cold, distant and “arrogant” etc, because you don’t do all that
This one is for all the pollster nuts! – http://www.pollster.com/
Another interesting point here that the fast moving, last minute change in political decisionmaking beat the pollsters.
http://politicalarithmetik.blogspot.com/2008/01/polling-errors-in-new-hampshire.html
KR @ 327 – The problem with a US strike against a target in Pakistan isn’t whether Musharraf agrees or not, it is how Pakistani’s will react to such an attack, especially if it occurs in one of the tribal areas, which is likely. The place is a ticking bomb and the last thing it needs is some hairy chested ignoramus putting the boot in. Even if Obama didn’t get his foot blow off, Musharraf is likely to loose his head, literally.
The current visit by Shrub to Israel is making me nervous, am I the only one? We are hearing and seeing increasing signs that these lunatics are getting ready to attack Iran and plunge the world even deeper into the maelstrom. I am deeply suspicious of the latest stunt, small rubber boats ‘attacking’ navy patrols. Reminds me of Gulf of Tonkin! Scary times indeed.
Tom @ 372 I could not disagree more with your point of view. I think the turnbull model was the correct model. It was not just supported by turnbull but also cross party support. As I have stated if it is a choice of a monarch or direct election I will opt to keep the monarch. Better though would be a parliamentary appointed head of state. The cost of holding the election alone let alone the politics is enough to say no. How may wind farms, hospitals or nature reserves can be funded by no having a direct election model. Hopefully Austr5alia will never go down that path. I think there is a good case for Ireland to dump their head of state also. What’s next you want to directly elect the judiciary or ambassadors. A direct appointment by two thirds constitutional parliamentary majority, if required, would also be acceptable but not direct election.
I think I will Barak for Obama because I think Clinton is Hilarious.
Steve @ 383 – very interesting
From your link, Politicalarithmetik, on the underestimation in the polls of Hillary’s vote (The polls were much more accurate on Obama’s final vote, strangely). Some of the differences over there compared to here that probably caused the polls’ error are mentioned for future reference – optional voting, limited electorate, a more reactive electorate to media. All grist to the punters’ mill!:
Told you so
From ABC News (US) – “Hillary Bashing Put Her in Favorable Light – Clinton’s surprise comeback came after a debate in which Obama and Edwards appeared to have become a tag team to criticize Clinton, triggering an outburst by the former first lady eager to defend herself against accusations that she is the candidate for the status quo”
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4109912&page=1
Great discussion on what constitiutes the greater baggage for a POTUS wannabe, gender or ethnicity.
While being simultaneously lesbian, black and an atheist might still be a bit of an electoral handicap Stateside in the foreseeable future, consider this tangentially related event.
In what was formerly a bastion of white bigotry, the South African Rugby Union, a black man, Peter de Villiers, has just been appointed Coach of the World Champs.
Attitudes change, sometimes rather quickly. The sociological soup is peppered with the spice of possibility, so one can’t “guess who’s coming to dinner” with any degree of certainty.
Disclaimer: academic rigor was not implemented in the composition of this general observation.
388 JV, if we look back out the back of the bus to Iowa we find that the polls got Clinton support levels right and were underestimating Obama’s support at that stage.
http://politicalarithmetik.blogspot.com/2008/01/iowa-2008-trend-entrance-poll-and.html
389 Finnigan – ["Hillary bashing Put Her In Favourable Light"]
And this helped too:
from our ABC News online -
['Teary moment 'helped Clinton win'
Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe has admitted her much-publicised teary moment helped her achieve her narrow win in yesterday's New Hampshire primary.] –
Even more sympathy if you cry after the bashing, apparently. Is the electorate really this soft? Maybe Bambi should be drafted to stand for president.
When you think of it that isn’t so crazy – after all, an animated character is the next logical step after all the B grade actors they’ve had over there.
368
Pathological Logic
Good article by Greenwald, and yes, the media are even worse than here, (if that’s possible!)
I liked this:
Just compare the anti-Clinton media histrionics over the fact that she “raised her voice” (very mildly) during the debate with their endless love for McCain, one of the most tempermental and uncontrollably angry political figures in the country.
I recall pointing out a few days back that McCain is notoriously unstable, but someone tried to tell me that he was mellow! He is not known to be, nor does he ‘toe the party line’ all the time. Maverick, I think is the polite term they use for him.
As for Edwards, yes, his odds have shortened a bit, but coming third is still coming third, and too much of that will dampen is enthusiasm for the finish line. Despite his convictions and personel protestations, it will be hard to keep that up for long unless he can pull a few more Iowa results or better.
384
MayoFeral
I completely agree with what you’ve said, but you’d have to put Obama’s comment in the context of the national debate ie will you just let a state harbour bin Laden’s mob, or not?
No Democrat can reasonably dodge this question, so Obama talked firm, (not hairy-chested) and I think that was to appeal to those who lean hawkish, to bring them over his way.
This is, after all, an election campaign, it’s a job interview with the nation, and to appeal to all the sectorss is a very hard ask, and so they all do it: bend the message, like light around a massive object, to deflect criticism of being ‘weak’ on national security.
Does Obama sound like GWBush to you? nah, thought not! He will not be ‘wedged’ on a question like that. Clinton just sounded, as usual, evasive.
Pathological
Just on Edwards being ‘invisible’ in the press, well, take a look at the front page of Rasmussen Reports, and scan the headlines, and see if you can see his name anywhere!
I can’t this morming, it’s all Obama, McCain,Clinton.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/
It is quite possible that no candidate on either side will break away before the conventions which make them a scene of negotiations rather than a coronation. Romney’s problem is that Huckabee has a strong appeal to the core Republican vote he has targetted.
That is not correct. KR and Labor never voted for the invasion of Iraq, They opposed it.
Just in case anyone missed this pearler from the Leader of the Free World-
“The administation I’ll bring is a group of men and women who are focussed on what’s best for America, honest men and women, decent men and women, women who will service our country as a great privilege and who will not stain the house.”
The “Bradley effect” is interesting.
I think it would be a mistake to brand all white americans racist on the strength of New Hampshire. The reality is that the Bradley effect is probably confined to about 5% of the White population.
The problem is that in a close election (and after all most parties do end up within 5% of each other) it is enough to lose. Therefore black candidates generally can only win in overwhelmingly safe districts or safe states – eg in Massachussets a black democrat is governor and in Maryland a black republican scored a highish vote for senate against a weak democrat.
On Obama by way of analogy he would best compared to say – Penny Wong, regarded as having lots of promise but a weak resume and life experience. It may be if he gets onto Hilary’s ticket as VP he may be a show down the track. Important to note also in Illinois he ran against v.weak opposition basically the Republican candidate admitted to visiting s.x clubs and had a messy divorce (not v.good for the values voters) and ultimately the Republicans replaced him with Alan Keyes (who is black and also certifiably mad) and did not even live in Illinois. To be fair I do not think anyone could call that tough opposition. Prior to that he was in the Illinois State Senate for ten years, was a community organiser for four years (whatever that is) and prior to that Harvard Law.
Pathological Logic (368), yes that was an interesting poll, showing that nationally it is Edwards who has surged almost up to Obama’s support level, which has not changed much in recent times. Clinton is ahead but has polled higher.
What if neither Clinton nor Obama quite has the numbers – could Edwards come up the middle, a la Abraham Lincoln?
(In an earlier post I said McCain was a senator from Arkansas. This should of course have been Arizona. Was a he a war hero or merely a POW? Are POWs heroes by definition? Does it matter? After all, Kerry was disparaged for being a war hero and the draft dodger Bush got the votes.)
The ‘Bradley effect’ is interesting, but I think a bit of a diversion at this stage which doesn’t necessarily hold water. While Clinton was behind in the polls leading into NH, she was ahead there most of the year (see: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_primary-194.html#charts)
and for a long time expected to win, or at least do very well there.
I don’t believe polls picked the maverick for NH either which could suggest a polling issue rather than Bradleyism playing out.
Also, Clinton won largely on older women’s votes. This would suggest a positive movement by women towards her rather than a negative movement away from Obama.
It is also my understanding that it is men who are meant to be swayed more by the so-called Bradley effect, and Obama still won in that category. So while I don’t write it off, I think we need to see more states before giving too much creedence to what appears an anomolous vote from 1982 as an effect that will shadow Obama all the way through his campaign.
Richardson Drops Out of the Democratic Presidential Race
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/09/AR2008010903014.html?hpid=topnews
The media manipulation by – or rather the media collusion with – the Clinton campaign before the NH vote really was something. The new, improved, softer Clinton, now capable of real emotion, was expertly packaged and delivered to the voters just in time.
The era of cartoon candidates has arrived in the US – next election we really could see Governor Roadrunner for the Democrats up against Governor Coyote for the Republicans.
The campaign teams get the total control they crave over their candidate. The most important White House title will be Head Animator. The actions and words of the President to be produced daily with pencil and eraser. No travel is required, just a change of background cel. The middle east conflict to be solved by just drawing in the relevant leaders (Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s voice by Robin Williams) . The daily heroic feats of the President will be superhuman, although the details will be sketchy (boom boom).
Which characters are the current candidates?
We already have Hillary as Bambi – Obama can be The Phantom, and the rest are fighting over the right to be The Reverend Lovejoy.
In the meantime, the current administration is an episode of ‘Itchy & Scratchy’.
The great animation conspiracy is here.
What I saw in the NH primaries was one of the most cynical and pitiful acting performances in an election campaign. Clinton’s crocodile tears should have punished her as being a weak and desperate flake, instead it helped her. Go figure! How gullible are people?
It also shows the inherent weakness of voluntary voting. Most commentary in the US I have seen has been singularly unimpressed by her shenanigans but it improved her turnout. In the long run it will hurt her. If she wins the nomination then people will look at her and remember her tears and consider the stressful decisions she will have to make that could cost lives, in particular a rampaging Iran and an unstable Middle East. God help the world if she wins office.
A Clinton nomination will energise the Republican base and a disaffected Democrat base, in particular passionate supporters of Obama & Edwards. Her nomination may also demotivate the African-American vote who would be unimpressed with Obama’s defeat. In short I don’t think she has a snow flakes chance of being elected President.
Clinton polarises, and in a voluntary voting system this will work against her. Men in particular won’t vote for her because of her preceived weakness and her message at women dominated rallies that it is time that there was a woman in the Whitehouse. Stupid politics. It immediately turns off 50% of the voting population.
Obama appears unelectable because of both his colour and his lack of substance. Unfair but true. Bullshit will only get you so far. The Democrats really don’t have any other options. I can’t see them winning the Whitehouse.
Both McCain and Guiliani would easily beat Clinton or Obama in a head-to-head vote. McCain is particularly strong on foreign policy and is highly regarded as a man of substance both at home and internationally. The yanks love their prestige in the world. All others on the Republican side are also unelectable. Huckabee is a bible bashing puritan while Romney is a spoilt little rich kid. Neither has mass appeal.
I think McCain will be the next president and either Guiliani or Thompson as vice-president.
If anybody is interested I have put up details of the Jan 15th Michigan Primary. It includes polls, past winners, Michigan stats etc.
http://ozdemocracy.com/?p=66
Check out the difference between Fox polls and Zogby polls when it comes to Bush Job Performance Ratings. Zogby tends to fall below the trend line and Fox is consistently above it.
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/polls/approvalpolls.html
Here is the Gallup Guru’s take on where it all went wrong in the New Hampshire poll.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/gallup/
steve @ 406
What I find more interesting is the net vs gross approval. Although the net approval is the more accurate I would suggest a high gross approval is what wins elections.
Rain @ 381,
I’ve often witnessed what you describe about Americans treading carefully in public about “personal” issues. Think it’s because so many of them end up dead or maimed each year due to the fact that in their gun culture nobody knows who’s “packin’ heat”.
During day to day social intercourse, there may be only a fleeting moment between between “perceived insult” by a “heat packer” and a bewildered, “Was it something I said ?!?”, by the next victim.
People seem to be forgetting the point. Clinton will win the nomination because the two largest Democrat states, NY and CA, will go to her, NY more so than CA. Obama will do fairly well (mostly in the smaller states), and if he knows what he’s doing, he’ll quietly approach her with an offer to run a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket, as this will buy the Dems the best of both worlds.
A Clinton/Obama ticket (or vice versa) would be unbeatable by the Republicans.
Perhaps its best Hillary win for the sake of Michigan. The democrats have punished them fro making their primary early by not including their delogates to the convention. To add insult to injury Edwards and Obama refused to have their names on the ballolts. The Democrats margin there is seldom huge. And with 17 electoral college votes, could come back to bite them during the election. Particularly if someone who punished the people for their politicinas decisions wins the nomination.
Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton may be the worst possible ticket. here is a reason why no woman or black has ever been president of the USA. It might not be a good reason but it will be hard to change. McCain/Giuliani would sweep the south and other redneck regions – probably including some of the marginal industrial states. The Dems best chance is Edwards/Obama or Edwards/Clinton.
There is a reason why no woman or black has ever been presient…
On the much discussed “Bradley Effect”, I suggest it follows that there is also a “Reverse Bradley Effect” which was important in NH. The psychology of the Bradley Effect is that people will try to appear more unbiased to a pollster than they would in the dark confines of a secret ballot box (which I think is true), so white, married men do better than polls predict. This psychology predicts that the same effect would take place with “minority” voters as well. Females would actually vote more often for other females than polls would predict, especially when “femininity” was a percieved issue ie Tearing up and Iron my CLothes. Black voters would vote for black candidates more often than they would tell pollsters, especially if colour was an issue.
All of this makes the polls even harder to read and I’ve decided to just “white-knuckle” it through each primary using the live count. It’s gonna be a bumpy ride!
Obama is a superb orator:
But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been
anything false about hope. For when we have faced down impossible
odds; when we’ve been told that we’re not ready, or that we shouldn’t
try, or that we can’t, generations of Americans have responded with a
simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people.
Yes we can.
It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the
destiny of a nation.
Yes we can.
It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail
toward freedom through the darkest of nights.
Yes we can.
It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and
pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness.
Yes we can.
It was the call of workers who organized; women who reached for the
ballot; a President who chose the moon as our new frontier; and a King who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the Promised Land.
Yes we can to justice and equality. Yes we can to opportunity and
prosperity. Yes we can heal this nation. Yes we can repair this
world. Yes we can.
And so tomorrow, as we take this campaign South and West; as we learn
that the struggles of the textile worker in Spartanburg are not so
different than the plight of the dishwasher in Las Vegas; that the
hopes of the little girl who goes to a crumbling school in Dillon are
the same as the dreams of the boy who learns on the streets of LA; we
will remember that there is something happening in America; that we
are not as divided as our politics suggests; that we are one people;
we are one nation; and together, we will begin the next great chapter
in America’s story with three words that will ring from coast to
coast; from sea to shining sea – Yes. We. Can.
whilst a Clinton/Obama ticket appeals most to me, I agree with Phil that it might not be the most palatable to voters as a Clinton/Edwards or Obama/Edwards to a lesser extent
It is very difficult to see Obama wanting to accept a number 2 slot, and almost impossible to imagine Hillary doing so.
Oh I dont know about knocking back No2 – the Naval Observatory (the Veep’s residence) is apparently a very nice trophy mansion.
KR @ 394 – No, Obama doesn’t sound like Bush, but I’m still far from convinced that he is all that he’s cracked up to be either. I am especially not convinced he has what it will take to clean out the Bushista/neocon influence and fix the problems they have created in the last 8 years. But I have the same reservations about Hillary, maybe even more so.
On international issues – Global warming, Iraq, Iran, the Saudis, terrorism, respecting international law – I though Edwards was the Dem candidate with the best policies in 2004 and still believe he does in 2008. But it seems he has only a moderate chance at best, probably because he really might do what he says he would. It’s not only the neocons and fundamentalist nuts who have a vested interest in maintaining as much of the status quo as they can get away with.
Edwards of course should always be remembered for defeating Senator Lauch Fairthcloth ( a noted North Carolina pig farmer) in 1998.
Pancho #417,
Obama is a smart man. Faced with a choice between #2 or #nothing, which would he take?
Obama would take 2 but Hillary wouldn’t.
I doubt that a Clinton/Obama (or Obama/Clinton) ticket would be a winner – especially against McCain. Whoever gets the Dem nomination will need a running mate who can appeal to the conservative South – and to those who want change, but in small doses. I’ve a feeling that a combined HC/BO ticket would scare the horses and see them running to the ’safety’ of McCain.
He’s also only 46, and odds on to be President one day. It is not like he needs to accept a running mate gig at this stage of his career. He would probably think long and hard about how being VP at this stage would effect his future chances, as well as what it would let him do in the 4-8 years that Hillary would be President.
There is also the question of whether Hillary would want a running mate who could overshadow her. You would think she would be thoroughly sick of Bill syndrome, and wanting to steer clear of what could be its reincarnation.
Here’s a question for anyone who wants a shot at it: How different would a Clinton Administration be from a McCain Administration, as far as policy aims (and possibly personnel) goes?
Senator Evan Bayh will be Clinton’s VP choice
Pancho – @ 425 [How different would a Clinton Administration be from a McCain Administration, as far as policy aims (and possibly personnel) goes]
Different corporate sponsors to be looked after post election. Same non-exit strategy from Iraq (Clinton will try to drag other countries into it again too – possible under UN), same domestic policies on terrorism, slightly softer line from Clinton on Iran, Nth Korea, Syria. Both to have slightly less ostrich-like policies on climate compared to present. More likely grand gesture politics on M East from Clinton (doomed to failure), both to continue overall massive support for Israeli state – arms and political support. Overall, same thimbles, same pea.
Personnel – both will need to clear out the more obvious neo-cons as bad rubbish, probably McCain more than Clinton. Then the installation of a few pals from the old days owed a favour, plus some reps from the corporate sponsors, as usual.
425,
For those who have actually read her Foreign Policy manifesto, a huge difference is evident there alone. Look it up. Also, Hillary would put in a slightly more humanist government than McCain generally.
McCain is not a true Conservative in the sense of the word for many of his policy positions go against the grain when it comes to the Republican Establishment particularly as he has consistently voted against Tax cuts and because of his pro-illegal immigrant stance. This will hurt him particularly in the Southern and larger States which will boost Giuliani’s chances of the nomination.
A Giuliani/McCain ticket would be tough to beat given McCain’s honourable Senate record and his popularity even if it was Clinton/Bayh or Obama/Edwards…
Granted this depends on Giuliani winning Florida which the polls predict he will thanks to his high visibility down there if he wins he’ll clean up in Feb 5 if he doesn’t he’ll be in trouble IMHO. Still i think his strategy was smarter Giuliani was never going to appeal to small conservative states…
“How different would a Clinton Administration be from a McCain Administration, as far as policy aims (and possibly personnel) goes?’
Probably more tears and emo, saw Hilary crying one day and joyous the next.
Still , have it’s advantages, a PMS Prez would scare the the heck out of any terry wrists and other foes.
Mathew @428 –
Unfortunately, manifestos are written to get elected, not to actually implement once safely in.
In any case, here’s a summary from About.com – not exactly earth-moving:
The failure to end genocide in Darfur also outrages McCain according to his summary. I believe they both like apple pie too.
Just tell me how a candidate who proclaims to be ‘a leading supporter of Israel’ can possibly be effective in resolving, for example, the world’s worst on-going conflict.
JV @431
You make me recall what my late brother Artie C said in the presence of a certain US president: that the republican and democratric parties were bottles with different labels, but bottles from the same mould and both of them empty.
That was a democratic president with a 2/3 majority in both houses of congress and a pledge to implement ‘the great society’. It’s more than a generation ago, but plus ca change, plus c’st la meme chose?
On who Obama or Clinton should close as running mate, I doubt that either would be able to go past Edwards. He’s almost as popular as they are, he’s from the South, he’s a white male and he’s not divisive. He would help either get elected. I think a McCain/Guiliani ticket or vice versa would have a huge chance to get up. Some people here seem to be writing off the Repubs here a bit too soon IMHO.
Surely the USA can come up with a better and less costly way of determining the leader of the respective parties than the one they have. What a gross waste of time and money.
Artie B @ 432 – How right your brother, Artie C, was, and still is about the inertia and constancy of US policy in practice regardless of the President’s allegiance.
Diogenes @ 433 – Edwards would be a sound choice for VP if he doesn’t surge into contention in the primaries very soon – his biography reads well – a lawyer for the underdog, plenty of track record fighting poverty, and not a mention of his religion as far as I could see.
For those interested in a punt, I’d say South Carolina is likely to be more difficult for Obama than the polls currently indicate (Obama is still favourite in the latest polls over Clinton by between 7 and 20 points), I would be looking for the best odds about Hillary now. Obama is favourite with Intrade by 70% to 22.5% (Edwards 5.5%).
Are you there Asanque the punter? What do you think?
I’m still stunned by NH. I’ve been ruing not taking the 100-1, 30-1 or plenty of 10-1’s on Hillary before NH.
Although I did hedge my bets and come out on top, most of my hedging was at the 3-1 mark.
I also took the generous odds of 1.60 on Hillary after 50% of the vote was counted in NH and she was leading by 4000.
Shortly afterwards with 52% of the vote counted she went to 1.90 despite still leading by 3,000.
There was some amazing bets going throughout.
Especially as before Iowa, Hillary was 1.10ish to win NH, and prior to the count at NH Obama was 1.01.
Hillary was also at one stage over 3.5 to be democratic candidate last week and was great value then, as she was leading by 20 points in the polls nationally.
She is now back to about 1.67ish with Obama at 2.50ish, which is about right.
My research indicates an Obama win in South Carolina. I haven’t laid any wagers as there doesn’t appear to be a trend to follow. I suspect with NH lost, that Hillary is deserved favourite for democratic candidacy now.
I’m happy at the moment to lay off wagers until the actual count. If NH is any experience, money can still be made on betting whilst the count is actually on.
However, from memory, Nevada is before South Carolina?
That one is like Iowa and could go to anyone.
There are six possible scenarios for a Democrat President/VP. I have rated each one according to what I believe, not what I would like to see:
Clinton/Obama – worse than bucklies.
Clinton/Edwards – would just about win.
Obama/Clinton – you would believe in the tooth fairy.
Obama/Edwards – zilch.
Edwards/Clinton – absolute certainty.
Edwards/Obama – would still lose.
Asanque – Yes 100/1 was indeed slightly better odds than the actual chance of Hillary winning! I missed a bet altogetther in NH. You mostly punt with Betfair don’t you, which would be where you saw the odds you quote?
Yes Nevada is beforehand and Obama is currently favoured at Intrade 57/41, but the latest polls I can find are only from early December (and show Clinton 20 points ahead), so these would be outdated. We need some more recent polls before wagering there.
I Know we are suppost to be talkin about American Politics in this thread. But some of u may find this interesting.
Basically it is a leak about a reshuffling of the Tasmanian Cabinet and that Education minister David Bartlett is now favourite to become premier before the next state election.
“Mr Bartlett, 39, is poised to become the new Economic Development minister in the February reshuffle so he can prove his financial credentials before being handed the state’s top job – possibly as soon as September.”
http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,23031691-3462,00.html
438 – Yes, my wagers for the US election are with Betfair.
Does anyone else know of a better site?
NH was a once in a year opportunity
I suspect the polls and betting markets will learn from NH and there will be a lot less volatility from this point on.
I don’t think the bludgers here have analysed the New Hampshire result properly. What happened was extraordinary compared to what the market was suggesting.
I have concluded that the Americans will not be voting for a black president, or even VP for that matter, with a middle name of “Hussein” 7 years after 9/11. It wont happen. So says Centre.
If anybody is confused about the primary process and how it works I have written a post you may find useful.
http://ozdemocracy.com/?p=67
Centre @ 441
If that is correct and I am not saying it is then Edwards could still be a good chance. There are a lot of people who don’t like Clinton and if Obama doesn’t look like he will win they may switch to Edwards.
Asanque, I believe the American punters wouldn’t have a clue. Due to the fact that they do not have a decent bookmaking system, and their bets are so heavily taxed, they do not have a proper sense of value. This is why markets are as high as 108% on betfair.
Stephen C, if Edwards wins the candidacy (he may not/they are Americans), he will become POTUS.
POTUS?
440 – Asanque – I’m not so sure there won’t be more opportunities like NH. These trading markets such as the stock market, which is what Betfair really is like, are supposedly prone to see repeat behaviour, which is why technical traders can predict future market movements via what’s called technical analysis. So, let’s hope this means the offering of ludicrous odds on the primaries continues
S Connor @ 442 – thanks for that, but my brain cannot process all those vagaries at once!
president of the US.
Centre @ 448
I would agree with that and cannot understand why Democrats are currently backing two candidates which have much less chance.
I just want to say how much i cant stand the rhetoric of Obama. He never talks about policy substance, compared to all the other candidates who talk heavily about their policies, particularly Clinton. I like Obama’s policies, but the stupid rhetoric, “reaching across the ailes to republicans” “I don’t believe in red states and blue states” “I will unify the country”, is complete crap. If he is nominated every rebublican will rally against him just as much as they would against clinton,because behind the talk his policies are that of a liberal democrat. Ofcourse he would beat any republican but he will not unify the country. I dont know if anyone remembers George Bush during the 2000 republican primarys, but his rhetoric was very similar to Obama’s.
As a side note; I predict that Clinton will win the Democratic Nomination and that Huckabee will be ahead in delegates and number of states won but the republican nomination will come down to a brokered convention. Clinton will be the next president of the United States.
Stephen C, I can’t really understand it either. It is generally accepted by their experts that Edwards outperformed Kerry upto their election 4 years ago. He appears to be highly intelligent, talented and with enough experience.
Hey, maybe Hillary could get her revenge on Bill in the oval office if she is his VP. LOL.
For those who have seen the West Wing this presidential race could end up similar. A minority candidate for the Democrats and an old, not very conservative candidate for the Republicans.
Greetings once again chattoids
Someone asked above about female and black governors. There have been 27 women governors, including eight currently serving. The first was Nellie Tayloe Ross (Dem) who was Governor of Wyoming 1925-27. There have only been three black governors. The first was Pinckney Pinchback, who was briefly Governor of Louisiana during Reconstruction in 1872-73. The two in modern times have been Douglas Wilder (Dem), Governor of Virginia 1990-94, and Devel Patrick (Dem), Governor of Massachusetts since last January. There has never been a black woman governor.
Speculation about tickets: There is no way in all the world in space that Hillary Clinton will be anyone’s Vice-Presidential running-mate. It’s possible, but unlikely, that Obama could be Clinton’s running mate. What would be bring to the ticket? He is after all just another northern liberal Senator. The only thing that makes him distinctive in his skin pigmentation, but blacks already vote 90% Democrat. Edwards would be a better fit, but he’s already run for VP once and it’s hard to see how he could accept such a humiliation again. A better idea would be Bill Richardson, who is a Hispanic from New Mexico. (His mother’s name was María Luisa López-Collada Márquez.) Hispanics are a much more important demographic for the Dems than blacks. Apart from NM, he could be the key to carrying Florida, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada and maybe even Texas.
Marky Mark, in his usual negligence about fact, said that Rudd supported the Iraq War in 2003. This is not true. Here is his speech from March 2003:
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr180303.pdf
It’s at page 12535 as the pages are numbered, or at page 48 of the pdf. I await Marky’s retraction.
Adam,
Well I haven’t checked if MM said Rudd supported the war, but I said so, and I was wrong!
Retraction hereby issued, with apologies to KR and any others who care!
I think the Dems will probably win, but I can’t see it being the thrashing that some here are saying (either of Clinton or Obama will have their challenges in the South), and I think a Dem win is far from certain against McCain.
there seems to be a disconnect between older and younger feminists WRT Hillary – the older ones think “it’s about time a woman was a serious candidate” while the younger ones think that it won’t be that long before there’ll be another one, so they’re okay with not supporting Hillary.
dyno @ 455 – Seems close at this early stage, whoever wins the Democrat nomination. The latest poll shows McCain 5 points ahead of Clinton head to head. The last one I can find for Obama /McCain head to head was a tie, but that was taken before Christmas. Clinton was also neck and neck against Giuliani as of December too. Obama 7 points ahead of Giuliani in recent poll. So at this stage it doesn’t look like it will be like the sudden subsidence of a large section of earth and rock to a lower position (avoiding the ‘L’ word given the endless debate on it last year)
I’m looking at Realclearpolitics.com – does anyone have a more up-to-date polling site, or are they the same?
I don’t think this is a general trend but it is of interest. A friend of my family lives in California and is a registered Democrat. He believes that experience is the most important issue for himself and others around him. He has Edwards as his first choice follow by McCain then Clinton and he will not vote if the choice is Obama, Romney or Huckabee.
Looking forward to the election the Repugs would be disappointed with the turnouts so far. In a non-compulsory voting country, turnout is ALL important(as Hilary would attest to yesterday).
I was watching yesterday and at about 76% counted from both sides the turnout numbers were like 220,000 for the Dems and 165,000 for the Repugs.
No candidate really inspires ALL or even Most Repugs, so when a final candidate is reached i think a portion of Repugs won’t be impressed and will stay home. I can’t see Huckleberry evangalists voting for Rudy or Mormon Mitt. I can’t see Rudy/McCain supporters voting for Huckleberry. I can’t see the immigration hordes voting for McCain….etc etc.
No matter who gets the Dem nom, nearly ALL dems will get out to vote.
The only thing that i can see galvanising the Repug hordes to ALL vote is a battle against the Great Satan….a Clinton.
There’s a black Governor of Massachusetts called “Devel” – and some of us are worried about Barak’s middle name??!
SC @ 458,
Experience, competence, call it what you will, but I think you could be on the money with this.
Does anybody know if it is usual for more people to vote in the Dem primary than the Rep. At least in Iowa and NH.
Ferny @ 460 It’s actually spelt Deval. I couldn’t believe it either so I looked it up. That must be how the original devout but uneducated Mayflower emigres who settled in the area spelt the evil one’s name in the 17th Century.
This is interesting
“Adding to the most wide open presidential campaign in a half-century, associates of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg disclosed he had authorized polling and voter analysis in all 50 states in a possible precursor to an independent candidacy.”
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/10/clinton-obama-prepare-for-long-fight-mccain-sets-sights-on-sc-michigan/
Adam beat me to the punch, but yes Richardson is a very likely (and I think wise) choice for a running mate for Hillary should she win the nomination. Even if you put aside his Hispanic background, his resume is very impressive, he’s a governor of a swing state (admittedly only 5 electoral votes) and he’s been close to President Clinton.
Otherwise, I think Mark Warner (former Virginia Governor) or Sen. Evan Bayh (Indiana) would be possible (and also wise) choices for Hillary, given they are popular moderate democrats from Republican states that the Dems should be trying to win this year.
Obama will not be on a Clinton ticket.
At the moment he’s all things to all people, because of what he’s not (not Clinton nor Bush). He’s something of a fresh face, that people are using (even here) as a blank canvas to put their idea of what he stands for on him. He is hawkish for some (independents and moderates), an Iraq dove for others (the liberals/left). Eventually he will have to stand for something, “change” slogans and Bob the Builder® lines “Yes we can” are great now, but people (yes even American voters) will want substance and he will have to take a stand on things, which in turn will alienate parts of this ‘broad coalition’ he is supposed to have. He also has to be careful that he doesn’t end up with a McCain style irreconcilable coalition that will ultimately explode.
Notice that it’s only really men who a buying into the “crocodile tears” bullsh-t. Check this article out for women’s perspective. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/us/politics/10women.html?em&ex=1200114000&en=c28a43517e4da9b6&ei=5087
Also, the Schadenfreude that was only display not in the press and on the blogs on Clinton’s imminent demise was also a factor. The tall poppy syndrome does not play in the US like it does here. Two guys kicking a girl on the floor is not a good look. It’s enough to drive some Americans to go to a polling station.
Correction: “… the Schadenfreude that was not only on display in the press but also on the blogs…”
wont be mark warner – he is needed for the vacant senate seat in virginia, if it is anybody but him the dems have to fight for it.
Secondly it will be particularly difficult to pick the veep – how do you pick someone who brings something to the ticket and a) doesnt overshadow hilary and b) is happy being second fiddle to a woman.
My guess General Wesley Clark – he was on stage at the Iowa concession, looks good on nat security and could be seen as safe competent hands and will not overshadow hilary.
Bayh – I do not believe the democrats will win Indiana unless it is a blowout. I think they last won it in 1964 John Ryan.
Some may already know this but Bill Richardson has pulled out of the Dem race.
EStJ, Correct, but Indiana is changing – have a look at 2006. Bayh is also very popular there.
Wikipedia even puts Indiana in play:
“Indiana: (11) Traditionally a Republican stronghold but in 2006, Democrats won three house seats here. Another factor that may drag down the Republican Ticket might be Governor Mitch Daniels, who has become very unpopular in the state. Also in 2006, Democrats gained control of State House. The state hasn’t voted for a Democratic Presidential Nominee since Lyndon Johnson in 1964, but a poll out by the Indianapolis Star, features a generic Democrat leading a generic Republican in the Presidential election 37%-32%.[70] The poll shows the War in Iraq and the sluggish economy to be the biggest issues among Hoosiers. Also, the poll found that a Democratic Ticket featuring Indiana Senator Evan Bayh would boost the possibility of Indiana switching alliances.”
Here is a rating of the pollsters and their efforts so far.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_of_pollsters_rating_the_n.php
People voting in the republican primary have always outnumbered people voting in the democratic primary when both have been contested in New Hampshire since the state gained its modern primary frontrunner status – until now. It represents a huge shift in a state who’s voters are flocking to the democrats. In 2006 they picked up both chambers of the states legislature and both congressional districts; also against what the polls were predicting.
Stephen, exactly that is why we are now speculating about him on a Hillary ticket.
EStJ, also agree that Wes Clark would be a possible and excellent VP choice.
Maybe a favourite son from Florida ?
Did Lawton Chiles have a son? Do you know John Ryan?
Oh yeah… if Hillary takes the nomination (which is still most likely) then her veep will probably be Gen. Wesley Clark. He has endorsed her in the race and would bring a bit of weight in national security to the ticket. He would also be a great stumper for democratic challengers in moderate republican congressional seats.
Not sure about Chiles. Former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) was speculated for Kerry’s VP in 2004. In hindsight, he would have been better than Edwards (electorally at least).
He may too old and sick now though for a Hillary ticket.
It would be tough for the Clintons not to give it to BHO, would rile the black vote enormously.
Black people love the Clintons already. Besides they have spared and attacked each other to many times.
If Obama was selected as Hillary’s veep:
Reporter: “do you still believe that Hillary’s position on healthcare is fundamentally flawed for america because it forces people to purchase healthcare or pay a fine?”
Obama: “i believe in hope, yes we can … blah blah… empty rhetoric blah”
It is quite likely that Edwards will still be around come Feb 5th. Although he may come out in 3rd place that will still give him a very large number of delegates. So many the other two candidates may not be able to get the 2025 needed without his. If this happens does he get to choose the nominee?
You could ask for all sorts of goodies if you can deliver a nomination:
Ambassadorship – London, Paris
Supreme Court
Veep
Sec of State
Policy Role
etc etc
403
jaundiced view
I had to laugh, your post is so funny, but it’s true!
When Obama says “yes, we can”, all I can hear is Bob the Builder asking:”Can we fix it?”
But beyond the coincidence there’s the whole ’staged’ feeling, where no one is really talking about concrete actual policies, it’s more a beauty contest, and a theatrical event where contestants vie for the audience’s empathy.
Of course they get to do it in the flesh mostly, in Iowa and New Hampshire, but that’s about to change a bit soon.
There’s an other worldly feeling about it though, almost like its happening in some ‘reality TV’ universe.
Is Hillary Clinton becoming the Princess Diana of Election 2008?
Here is one woman’s perspective of WaterWorksGate
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4109322&page=1
Starting to change my mind on Obama –
the “yes We Can” thing makes me feel very uncomfortable.
as does Hillary’s Little Weep.
Edwards is starting to gain some ground for me.
.
Most of the pollsters are shocked at how the Democrat vote was so wrong compared with the accurate call on the McCain win, and it seems there’s a lot of theorising going on as to why.
First point is that women turned out in quite surprising numbers (57% is the figure quoted on PBS) and a lot of independents broke her way too.
So, did this swing happen after polling finished on Sunday, and no one noticed?
It seems like it did, but no doubt they’ll talk about it for years, it was such a novel event to have so many reputable pollsters blind-sided like that.
483 John Zogby is still scratching his head too.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-zogby/polling-the-new-hampshire_b_80657.html
482
Jen, the thing about Edwards, and of all people David Brooks said it best on Jim Lehrer tonight, is that he has a strong ‘anti-corporate’ message. But, if you check the polls, which go back a long way on this question, more people are wary of ‘big government’ than ‘big business’ by an overwhelming majority. Hence Edward’s message is of limited appeal, and besides, it sounds ‘angry’.
Gotta say, but when I do agree with David Brooks, I do agree with David Brooks. On this, I think he’s spot on, and Edwards is trying to appeal to the working class disaffected, while Obama has the post graduate well off market, and Hillary is somewhere in the middle. In other words, there’s more about this race of Democrats which is to do with class rather than race or gender. But having said that, Clinton has surely pulled the ’sisters’ in New Hampshire.
Can she go on with that line? Was it a state speciality? Guess we’ll see, but my hunch is that she got the reverse Iowa effect, and it may not be so easy to replicate that again, not specifially, anyway.
I have been following Obama since his announcement to run. Have already been through my euphoria, then doubts and downtime. I’m now convinced, given how his campaign has responded in the past to writeoffs, talk of empty rhetoric and no substance etc., that he has whatever Reagan had that makes a candidate so popular in the US. [This is aside from the rhetoric student part of me that recoils at the ignorance of anyone using the charge 'empty rhetoric' in such a contest]. He has energised Democrats and this race, and it is he who both sides are responding to now, and have been for some time.
Have to agree Pancho. If they can elect a bad actor, whose main claim to fame was that he could read the autocue without sounding too wooden, then someone who can really speak the inspirational stuff has a good chance.
Republicans fall in line behind their candidate while Democrats fall in love with theirs (as Mark Shields said on PBS the other day)
But what’s with this ‘independents’ stuff? I mean, how does a sane human being vacillate between voting for Huckabee or Obama, or McCain and Obama?
Maybe ‘independent voter’ is some kind of euphemism over there, for deranged person who votes on peculiar whims and other ones on alternate Tuesdays!
Great banner ad at The Nation: ‘We’re Like Fox News. Only Smart. And Not Crazy. And We Don’t Lie’.
And an interesting if not too in depth article on Democratic foreign policy differences, with the namedroppin of a few interesting advisors for each team, here: ‘The Democratic Foreign Policy Wars’ http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080121/berman
Hmm I don’t really know how much impact a Vice Presidential candidate has. Bush won with Dick Cheny as his Vice President. John edwards didn’t even help Kerry even in North Carolina.
The up side to having Obama as a vice presidential candidate would be his ability to get the most allusive of Democrat voters : “Young People”.
I think Wesley clark would be a good defence secutary.
I also think the Democrats were completely stupid not to have put forward Wesley Clark last election. He is who i wanted to win back then. Kerry was a terrible choice. That whole war record thing they did on Kerry about Vietnam was what bush did to Mcaine in 2000. They prett much just took Mcains name out of the add and put Kerry’s in. Clark was a general and would have been able to shut down arguments about iraq. Critsising e general about his views on war would not have been a good look. He is also from the South. What a wasted oppertunity
How Lincoln won the Republican nomination.
http://members.tripod.com/~greatamericanhistory/gr02010.htm
How the party of Lincoln let itself be captured by a bunch of religious extremists i’ll never understand.
Stephen, that article doesn’t suggest that the delegates cared much about policy. The conventional view of Lincoln’s nomination is that the other candidates had the problem that all the republican nominees have now – they were all completely unacceptable to at least one faction within the party. Seward, the candidate of the most powerful faction – the radicals – was not acceptable to anyone else, and his belated attempts to tone down his act to broaden his support were regarded with suspicion all round. Lincoln was the moderate (by which I mean he was at neither extreme of the party) compromise who, at a pinch, was acceptable to a majority.
Jasmine. Has the republican party (yet) been captured by a bunch of religious extremists or they merely one more or less influential group among others – assuming that there is one homogeneous bunch that answers to your description? Also what do you think the republicans (or Lincoln) stood for in 1860? Who did they answer to?
Wesley Clark does an impressive “TV general” routine but is widely regarded as a bit of a flake, with a huge ego. I think he’d have trouble shutting up for four years, which is what a VP has to do. I stick with Clinton-Richardson as my ticket.
Who might McCain pick? It’s hard to see him going with any of the current candidates. He detests Romney (as do most people apparently), Giuliani would be too controversial. Huckabee might bring in the evangelicals and run well in the south, but since McCain is 72 many moderates might baulk at the idea of a religious fundy that close to the presidency. A woman might be a good idea if Clinton is the Dem nominee. The only currently serving Repub female governors are Linda Lingle of Hawaii, Jodi Rell of Connecticut and Sarah Palin of Alaska. None would bring anything to the ticket except gender. Of the Repub women Senators, Kaye Hutchinson of Texas might be the best bet. Then there’s Condy Rice… Now there’s a ticket!
Adam @ 493 Ah, Condaleeeeeeeza, of course. No, she won’t do for VP, she’s got GWB’s malodorous scats all over her shoes.
On the Democrat side, what chance Col-in Powell for VP?
Pancho @ 488 – The Nation article pretty mch confirms my own view that Clinton would only be a slightly softer version of Bush on foreign policy. She’d still keep expanding the empire. OTOH, Obama would just maintain its current boundaries.
Adam @ 493 – I agree with your assessment of Wesley Clark. He’s an even greater self-serving flake than Norm Schwarzkopf, and thats saving something. To listen to Clark you’d think Kosovo was the greatest feat of arms in US military history instead of the messy fiasco it began and ended as, and which, has the British commander not refused Clark’s order to fire on Russian troops, could easily have been the first battle of WWIII.
As for Condi, about the only thing she should be allowed to do in the White House is scrub toilets. She’s the female Alexander Downer, lazy, incompetent, gutless, and uncaring. Though to be fair, she does play the piano a bit better than Lexy can sing, and is way less pompous.
Good to see nothing changes at Faux News, when choosing a metaphor for Obama they selected one about Lawrence of Arabia and Arabs attacking, not too subtle a dogwhistle? I would imagine they will soon start mispronouncing his name as Osama.
Great to have Jon Stewart’s Daily Show and Colbert Report back on air, brings some sanity to my day.
Hi all -
Funnily enough, I woke up in the middle of the night thinking about Condi, (got to be concerned by that), as to the possibility of a black woman as VP, and there you are discussing it today!
Also feeling less disillusioned with Obama, as one must accept that he is campaigning in The United States of Triteness, and yanks appear to love that kind of schtick.
Richardson ticket maybe?
The question is what strength would he bring in the west? Obviously New Mexico (but I think that is only 5 votes) would he be a vote puller in Nevada, Arizona, Colorado ? etc. If the Democrats can win in these states its good night irene. However important to recall McCain is from Arizona so he is likely to negate any benefit from Richardson.
Richardson may or may not have upset the Clintons with his campaign (you can never underestimate the effect of the personal in politics) too. After all the jobs he has had have come from Bill Clinton so to turn on the wife may be upsetting.
The real benefit is more his half Hispanic background BUT I would say the Republicans have burned that bridge with the immigration debate. Still according to Mark Penn in his book Microtrends it is second generation Hispanic protestants (not catholics who tend to be first generation) that are the swing vote that DECIDES US ELECTIONS.
If that’s true the ideal Veep would be a male Hispanic Evangelical Baptist with an acceptable level of political experience. Anybody know of any going?
Danny Nahlia
Danny’s no Baptist – but he would bring out the anti-Muslim vote
How come all the Democrats are lawyers? Where are all the union thugs? Don’t they have unions in the US?
An update for anyone hungry for more information.
http://www.electoral-vote.com
I have just started at the beggining of this New Hampshire thread, it’s really funny looking back on our “expert commentators”
Here is a video on Obama, its good to know all Joseph Gobbels work didn’t disappear along with the German Propergander ministry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfc8cn8Yqxk
It really makes our election look so tame.
One comment about Hillary I keep hearing is that she’s polarising.
My thought is hasn’t anyone heard of George Bush?
Chris,
actually, he is insane.
Chris B @ 504
The difference between Hillary and Bush is that Hillary is running and Bush isn’t.
Can anyone tell me where we’re up to in terms of total Democrat delegates allocated now? I know Hil and Barack both got the same number fomr NH, so Obama is still ahead overall, but where are the running totals up to? Cheers…
JV
I just listened to Obama’s speech in South Carolina with John Kerry on stage to endorse him.
That ‘yes we can’ stuff is pretty powerful to an audience who are totally fed up with the grotesque ideological partisanship that seems glued onto the Washington political process. Sometimes a total paradigm shift is what is needed, and he taps into that desire with a powerful magnetic force, attracting people who are so disaffected that they want someone to change it, not continue it.
I’ve never disparaged Clinton as an able and intelligent politician, but one thing is really clear, she cannot do what Obama does, and my feeling is that his message is so overwhelmingly strong, that her controlled demeanor, hedging, and prevaricating just cannot pull the emotional strings like Obama can.
186 Socrates “Another interesting note on New Hampshire. Overall it is a Republican State”
Chris Says New Hampshire is a Democrat State. It is right in the middle of a massive Democrat are, although Maine is Republican at the moment.
Sorry typo Should read Democrat area.
I’m with KR and other Obama supporters. Maybe it is rhetoric, but it’s pretty bloody powerful stuff – better than working families, and lightyears ahead of what Bush manages to stumble over on a regular basis. I think he’s intelligent enough to go head to head with whichever republican wins, he would be able to keep his cool and the moral high ground. I also reckon his background, growing up in a variety of countries that AREN’T the US, counts for a huge amount.
506 Stephen Connor My point is Bush is far more polarising than Hillary. She’s tame.
507 Nick just click on ‘delegate scorecard’ here for either party.
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/
thanks steve…
Nick,
Here is CNNs estimate: http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D
Basically a handful each out of about 4 thousand in total. Numbers are pretty meaningless at this stage, it is all about ‘momentum’, press, donations and posturing.
As far as Iowa and NH go, Obama 29, Clinton 28, Edwards 21.
Apologies for the double.
Chris 186
New Hampshire has a Democrat governor at present, but he won by a narrow margin. Among voters New Hampshire has more registered Republicans (30%) than Democrats (26%).
Anyway, my point was that the Democrat primaries were significantly better attended than the Republican ones in NH. This implies that either a lot of registered Republicans didn’t vote, or a lot of independents voted for a Democrat candidate, or both. Hence, regardless of who got the nomination, there was clearly a lot of momentum for the Democrat Party in the US at present. If present trends continue, it is academic who the republicans put up.
KR @ 508
Yes, all true, but it didn’t carry NHampshire & I wonder whether ML King style rhetoric resonates with the amorphous mass these days. It’s fine to talk big and flowery about freedom for an oppressed people. To apply the same style to a more mundane message: ‘I, Obama, am essentially playing the political game, but really really want to be more genuine about it’, then that big style risks looking overblown. A pit-topper over a pothole.
For the record, after some wise advice from Xanthippe and understanding better the nature of the US primary system, and the states where each candidate will fare well and badly, I now think the candidates will be Clinton (Dem) versus McCain (Rep). Unless she makes a massive error, the US economy turns around, and/or Iraq miraculously sorts itself out (no chance) I think Hillary Clinton will win.
She would not be my first preference; I would prefer Obama or Edwards. I don’t hate McCain; his Iraq views are crazy, but he was the only one who spoke up against water boarding (he knew it was torture because the Viet Cong had done it to him!), so at least he has a conscience. I’d be much more concerned about Huckabee, who despite the smiling facade, is more of a fundamentalist than Bush.
The main reason I think this is after seeing the results of State by State polling. Clinton is ahead in big states like Florida, New York and California, which will get her a bucket of delegates. If she polls well in those places in November as well, she will win.
Generally as a guide anything below the Mason Dixon line is Republican above is Democrat. The Mason Dixon line runs north of Virginia and West Virginia. The north is Yankee territory the South is Confederate and they vote along those lines. Although as a result of George Bush the Democrats are making big inroads to the south.
Female voting analysis.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/women_nonworking_for_hillary.php
Great to see Obama doing the motherhood uniting stuff that got little Bush elected, and he has been both impartial and competent.
The big floor in this hope driving victory for Obama is the NH loss even with a massive turnout, Hilary did it. Comment at Salon also suggests the polling numbers for Obama largely did come, it was just a lot more turned out to vote for Hillary than had been expected. If these numbers and analysis are correct a lot of the Obama energizing the disenfranchised it a little bit weak.
That would be a big flaw probably … long tiring week.
Registered voters can be a poor guide.
From memory, Oklahoma has way more registered Democrats than Republicans. But the state always produces hefty Republican margins at presidential elections. That’s but one example, there are many others; especially in the South.
New Hampshire might be traditionally Republican, but these days it’s more Democratic. 2006 saw both its Republican Congressmen in the US House of Representatives lose to their Democratic opponents. Additionally both houses of the state legislature changed to Democratic control for the first time in a long, long time. And the Democratic governor was reelected in a crushing landslide. In 2004, it was the only state Kerry won that Gore didn’t (Gore can blame Nader for that).
As for Maine, it’s pretty Dem leaning. It hasn’t awarded its electoral college votes to a Republican presidential candidate since GHW Bush in 1988.
I have done up a quick guide for South Carolina since it is the next Democratic race. If people have any suggestions for future guides let me know I will be doing more.
http://ozdemocracy.com/?p=68
David
Fair comment. I have tended to see it along teh north-south split that Chris suggested but that seems to be changing. Perhaps it is better to talk of coastal states (leaning Democrat) versus interior (leaning Republican) now. Anyway, after understanding the delegate apportioning and seeing where Clinton is ahead, I still think she will win overall. I’d like to see things change more than she proposes, but I don’t see it happening now.
I’m not 100%, but I’m pretty sure that if a candidate withdraws before the convention, then any delegates already pledged to them automatically become ‘Uncommitted’ ie they can vote for whomever they like. However history shows that when a withdrawing candidate formally endorses another, a large fraction of their formerly peldged delegates follow that endorsement.
More to the point though, if the Dem convention is deadlocked between Clinton and Obama, Edwards could sneak through as the ‘compromise candidate’ in a second or subsequent round of voting.
Anyone want to rate this possibility?
Adam, do you really think Edwards would see a VP gig as a humiliation? He’s probably young enough to have one more crack at the big one in 8 years time, but there’s no certainties…
Chris B @ 502
It has been quite amusing reading the comments from people here, trying to tar Obama with the same innuendos which Fox News tried out long ago. Barack’s strength of character has seen him rise above the Bill O’Reilly’s of this world to date. The more Obama is attacked, the more people wonder just what kind of a threat he poses to the people who are attacking him.
333 Dyno “Hate to be a party-pooper but there’s no reason to assume the GOP will get thrashed.”
Chris says:Yes there are three reasons Polls, money and the GOP is connect with Bush.
Sorry typo again should be connected with Bush.
For the punters who like a bit of volitility in the polling, check this lot out. Pollsters Disagree on the Republican Race in Michigan
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/
491 Jasmine Pierce “How the party of Lincoln let itself be captured by a bunch of religious extremists i’ll never understand.”
Chris says Between the end of McCarthyism and around the mid 60’s the two parties switched sides, Regan finished it off by tying up the religious vote. The Ku Klux Klan used to assassinate Republicans, now they join the Republican Party.
As for the Richardson Ticket, the Democrats need him in the senate in New Mexico. Apparently when he stands he is a shoe in for that seat. That makes them one closer to the filibuster breaker.
The bigger the margin the Democrats have over the filibuster numbers the more the senate can do. Considering only once before the senate has had a filibuster proof, this will allow an enormous amount of work to be done. The bigger the numbers the less chance some Democrats will change sides on some issues. This maybe the first time they have a true democracy .
Interesting stuff re voting patterns north v south, however, if you look back at past Presidential campaigns there was a significant change in 1960 when the south went from voting solidly (and I mean solidly!) Democrat to voting Republican. In 1960 a number of electoral college voters (in Mississippi & Alabama) voted not for Kennedy/Johnson but Byrd/Thurmond, and from 1964 the south voted solidly Republican (Goldwater won 87% of the vote in Mississippi in 1964!). Check out David Leip’s site on Presidential elections with maps at:
http://uselectionatlas.org/
De-segregation would appear to have been a potent issue…
It’s a “shoo-in”, not a “shoe-in”.
535 Stewart J “De-segregation would appear to have been a potent issue…”
Chris Says Sure was, which would tie in very well with the Ku Klux Klan and the Confederate States supporting the Republicans. The Southern Baptists only apologised for slavery in 2004. They are the major influence in the Confederacy.
525
Stephen Connor
Usefull, quick overview on that site, thanks.
If the anomoly of New Hampshire does not occur again, (and it sure was not what the polls read two days out from the vote), then Obama will take SC.
Will Edwards take another third place, and in his home state, and still claim to be going all the way? Polling half of Clinton’s numbers, who is second to Obama in the three polls you’ve quoted, is not inspiring for Edwards. There must come a point at which he concedes, and then the race will be truly fascinating!
To understand the mentality of the Southern States, Borat the movie illustrates this brilliantly. Unfortunately nearly everyone misses the point. At one stage a group of very nice people are sitting down for tea in Birmingham Alabama. This includes a Methodist minister. Borat pushes them and pushes them to upset them. Nothing fazes them. They still say what a nice man. Then the door bell rings and Borat answer the door. His friend the black prostitute is at the door. As soon as she enter everyone gets up and leave. Most audiences think it is because she is a prostitute. Birmingham Alabama is the most racist place in the USA. The home of the Ku Klux Klan. Its because she is black.
527
Martin B
There’s the rub Martin B: will Edwards be a spoiler for Obama (like Nader to Gore in the presidential election) or will he release his delegates to assist him?
Frankly, I don’t know enough about the arcane processes of US presidential nomination to answer that, but I guess we’ll see before too long.
Dunno. If Edwards holds on beyond Super Tuesday and there is no clear winner at that stage, which some are foretelling, he could become either kingmaker or position himself as the compromise candidate. He must realise that he cannot overtake both with things just moving as they are, but in a neck and neck campaign he becomes pretty powerful. I think his campaign has a couple of interesting twists in it yet.
I also don’t think he would necessarily turn down a running mate offer. The difference from 04 is that he’d be favoured to be VP this time around to either of the frontrunners if he accepted.
Edwards’ votes wont disappear like Nader’s did. The delegates will still get to vote, and then Edwards endorsement becomes pretty important. You would think that his delegate list would generally be more ideologically amenable to Obama, unless he became a liability to the wider Democratic cause.
I dunno about Edwards being a spoiler KR, but I’m interested to see whether an independent Bloomberg will be a spoiler for the GOP candidate and ensure a Dem win.
There is another school of thought which aregues that a Bloomberg run would harm the Democrats more than the Republicans because of his liberal positions on gun control, abortion and gay-marriage.
Is Governor Richardson running for the Senate? If he’s needed so desperately for the Senate that he can’t be a VP candidate, then wouldn’t the same apply to Bayh in Indiana?
Today’s NY Times on the ’stealth’ Bloomberg candidacy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/us/politics/11bloomberg.html?ref=us
545 Phil Robins Logic says yes to both of those. But does logic play a part in politics?
I had missed the Bayh in Indiana possibility. It looks good for the Democrats.
Good point Pancho. If the NY Times is right then there isn’t yet any groundswell of support for Bloomberg to enter the race. It may all be a beatup, but it makes for interesting speculation.
As for Edwards, I wouldn’t write him off. As others have said, he could stay in the race if the front runners stay neck and neck – and end up as the compromise candidate at the Convention.
Edwards torpedoed Obama’s chances in NH by trying to jump on Obama’s change train. Now John Kerry is doing likewise in SC. Having an endorsement from John Kerry is like being endorsed by Mark Latham. JK is a walking disaster. If I were Obama, I would quietly tell people like JK to F***-off and leave me alone. Obama can win it on his own, “Yes, he can”.
Finnigans: I don’t know if Edwards actions had any impact on Obama in NH at all. Edwards has always been about change. Like Obama, he’s an anti-politician appealing to the dissafected.
I agree that Barak can win it on his own. What a different world it would be…and what a change it would bring to how politics is done.
Bloomberg is unlikely to run at this late date. Freakin’ hell, Thompson vacillated for long enough, but Mike’s testing the nation’s patience. Besides, sitting mayors and presidential runs are not good combo’s.
And if you think a black guy with a middle name of Hussain is going to have problems, then what chance a billionare Jewish businessman from New York?
The NH entrails.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-donahue/clinton-surprise-brings-p_b_80995.html
Just back from a therapeutic stroll on the beach which was needed after someone mentioned the name Nader. Dante has a line in the Inferno about the man who committed the great betrayal, the identity of whom is somewhat debated. If the Divine Comedy was written now, I think Nader would be the most fitting “great betrayer”. The book of the “Worst Ten Decisions in History” somehow forgot to included him deciding to run and gifting the presidency to Bush. Diatribe over.
I feel your pain Diogenes
Here is a bit of a run down on how Nevada is shaping up.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/09/america/nevada.php
Agree Diogenes. Nader should be forced to spend the rest of his life in company with Bush, preferably in an address in Iraq.
Please tell me there isn’t another independent who could do the same thing as Nader and kill off the Democrats single-handedly? Please!
To be fair to Ralph, he has spent his life doing some amazing work in consumer protection, particularly in relation to car safety and so-called tort reform (the removal of legitimate claimants rights in personal injury matters due to pressure from the insurance lobby).
Having paid that homage, I’d still like to kick his bony behind for giving us Dubya.
Ferny Grover- I think that the enormous good he had done through his life just makes his betrayal all the more painful. To have a lifetime of brilliant achievement destroyed by one selfish decision made against all advice, often from the kneeling position with clenched hands, is one of the saddest things I can think of.
Sorry to have brought him up, but seriously, Nader was always a friut loop and self-aggrandising nobody who only managed to steadfastly remain one right up to that ultimate act of bastardry.
Rant over.
Just caught the last half hour of the Repblican debate, and the thing that struck me was how much straight truth Ron Paul speaks compared with the ducking and weaving and histrionic flag waving that goes on with the others.
Also, the crowd, presumbably deeply Republican, went wild when he spoke against US foreign policy that just put them deeper in debt and produced little but ‘blowback’. They were silent however when he told them the absolute truth about why they are going down the financial toilet to recession ie they keep blowing price bubbles with low interest rates instead of holding their breath and tightening their belts. (This was the Volker medicine they had to have in the 80’s, but it seems Greenspan conned them all that they could go to the punch bowl over and over and never get a hangover).
Funny thing, but the Faux news focus group gave the debate to the most Reaganesque of them all, Fred Thompson, proving perhaps that the spirit of Gippers past is not dead in South Carolina!
And of course, they handed the losers badge to the one guy who spoke more truth than the rest of them could in their political lives, Ron Paul.
Ironic, it just shows how much people will not listen to what they don’t want to hear, and they’ll accept any fantasy in its place if it fits with their limited understanding of how things work.
502
Chris B – What Marvin Nicholson didn’t tell you was that he obstructed the Constitution of the United States of America with respects to freedom of the press and free speech, as he deliberately went out of his way to continually block Fox News from filming Obama in NH. If anybody was acting like JG it’s not Fox its the Obama Staffer! Bill should have flattened that degenerate, that’s exactly what that schmuck deserved.
Indiana is not going Blue not in this election seriously, i mean we’re talking a mainly rural conservative State that has not backed the Democrats since what Johnson in 1964 and he was from Texas.
In 2004 the Republicans and Bush got 1,479,438 votes to Kerry’s 969,011 i hardly think Obama, Edwards or Clinton can bring back 500,000 votes even with Evan Bayh as a running mate. Indiana is your typical Red State and despite the protest vote in 2006, the Democrats will be highly unlikely to repeat their one off success for a Presidential Election. For crying out loud Indiana has only backed a Democrat Presidential Nominee 4 times….the Democrats would have better chances in say Nevada, Iowa, Missouri, West Virginia, Ohio, and New Mexico before it had a shot at Indiana.
562 KR- Studies using functional MRI brain scans show that peoples brains actually shut down to a large extent when they are hearing something that they disagree with. It’s a great way to reduce cognitive dissonance. It happened to me repeatedly during the Howard/Rudd debate. It found I just couldn’t listen to Howard without trying really hard, it just went in one ear and out the other.
As much as I usuallly don’t agree with Glen he might be right here.
Go to this results site and click on 1964 to see just how heavily LBJ won. Then realise this was the last time the Democrats won the state….
LBJ got 61% 2pp !!!!
564
Diogenes
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”
Charles Mackay (Civil War Times correspondent)
It’s that dissonance combined with the herd instinct that produces the most catastrophic social and political movements. What makes the headlong crash into debt and financial disjunction so mesmerizing to watch is that it’s the decline of a meteoric empire, and they cannot see themselves as anything other than the rightful global hegemon.
Diogenes, further to your cognitive dissonance, it was Fred Thompson who claimed that Iraq must be a success because there was less about it in the New York Times (to much applause of course!).
But talk about cognitive dissonance! Iraq is the great dissonance in the American psyche, and no one explores it better than Juan Cole. Read his blog today on Iraqi deaths and try not to weep for the incompetence and stupidity which caused them:
http://www.juancole.com/
(Juan Cole won’t ever get an audience of Republicans to cheer him, they reserve that for innane comments made by politicians)
KR you cannot honestly sit here and say Iraq is going worse than it was a year ago, the surge has worked it would be a shame to reverse a tactic that has made the Iraq War tangible in respects of gaining a favourable end result.
KR shouldn’t we have wept for all the murder, torture and genocide happening in Iraq between 1992-2002???
Considering the Surge has been successful, the Republicans can actually use this to belt the Democrats with as they now have a successful strategy in Iraq which the Democrats are going to tamper with, that’s why the Democrats have no cred when it comes to National Security…
Glen, you allow yourself to be decieved by Fox news talking points (usually written by Whitehouse staffers) and have next to no other sources.
Please don’t tell me the ’surge’ has worked. I’ve read about Iraq daily, from before the war began, and I can tell you that most of what you think you ‘know’ is shallow, distorted and dishonest political ‘noise’.
Give Iraqis more credit, they are the ones who are on the recieving end of this colossal failure of a ‘liberation’. And don’t insult my intelligence with such claptrap masquerading as ‘fact’.
You are just funny Glen, the surge is working great me and the boy are having holidays in Baghdad in August, care to join us?
An Iraq argument SWEET.
Glen- I don’t know if the surge is working or not. The “body count” may be less but I don’t know how to measure success. I would hope that an increase in troops might provide a temporary decline in insurgent activity. The problem is the middle and long term. I think the whole venture is flawed, as was Vietnam. I’m reading a great book “The Last Mughal” about the Indian revolt in Delhi by the Muslims and Hindus against the English. History shows time and again that it’s almost impossible to go into another country and make the changes you want and get out.
571
Diogenes, and if memory serves me, the whole thrust of that episode in the Last Mughal is that British savagery with the Muslims in India created the backlash of the Deobandi School of Islam, the very one which is now the backbone of radical Taliban thought.
“Blowback” on historic time scale, but blowback no the less!
KR- Don’t spoil the end for me!! But seriously, the Indian Stalingrad left a huge hatred of the British and althought the British win the battle, they lose the war. And the moderate Muslims are forced into fundamentalism and we are still reaping that harvest. Funnily enough, I decided to read the book because of the dummy spit by the Indian cricket team (I am a very tragic bookworm with a shelf of 30 unread books at any time and I choose what to read based on the Zeitgeist. I think “Fear and Loathing on the 72 Campaign Trail” might be next)
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot! Looks like a bit of a mixup in what level of support Ron Paul had in NH has got the conspiracy theorists frothing at the mouth. Probably the weirdest story of the campaign so far.
http://www.truthnews.us/?p=1603
Steve, should that website be called ‘truthyness’ or something similar?
Diogenes, I suspect you actually know the history, unlike our unlearned friend who regurgitates neocon disinformation, either out of duty or complete ignorance, (I suspect strongly it is the latter!).
What a hoot that Ron Paul is! In the Myrtle Beach debate he said, in effect, ’so you think the war is over? Well, we are currently arming the Sunnis, Saddam’s men, and isn’t this what we’ve always done? Didn’t we do the same thing with bin Laden?’
Ouch! But of course it just sails over their heads, utterly incomprehensible to the fine burghers of South Carolina and all those dumbarse Republicans who’ve bought the whole catastrophic thing upon themselves with blind allegiance to any oaf that trots out what they think they want to hear.
Ron Paul is right: empires end by bankrupting themselves, and they are well on the way down that road.
Ron Paul is on another planet, he’s an isolationist, the last thing we need is an isolationist America KR you’ll be the first to want them back in the international system should that ever occur! The Sunnis the US are arming are Nationalists they have no transnational goals/aims and they are not uber religious fanatics like those who backed OBL in the 1980s.
Ron Paul is a Democrat in disguise!
Niall Ferguson is instructive about the gap in the American psyche when it comes to Iraq and similar “adventures”. They do imperial things (ie try to take over a medium-sized country) but without the commitment to indefinitely resource an empire that others such as the Romans and British had. End result can only be failure.
Glen, dear boy, Ron Paul is far more on this planet than any of the tired old jingoists on that stage!
Meanwhile, keep lip-synching Faux News, it’s truly a comic mime act!
Dyno, it’s the ‘intellectual bankruptcy’, the flip side of the economic bankruptcy.
And bang, right on cue, the heir to Greenspan’s perpetual punchbowl economics, the sorcerer’s apprentice Ben Bernanke, has come out to say (after denying it for months), things are really grim and the subprime debacle will take us down, that he will dish out more Greenspan punch and lower rates…again!
Ron Paul said it today for all of them to hear: force down rates, put off the day of reckoning, but every time you do it, the catastrophe that lurks around the S bend is getting bigger and bigger and bigger. (Variation on the theme: Sh!t Happens, especially when you help it along!)
They just do not know their ass from their elbow!
So here we go again, let’s just inflate our way out of debt! OK, fine, until the people lending to your endless appetitie for the world’s savings just get totally jack of you doing it, and then…look out below!
Glen, didn’t the United States back OBL in the 80s?
Kirribilli Removals @ 578
I find it strange that you say that. For all intensive purposes Ron Paul is a libertarian and I always took you as being more along the lines of a populist. If you are not I will apologise in advance, not that there is anything wrong with being a populist.
William please delete the previous post, for which I used the wrong name
I doubt Evan Bayh will be Clinton’s runningmate, because if he resigned from the Senate the Republican Governor of Indiana would appoint a Repub Senator in his place. I don’t think the Dems would want to throw away a Senate seat for the unlikely prospect that Bayh would help Clinton carry Indiana. The Dems can win without Indiana.
In fact the electoral geography of the US has become very stable over the past 20 years. At the last four presidential elections, the Dems have carried every state in the North-East and the Midwest 4 times, except IA and NH (3 times), OH and WV (2 times) and IN (0 times). They have also carried the four Pacific states (CA, OR, WA and HI) 4 times, plus they carried NM 3 times. The Electoral College votes of the states they have carried 4 times add up to 244 out of the 270 needed. Clinton would certainly carry NH, leaving only another 22 votes to find. The easiest way to do that is to ignore the South and carry OH (20) and IA (7).
It’s true that no Dem has ever been elected President without carrying at least one Southern state. But the changing political geography of the US is making this less and less relevant. Gore would have won in 2000 without a single southern state if he had carried NH, and even Kerry would have won if he had carried OH.
The Repubs thought they were terribly clever in the 60s becoming the party of the white South and stealing the Dems’ base there, and it certainly paid off for Nixon, Reagan and Bush Senior. But the longterm price is that the Repubs have come to be dominated by white southerners like Gingrich, Lott, Delay and the Bushes, and white Northerners increasingly don’t like this. That’s why states like ME, VT, IL, MN and OR, once moderate Repub heartland, are now solid for the Dems at presidential level. The big prize, CA, didn’t vote for any Dem between 1964 and 1992. Now it’s safe for any competitive Dem candidate.
That’s why Clinton can win the White House as a Northern liberal, the first candidate to do so since Kennedy in 1960. Since then five Nothern liberals been defeated (Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale., Dukakis, Kerry), and the Dems have only been able to win by nominating Southerners (Johnson, Carter, Clinton). That era is now coming to a close.
Indeed CA didn’t vote for any Dem between 1948 and 1992, apart from the LBJ landslide of 1964 which doesn’t really count, so the recent Dem dominance there really is a major turnaround. A state which rejected Kennedy in 1960 will now vote for a dope like Kerry. With 55 EC votes, CA outvotes the whole of the South except TX and FL, so the Repubs have not only made a deal with the devil by becoming the party of white southern racism, they haven’t actually gained by doing so.
Adam, freom my limited observations, there seem to be very few union leaders in the Democrat top echelon. They are mainly lawyers. Is there something fundamentally different in the US to Australia and the UK re the significance of the union movement?
Diogenes the Democrats aren’t a ‘Labor Party’ there never really was one in the USA…
The union movement in the US is vastly weaker than in Australia, and is largely confined to public sector workers like teachers and nurses. In the private sector it is concentrated in declining sectors like steel and autos. It still has considerable fundraising ability and can deliver a lot of money to candidates it supports. In some states, like NY, union support still matters to Dem candidates. But the Dems are not a labour party – the unions have no institutional voice in the party, they are just another lobby group. Their other problem is that their main policy interest is protectionism – tariff protection for their declining industries, border protection against “cheap labour” from Mexico, etc. In other words they are a backward and conservative force, at odds with the free-market thinking that dominates both parties. No serious presidential candidate is going to embrace their agenda, so they tend to concentrate their energies on congressional and gubernatorial elections where they have greater possibilities of influence. Some unions also have an unsavoury rep for gangsterism and corruption, particularly in local government – their influence in NY City for example is very negative – and this means that respectable Dem candidates tend to keep their distance.
Adam which Republican would you not want Hillary to face in November??
581
Stephen Connor
That’s interesting Stephen, because the last thing I’d think of myself as is a ‘populist’!
Still, if you’ve formed that opinion sincerely, then there must be a reason, so I’ll try to elucidate, firstly in regards to our local political landscape: I loathed Howard from the moment he was the ‘last man standing’ in the Liberal party and claimed to want to take us to a place that was ‘relaxed and comfortable’. He did not disappoint! He was a different type of populist, cyncial and manipulative, and ultimately, the electorate figured it out, althought very many years later!
I thought Bush was dangerous from the moment he was projected out of Texas by the oil/energy conglomerates for their own purposes. He did not disappoint! He was always the tool of others, and finally, a very unrepresentative bunch of intellectually partisan zionists who’d managed, (of all things!!), to seduce Southern Baptists and Rapture loony toons, into believing any goddam crazy and patently false thing they told them. (Just think: WMD and al Qaeda and Saddam!!!)
Populist? Nah, you must be dreamin’!!
(Oh, Obama? Populist? Nup, that’s about some kind of animal magnetism, and although I personally avoid it like the plague, it is a seriously important force in human affairs. It’s like religion, something I think is primitive and atavistic, but for so many people, it IS the most important thing in their lives.)
Does that help? Am I still a ‘populist’? If so, as the witch from Ipswich was wont to say: “Please explain?”
Glad to see this excellent site is covering the US primaries. A junkie can never get enough.
Republicans the party of the klu klux klan? I believe the only former KKK member in the Senate is a Democrat.
The Democrats are certainly favourite to win (although I believe Guiliani with a very socially conservative VP could give them trouble), but they might struggle with the possibly disallowed delegates from Florida and Michigan(?). If the inclusion/exclusion decides the Democrat primary, it could get nasty(ier).
I think McCain is much the most formidable Repub candidate. His only serious handicap is his age, but he carries it well. He has a formidable CV, unchallengable integrity and lots of courage. He stuck by the Iraq War when things were at their worst, and is getting credit now that things are improving. Romney is a total phony, Huckabee a sectional candidate, Giuliani a crook (read the expose on him in Time a few weeks ago – he’s a nasty man).
Slightly off topic, the reason for Shino Abe’s resignation was ulcerative colitis. This was definitely not a flimsy excuse. It can be very hard to control and potentially life-threatening. When it is a s bad as his was, you really need to be in hospital and could not run a country. There is no cure except total colectomy which is last resort stuff.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23039333-12377,00.html
Adam,
You think McCain? I don’t know. As you said age is a problem. Imagine him standing next to Obama debating. He could easily be seen as a good leader, past his prime (sound familiar?).
He is a genuine hero, but a lot of his praise comes from the MSM who love when he bags Republicans and that he is a media tart. He won’t get that sort of press in a race for President.
Romney: great manager, but doesn’t seem “common man” enough. Lot of money though.
Huckabee: would not like to see him get the nomination (he truly is a “Christian socialist”), but don’t underestimate the evangelical vote, even in the general. Lot of otherwise Democrats like this guy.
Guiliani: A crook? Are you kidding me? The whole US political system is set up to allow corruption that would never be stood for here. I don’t think this will be a problem. His social liberalism is though, but could be fixed with the right VP.
Thompson: I’m cheering for him, but not much chance.
4 years ago I picked Clinton to win the next one, I see no reason to change my tip. Obama certainly is going to make her fight for it though.
Adam, we agree on Huckster, Romney and 9iu11iani, but McCain? Agreed, a fine and distingiushed record, both militariy and civic, but he is a ‘loose cannon’, and known to have to some very strong, ah shall we say, ‘outbursts’. In polite terms a ‘maverick’, but he is not mainstream Republicanism. And yes, he’s way too old for the rest of the field, and that in itself may be the clincher.
As for your post on the state breakdowns, (very interesting by the way), it kind of tallies with my rather flippant view of America ie the Civil War never really ended. And you see it best in presidential politics, and in the Confederate victory of GW Bush the second time around. He’s very much a below the Mason Dixon line sort of guy, and they essentially re-elected him. (Don’t take that comment too seriously, I know jack-sh1t about US politics! LOL)
McCain won’t get it purely because of his age IMHO, he’s what in his 70s i mean he’d only be a 1 termer even if he won. Romney can’t get it because he’s a mormon and no matter how many of his millions he spends on ad space he’ll continue to come second or worse. Huckleberry will not win many delegates from the Coastal States thus he’ll be at worst a spoiler which leaves Giuliani, i didn’t read the expose on him in Time but if he were a crook wouldn’t he be in jail or not running for President. Giuliani is the only choice for the Republicans with a Huckleberry or a Southern Senator as a Running mate because Giuliani is the only Republican who can threaten the Democrats in the Purple States, Pennsylvania, Oregon, even California and New York now granted he probably wouldnt win the later two but it would force the Democrats to spend time and resources holding them.
I like McCain but he’s too old over 70 years of age now don’t we retire supreme court judges around that time, plus the Democrats would murder him on him saying he wouldn’t guarantee running for a second term.
Im sure the Democrats can run alot of negative things of Giuliani like attacking him over his personal life and such but he did do a lot of good for New York he might be a tough bastard but to run New York you need a thick skin and you need one if you’re to be the leader of the free world. The only person capable of making the Presidential Election close is having a Giuliani/Hagel or Giuliani/Alexander ticket IMHO.
I think McCain would run the Dems close or possibly win. The rest, forget it in my view (though Glen is right about Guiliani chewing up lots of Dem resources fighting over NY).
KR, I know you don’t like McCain (by the way, “brittle” was your word that I disagreed with, and I never called him “mellow” as you later said I had). I just don’t think his outbursts will be that big a deal unless he does them in public, which he probably won’t. His age is a significant handicap. I’m not saying he would definitely win but I think he’d be a chance.
Further to my little rant about the dire state of the US economy and the never-ending belief in the tooth fairy (Fed fund rate cuts), here’s what one Nobel Prize winning economist says:
“People have more debt than they can afford to pay and they gambled on house prices going up forever,” said Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Columbia University economist and a Nobel laureate. “There is no way that Fed policies can undo these harsh realities. Bernanke needs to say to Congress, ‘We have reached the limits of what responsible monetary policy can do.’ ”
(NY Times)
In other words, opening the tap, yet again, will not fix anything, it will just exacerbate other problems.
I’m not so sure about this McCain too old thing. He comes across as still being healthy, although the poor guy can’t lift his arms above his shoulders after his torture (presumably strappado BTW). I don’t think Howard got the boot coz he was too old at all. The Yanks have voted in much less healthy men, like Reagan second term and Roosevelt. They’ve had four die of natural causes in office and with a popular back-up VP, I like his chances. Perhaps I’m biased as I always like the mavericks. Cynics (with a capital C) always love the anti-establishment pollies.
Kirribilli Removals @ 588
Populist may have been a little too harsh. I gather you are more socially liberal than a populist but I doubt you are at the extreme of the Libertarian movement. Also I take you are more of an economic conservative (in the true sense). Greater social infrastructure at the expense of winner takes all big business.
On the Dem side, I think Edwards would have the best chance to win but he won’t be nominated. If I were one of the other two, I wouldn’t be attacking him too much from now on, he’d be a plus as VP candidate IMO.
Clinton will start favourite whomever the Repubs nominate, but I was asked who is the most formidable Repub candidate and my answer is still McCain. The problem the Repubs have (apart from the geographic/demographic one I discussed above) is that their factions hate each other more than they hate the Dems. If Giuliani is nominated the fundys won’t vote. If Huckabee is nominated the moderates either won’t vote, will vote for Bloomberg if he runs, or will vote for Clinton. If Romney is nominated the fundys won’t vote for him because he belongs to a pagan cult and because he’s insincere on their issues (which is correct). McCain is the least objectionable option to all factions. Thompson had a chance to break through that but he seems to have blown it by being dull and not very energetic.
Come on guys. Look at McCain, who does him remind you of? physically I mean, effing Johnnie Howard. There is no way the USA voters will elect him, so the GOP are stuffed whichever way it went.
595
Dyno
Oh, sorry Dyno, I didn’t intend to misquote you, in fact I couldn’t even remember who it was who took me up on it!
Realistically, (god, how can one even use that term about politics???), McCain and Clinton represent a lot of collective memory, a lot of experience and a lot of accumulated respect, and I do not disparage either of them personally.
But I do not vote in US elections! (Americans do!). And when I said he was ‘brittle’ I meant he can be abrasive, hot headed, and a bit alarming to many of the staid and ‘proper’ Republicans. (If I’d had his life experiences I’d probably be a certifiable nutcase!).
No offence meant Dyno…cheers!
The main problem I see for both Democratic front runners is that they have a polarizing effect. There are many people who love Clinton but also many who hate her. As for Obama, yes there are people who find him inspirational but there have only ever been 3 black governors. If they won’t vote for a black governor then what change is there for a black president.
KR,
No worries at all, definitely no offence taken.
And you’re right, the staid Republicans might not like McCain, which (for example) might hurt his fund-raising, and so on.
Agree with you too in that I would rarely disparage anyone who takes the trouble to run for office anywhere. At least they’re in there having a go.
600
Stephen Connor
“Greater social infrastructure at the expense of winner takes all big business.”
Bravo! I couldn’t have said it more succinctly if I’d tried. Thanks, I’ll use that on my letterhead! LOL
cheers
The expose on Giuliani was in Newsweek, not Time:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/72121/output/print
Basically it says he grew up in a mafia family and has never really changed.
I think that McCain is definately the pick of the Republicans. He is respected across the spectrum, and is even getting donations from the Swift boaters (who now have thrown veterans and POWs into their name).
On another note, Intelligent Mr Toad is a brilliant name!
602
Adam
“Thompson had a chance to break through that but he seems to have blown it by being dull and not very energetic.”
On the last few outings, Thompson has been off his meds, has woken up, or has had a new battery pack installed, and the ‘buzz’ is, that he’s actually spoken a few lines that surprised people (maybe surprised them that he’s actually conscious!).
It feels like he’s being built up for something, but winning the nomination is probably too fanciful.
I thought it was more a homage to Reagan than to rational input, but hey, that’s just cynical me!
First post didn’t seem to go through, so will try again.
As a “fundy” myself, who talks to other “fundys” I can assure you that Mormons are not seen in that light by the vast majority, and it is irrelevant in any case.
Guiliani will get many “fundys” to vote (maybe not all), if he can offer constructionist judges and a so-con VP.
Adam, it would have been the greatest conversion since St Paul on the Road to Damascus if Time Magazine wrote an anti Rudy story. After all, he has been their Person of the Year twice so far.
608
Adam
If you want a good expose of Giuliani, read Glen Greenwald in Salon.com, he flays the beast quite deftly.
Glen, I take it you’re being ironic when you say that the incoming Pres of the USA will be the ‘leader of the free world’? If not, I fear for your sanity.
WPC @ 611
I would agree with that but what will most likely energise the Republicana as a whole is not their own candidates but the prospect of one of Clinton or Obama becoming president.
Who here would honestly vote for a 71 year old to run the country now i know Unca Howie was old but he wasn’t when he started
still this guy could leave the oval office at any moment.
Giuliani has the moderates and the independents
McCain has most of the independents
Romney has nobody but Utah
Thompson is a yokel
Huckleberry is supported by those who have never been to the beach
That somes em up, if McCain was 10 years younger bam he’d be a shoe in but he didn’t beat Bush in 2000 and quite frankly his best days are behind him.
The Republicans can either pick a moderate Republican and hope to take votes of the Democrats and make them actually fight to hold the big States of California and New York or put in a Morman, a Senior Citizen or a Jesus Lover who cannot possibly have the support of enough Americans. Rudy is the only shot they’ve got IMHO.
I hope Giuliani gets it over Huckleberry because it will be like Rockefeller beating Goldwater back in 1964 for the nomination, its about time the moderates take back the Republican Party or they can kiss goodbye the States they used to be able to win regularly like on the West Coast and North East.
Glen its curious how you could support a 68 year Howard, but not a 71 year old McCain
Does 3 years make that much of a difference?
Glen,pay attention!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shoo%20in
SC @ 15
Yes, that is a very good point. When the candidate is chosen, and they see the alternative, a lot of the “I won’t vote for the social liberal/economic socialist” Republican crowd will change their mind.
Glen, what do you mean by “moderate”. Socially, fiscally or what? Contrary to popular belief, GWB is not particularly conservative on a lot of issues. On illegal immigration, for instance, he would be well to the left of both major parties in Australia. Part of his 30s approval ratings is because he is not conservative enough on many issues (primarily fiscal) for some Americans.
You probably are referring to the so-con evangelical crowd. I have news for you. As a growing group, the GOP can’t do without them. The change in electoral college votes after 2010 will show that up even more.
asanque @ 617
To defend Glen a little here, if a PM dies in office then it stops the nation for a short period then everything goes back to normal. If a US president dies in office then it stops the world and for a long period.
Glen, I betcha now McCain wins. I promise to bite my typing tongue the next time I’m gonna take a snipe at you if he doesn’t.
On another note, for anyone else hearing through the conservative presses about how Hillary humanised herself with the ‘that hurts my feelings’ and how we saw a cruel Obama response, here is the innocuous incident: http://youtube.com/watch?v=K3DeCLPwxXI. I wonder which candidate these folks are scared of?
Krauthammer (another great name) toeing the line: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/10/AR2008011003245.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Giuliani does have a potential negative in his Roman Catholic religion, although I gather he is pro-choice and pro-stem cell. Wasn’t Kennedy the only Catholic POTUS? On the “I wouldn’t vote for..” list, Catholic is between woman and black (and much better off than Mormon).
Diogenes you a cynic? No never, I had you picked as a new frontier type idealist.
WPC – I was meaning socially he’s more moderate Giuliani that is ie gun control, abortion (status quo) ect.
617
steve – i bet you feel happy pointing out spelling errors.
616
asanque – the difference was that Howard was in his early 60s when he was first elected as a leader, for McCain to become President after his 71st birthday seems a little too old IMHO. If Howard was in his 70s id have said it would be time to step aside too…
620
Pancho – lol Pancho we’ll see mate but i can’t see McCain doing well in Ohio, Pennsylvania, California, New York, Florida can you?
ESJ, fancy putting your cards on the table re your preferred candidate?
Yes Pancho,
Hilary Rodham Clinton for President
I think that McCain doen’t have the major obstacle in his way that could potentially hamstring each other candidate at some stage. He will have nagging questions about his age, but the others could all cop a king hit at some stage. Mormons, weirdoes (or not weird enough), Reaganites…I think he’ll be the last man standing as they peel away.
#621 – Obama did not look good with that sneer. Watch his face:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=QoMCoMMgeO0
If he crashed out, it will go down as his “Latham’s handshake moment”
I don’t think it is a sneer, more an absent response. He is making notes, and sort of misses the his cue to respond to Hillary, then throws in what she wants. Plus, women came out for Hillary, they didn’t desert Obama. I think the story here is the story that Fox et al are trying to drag from it.
Pancho you ask any average person whether they’d want a President or Prime Minister starting out in their early 70s you wouldn’t find many who’d support them.
McCain might have been great a few years ago but he’s far too old 71. The Republicans would be unwise to nominate someone who has not guaranteed that should he win that he’d stand for a second term.
Glen did you get the World at War Book for Christmas?
It’s like Lenin said, you look for the person who will benefit, and uh…I am the walrus.
621
Pancho, I like to check links, like the one Krauti put to the al Anbar “Awakening”.(Don’t you love the ‘new age’ names the Yanks give to anything which is dodgey, murky and so opaque, that it is anything but!).
Here’s a snippet, about the nice Sheik that shook Dubbya hand and then got blown to smithereens (just like I though he would):
Abu Risha “made his living running a band of thieves who kidnapped and stopped and robbed people on the road between Baghdad and Jordan. That’s how he made his fortune,” Welch said. Tribesmen accuse Abu Risha of passing false information to U.S. forces about other tribal leaders in order to eliminate business rivals, Welch said.
And so, once again, we see the ugly underbelly of the group that’s being bought by the Pentagon to wage war on ‘al Qaeda’ in Iraq.
Good luck to anyone who thinks it’s all going so well.
LOL Pancho
So who has been the naughty girl who let her knickers down?
Glen is right on McCain I can remember poor old Bob Dole running on treadmills in 96 trying to dispel the “age” question. 70 is the limit unfortunately for a first term.
631
Edward StJohn – couldn’t find it did you get a copy?
632
Pancho – “The chinaman is not the issue here, Dude. I’m talking about drawing a line in the sand, Dude. Across this line, you DO NOT… Also, Dude, chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please.”
Anyone who didn’t read the bio article on Giuliani in Newsweek missed this little gem:
(Giuliani had dropped out of Air Force ROTC, citing a slight hearing impediment, and told colleagues that Vietnam did not meet the Catholic definition of a “just war.”)
Gotta love that, a ‘just war’. Catholic sophistry is such a razor to slice and dice reality with.
While I realise you can use this, Reagan was one month short of 70 in 1981, and not in McCain’s league in many a department. The US wouldn’t mind a pater familius now.
Yes, OK read includes some comments/ snippets that didnt make it into the original series.
Spoiled a bit – they got some bolshy English academic to “interpret” the comments and he goes in for a bit of “social history” which was unfortunate because as we both know the great men school of history is the one and correct school of historiography.
One more post before I say Goodnight to Irene. Remember the Yanks used to laugh at the Chinese Communist Party for electing “Geriatrics” in the 70s for the leadership of the PRC. Now most of the leadership of the PRC are post war generation in their mid or late 50s when elected.
Therefore, if the Yanks elect McCain at 72, it will be the laughing stock of the World.
In fact the last of the eight “Immortals” in the CCP died last year or went to meet Marx.
639 Pancho
Yes, good point. Although I have had it said to me that into his second term, the age was becoming more of a burden on his faculties.
McCain is a good chance of winning the Repub nomination, which is completely open at the moment as far as I am concerned, but still can’t see him winning the general. Unless you believe the polls this far out
Glen
Good point. We have a retirement age for High Court judges for a reason.
Can you imagine a John Howard that was born in 1925 winning in ‘96?
Ah yes ESJ the social histories that university professors love to harp on about and being English it would have had the whole East Enders and West Enders divide in London during the blitz et al.
639
Pancho – I’m sure if Kevin Rudd were 70 he’d not only not have been elected leader of the ALP but he’d not have won the election had he been.
As much as age is not a factor, being old and frail is not the image one wants to display, just as it is not a good look for a Presidential candidate to start crying over something trivial.
It’s academic in any case. The next President will be 47 at the time of his inauguration.
641 TF
You lefties are always so worried what “the world” thinks. I can tell you most Americans, who do not suffer from cultural cringe, couldn’t give a stuff what “the world” thinks.
72 or not, in private at least, the world’s leaders will suck up to a McCain presidency as much as they will Clinton, Obama or anyone else.
563 Glen Oh my god! I agree with you about Indiana Glen. But to draw a long bow about the constitution is unbelievable. Gobels is alive and well.
Glen, I have “Talk of the Devil:Encounters with Seven Dictators” on order from Amazon at the moment. It is basically former dictators justifying their crimes.
ESJ- A Cynic is an idealist who has had his rose-coloured glasses taken off, snapped in two and crushed by a boot, and can now see the world with perfect vision. Or so they say.
Would this be about the Oreilly factor incident and the Constitution Chris B, i agree with you that JG is alive and well and this stupid staffer would have made him proud.
I know Chris B that the hard left don’t like Fox News but a lot of people who’ve trashed it have never watched it or if they do they’ll watch only a bit of it. The O’Reilly Factor is balanced whenever they discuss a political issue they’ll have representatives from both Parties and while he may be disliked by the left his ratings are still the highest in the country.
Personally if a Liberal Staffer blocked the media from taking shots of Howard campaigning i’d be pissed off at them for doing that, regardless of who is reporting the news the media should be able to film candidates out on the hustings. The point is because they were Fox this dirt for brains Obama staffer thought it would be funny to breach freedom of the press and O’Reilly was right in calling him an SOB u just dont do that not in a free society that is something JG would have loved to do block any media who didn’t always agree with them.
As the great Walter Sobchak said in the The Big Lebowski “Smokey, this is not ‘Nam. This is bowling. There are rules.”
ESJ 650- I read that last year and it’s very good, although brief. There are two by Kapusczinski called the “Shah of Shahs” about the last Shah of Iran, and “The Emperor” about Haile Selassie which are much better and are considered masterpieces about the demise of dictators.
yes read those Diogenes. Also have 2 books by Jerrold Post – the former inhhouse CIA shrink who did the profiling on political leaders for them before retirement.
651 Glen So what did you think of them calling Clinton and Obama communists? Or did that just slip by you?
Here it is again just in case you missed it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfc8cn8Yqxk
ESJ- It appears he has just put out a new one.”The Mind of the Terrorist: The Psychology of Terrorism from the IRA to al-Qaeda” which looks very interesting.
“The Feast of the Goat” by Vargas Llosa is absolutely brilliant about the end of the Dominican Republic dictator Trujillo.
654
Chris B – if i remember correctly that was not a Fox News Reporter or Bill O’Reilly but someone being interviewed about the financial markets who said those things about Obama and Clinton. Let’s not jump to conclusions about Fox News as much as ya’ll dislike it.
Canberra Times. Scoop, apparently. What the Papers Say. Mesharif comes out strongly against USA.
658
Crikey Whitey
Poor old Pervez, he’s getting close to his endgame, and he’s being out-manoeuvered by events. Standing by while Bhutto got slaughtered was a very big tactical mistake, and huffing and puffing now is much too late.
621 Pancho
I had to look for this, but it sums up how corrupt and shamelessly Mr Krauthammer milks the worst of human nature for his neocon fantasies:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/20/krauthammer/index.html
..it’s so bizarre and ‘off the dial’ I thought you’d enjoy it.
Reports are coming in about Election fraud in the New Hampshire vote. where are the International monitoring agencies.
Problems have been identified with the “black’ box electronic voting system.
Analysis of votes under the manual ballot system showed Obama wining but the electronic system showed Clinton 5% ahead. Exit polls place Obama ahead in New Hampshire. Anther reason why copies of the ballot data files of an electronic count needs to be published and made public in order to maintain open and transparent elections.
Glen @ 651
I know Chris B that the hard left don’t like Fox News but a lot of people who’ve trashed it have never watched it or if they do they’ll watch only a bit of it. The O’Reilly Factor is balanced whenever they discuss a political issue they’ll have representatives from both Parties and while he may be disliked by the left his ratings are still the highest in the country.
We don’t like it because it IS NOT NEWS, it is the vitriolic ravings of the demented neo-cons who have brought the world to the current parlous state. I watch it if I am bored and need to be entertained by their hilarious rabid ravings. The fact that their ratings are high just proves that there are many morons like you who watch it as a source of news!
ESJ @ 649
Glen, I have “Talk of the Devil:Encounters with Seven Dictators” on order from Amazon at the moment. It is basically former dictators justifying their crimes
ESJ, is there a chapter for George Walker Bush in there perhaps?
Diogenes, right on cue, an interview with William Dalrymple this morning on Radio National (it was some months old by the sound of it, but very good none the less)
Zietgiest or what?
664 Basil- It doesn’t but there is another book on the greatest dictators ever which incudes him in the afterword. The afterword to “Talk of the Devil” is really funny. It is a letter to the author from Noriega, thanking him for his interest in his career. He declines to be interviewed though because he says his career is far from over and any interview would be incomplete!
Another day, another 1.5% off US markets and a, wait for it, $15 billion write down by Merril Lynch on dodgey sup-prime ’securities’ (don’t you love that term ’securities’? Especialy when they are based on crud like vast sums lent to poor people who could not read the fine print ie they were actually required to pay it back at rates that they eventually could not possibly sustain!).
There’s a smell of panic as retail stocks get hammered and the realisation sets in that piles of debt, falling house prices, falling employment and rising oil prices do not make a rosey picture that Uncle Fed (aka the tooth fairy) can massage away with yet more promises of cheap money.
So, to the long grinding election of the next POTUS, where the mantra has shifted to, wait for it, “the economy,stupid”! Ah, the more things change,eh?
Does anyone feel Groundhog Day? A Bush, a Clinton, and a presidential race with the theme: “It’s the economy,stupid’? (OK, this Shrub ain’t running this time, but you know what I mean)
When I started to point out the US economy was on the skids and the ‘r’ word was getting dusted off by some people who know when to use it, there was a little discussion about how fundamentally robust the US economy is, but I disagreed. I still disagree, and expect US growth to contract pretty strongly in the short term, and continue into contraction in this half of the year sometime.
Also, look at their balance of trade, just blown out again:
The gap between what Americans import and export grew 9.3 percent to $63.1 billion, the biggest deficit in 14 months, the Commerce Department said.
Exports sales rose again in November, by 0.4 percent to a record $142.3 billion, but decelerated from October’s 0.9 percent rise. A slowdown in export growth may be troubling for investors in light of the increasingly bearish forecasts for this year’s economy
…more pressure on the $US they really do not need while they are sucking in imports at a net rate over exports of $2 billion per day. Each, and every day, and borrowing like mad to keep it up.
As Ron Paul said yesterday, “we’re broke”. He also said that empires expire by bankrupting themselves. Looks like they are well on the way.
Kr BBC is reporting a 2% drop in the US Stock Market. The Terminator was on saying that CAL was spending Millions a month more then income. And teh US is in dept over the war on oil. America is going down. Time to pay the bills or write off bad debts. Russia will soon adopt the Euro as a basis of exchange and Oil/gas contracts will be written in Euros not dollars adding further pressure on the US economy. Whoever is elected US Pres will have a very tough term.
US Trade deficit is widening 10% i November 800 Billion Dollar deficit every year ad rise in default creditors. Gold has rising to high of 900 an once.
Do any of the POTUS candidates have a sound remedy for fixing the recession or is it politically unpalatable? I’m sure the phrase “McMansion” hasn’t been mentioned. And who will benefit the most by a collapse in the economy? Presumably the more experienced candidates like McCain and Clinton a la Howies argument, which did get a little bit of traction.
Senate Watch, it’s always a question of whether you round up or down and which index you’re looking at. The Dow is not representative of the broad market (it’s 30 stocks), the S&P or the NASDAQ are much bigger markets.
Last night:
DOW -1.92%
S&P -1.32%
NAS -1.95%
There’s also the Russell Small Caps, but I didn’t look at those. I just glanced at the numbers and took something in the middle…loose, but you get the idea!
wow, you guys can move – taken ages to catch-up. Some of us unfortunately caught the short-straw of working for the summer.
Sorry for being so late and going off-tangent –
Re Adam @587 re the lack of Union presence in US Democrat politics, and indeed across the OECD. I also agree it is relatively unique to Aust, possibly including NZ, as a long-standing cultural thing.
At an OECD-Health Directorate with Oz and European delegates (France, Holland, Scandinavia), sharing info about different models of dealing with the problem of falling workforce participation rates in our respective countries, due to ill-health or disability, given that:
.
(a) we all had variations of public-funded social security pension, and health-care systems; and
(b) we share the common OECD health issues of increasing rates (and hence govt health-care costs) of chronic disease burden.
.
The stronger historical role of Unions in Down-unda, in OH&S standards and indirectly in health/disability etc, was a real surprise to the Europeans, as our Unions have long been active in things like conditions of service for workers, and worker health issues, and less active in issues like industrial protectionism as they are in the USA.
.
Aussies generally enjoy better conditions on things like paid sick leave, employer assistance in “return-to-work” programs, workers comp, etc, but which are mostly employer-funded, whereas in Europe its public-funded. We also have better rates of ‘return-to-work’ following illness/injury than Europe, and in shorter time-frames.
.
In this respect, Unions in Aust became a more important stakeholder or ‘player’ in the national economy, (eg in the Superannuation Guarantee) and not just financial self-interest lobby group.
Rain- I read during the election that California is the most unionised state in the US and has the strongest economy. The argument that unions are bad for the economy is simplistic and plain wrong.
Senate Watch @ 662 – I was disturbed to learn the AEC trialled an electronic system last year to record the votes of our deployed troops. If this is an indicator of AEC’s plans it must, IMHO, be resisted at all costs.
As we’ve just seen, literally half a dozen votes can decide the result in a seat, and potentially an election. While paper ballots are not foolproof at least you can go back and do full and transparent recounts until all parties are confident the tally reflects the will of the voters.
KR I was just reporting direct from the BBC..
May oF we really need to look att how we account for and scrutinise electronic ballots. This is very much one of the reasons why I am determined to obtain a copy of the detailed below-the-line data file. Without this detail of data you you can not scrutinise an e-election. It never ceases to amaze me how technocratic our electoral commissions are. There as many members of staff in the Electorate Commissions as there are in electorate offices. The VEC and the AEC by the looks at it will go to any length to avoid realising detailed elections results and copies of the derailed preference data. Why I have no idea other then it avoids accountability. 10 years on and I am still having to go through the FOI process to obtain what should be published as a matter of course. In the absence of self management, Parliaments will have to review and legislation to ensure detailed results are published in a timely fashion in order to restore public confidence in electronic elections. It only going to get worst if and when they adopt a full e-voting system.
I have noticed a distinct increase in public awareness and a string push for the US adopting a preferential “Instant Runoff” ballot system. Universities are now beginning to adopt preferential voting. We should jump on the various forums and push preferential voting. Australia really leads the world when it comes to preferential voting (Even if we are still locked in the 20thy century in the way we account for our votes) Preferential voting ion the US Primaries would certainly go a long way to improving US democracy which still is locked in the 19th century http://fairvote.org
Yes Diogenes, it is !!
.
ALP here have long recognised that cooperation in mutual self-interest works well economically, whereas it wasn’t important to the right-wing ideology of winner-takes-all capitalism, and individual rights dominating over community interest.
California also has one of the best state-based public health and education systems too, which probably has some basis in their brand of Union involvement too. Would be interesting to compare them, say with countries like Japan too.
.
Really, the USA model (in its national dominant form) is rather a global exception. Whenever OECD countries try to do international comparative stats – 9 times out of 10 – the USA numbers have to be completely excluded, because it is so different and incomparable to all the rest.
.
Senate Watch and MayoF,
I completly agree with the need to maintain manual ballots and avoid e-voting at all costs.
SO, is the US economy the Elephant in the Room, to use a cliche from the last election?
Are any of the candidates focussing on this a la John Howard and the safe pair of hands line, or are they all avoiding it as much as possible? I’ve noticed that it doesn’t seem to get the kind of press as interest rates do here.
657 Glen. Watch the video Glen. Its quite clear what happens. Goebbels is alive and well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfc8cn8Yqxk
And don’t resort to abuse as a form of criticism. If thats the best you can do.
Sorry Glen, I got confused between two postings.
663 Basil Fawlty
We don’t like it because it IS NOT NEWS, it is the vitriolic ravings of the demented neo-cons who have brought the world to the current parlous state. I watch it if I am bored and need to be entertained by their hilarious rabid ravings.
Chris says: I couldn’t agree more. Glen just shows he doesn’t know what he is talking about.
Diogenes @ 673 – Do you remember the Lib ad at the beginning of the fed election which featured a table of the most prosperous OECD countries and the Lib claim that a Labor win would see us fall from 6th place to 16? Almost all of the countries above us on that table have a more unionised workforce than us. And at least 3 of them rate higher than we do on the UN list of the happiest nations, too.
Mayo and Basil -
the main reason that I occasionally watch any of the US news programs is with a morbid fascination at the amount of plastic surgery that each of the presenters has had. It is like watching some kind of freak show , and so I can’t take in anything they say because I’m too busy focusing on whtther or not their eyes and mouths move when they speak. And how white their teeth are.
I admit this is shallow, but it becomes a bit of an obsession – started to do it here with the botoxed foreheads during the election (Costello and Julie Bishop were outstanding winners), but it comes from not being able to stand hearing the nonsense they sprout I guess.
Jen, I’m also curious about the lack of attention to the economic management line in these early days of the US primaries. Perhaps its not as impotant an issue in candidate selection, as it might be in the real run-off? As a guess, maybe the economy is a more specific Party-line Policy than other differences in policy between the individual candidates?
.
I may be just ill-informed but I do struggle with the US primary system – if everything depends on the individual’sd policies? Then why have a Party? *puzzled frown* – *scratching head*..
.
I really don’t *get it* – but am trying to, and hence will hang here on this wonderful pollbludger site.
.
Was chatting with an American friend, raised in Texas but spent most of their adult life living/working in liberal east coast cities, before moving to Oz a few years ago to become a rare ex-pat, celebrating giving up their birth citizenship. He said that many Americans are rusted-on Party voters and don’t care much about the primaries or get involved beyond watching an interesting evening news soap-opera, and will accept any Democrat selected by the Party Convention. “Go-with-the-flow” types. Along with another huge chunk of population with total political apathy, the ones who don’t vote, don’t care and switch channels for the whole election year.
.
He thinks, its really of interest to the “morally obligated” who were indoctrinated with the Pavlov’s Dog conditioning of daily flag-rituals in school (along with prayers etc), and feel obligated to participate as part of citizenship, and of interest to the swingers, who vote for Person not Party, but with such a huge, diverse population that still is a lot of people in any demographic.
.
And his last statement was that its far more “group-think” based regional-specific demographics, than we are used to here, partly because they aren’t that “mobile” a nation. They tend to stay put regionally, and for long periods of time.
And are so densely packed in population density, means less incentive for populations to travel much across cities/states – even in the most rural states, it aint so far to get to urban civilisation. An hour from the nearest traffic-light or McDonald’s is considered “isolated”.
.
The old saying, travel broadens the mind, but Americans dont tend to travel much, even in their own home states, so according to my friend – while its very hard to generalise or categorise a diverse, densely packed nation of several hundred million people – the regional-based “group-think” demographic is about the closest you’re going to get, and outranks generic class or race.
.
Last time I went overseas, I picked up an airport paperback titled “101 Little Known Facts about Australia” which was hilarious, but 3 things really stuck in my memory:1. Per head of capita, Aussies travel overseas for business/pleasure more than any other country (NZ came a close second);
per head of capita, more of us are willing to give up citizenship and become citizens of anywhere and everywhere else that takes our fancy. Aussies are everywhere, and not all that patriotic when it comes to the crunch. Might get homesick for the beaches, vegemite and Sunday with mum & dad etc.
and Per head of capita we eat out more than any other country (and have more restaurants per head of capita too!)
So we lead the world in being globe-trotting, food and wine snobs? *chuckle*
.
Also, very eclectic – like the old joke: ‘What is Australian cuisine?’ Answer: ‘10 Nations on a plate”. eg. We don’t see any problem with mixing Turkish with Thai for dinner (as long as you get the wine *right*).
.
I see the same thing in our politics, a bit of a mish-mash of “bits” borrowed from other systems too, and then re-adapted & fiddled with, often improving it. Working in govt too, I’ve found over time that Australian governance tends to be very watchful of international ways of doing things, eg. see how something like GM foods/crops – pans out in Germany, Japan or Canada etc, before we make up our minds which way we might jump
.
KR @ 667,
I agree – the US is heading for recession. Won’t be official before the primary season is over, but will affect the big one in November (presumably to hurt the Republicans).
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ari_savi_080109_the_glories_of_the__.htm
Rain @ 684 I read somewhere that over one million Australian live overseas. The brain drain industry looks favourably on Australians overall. I do not think I would give up citizenship but I most certainly would adopt a second citizenship. Spending a long period of time away from you home country (particularly n a non English speaking country) open your eyes to the world,. The main issue I have with Americans is my concern over their fundamental religious freaks. Their concept of being a christian is far from my understanding and belief. Te southern baptist revivalists, Mormons, 7 Days adventurists and jehovah’s worry the hell out of me. And I am not talking about the fear of hell and brimstone. Have you noticed how in every political speech the word god is there somewhere.. Who knows what they mean by God. one mans version is different to the next. God help America and may God save the world from America.
But back to US economics in the election – what do some of the economic gurus here think? Is the US economy really in as severe a state as some are hinting at? And how much of an effect might it have on Oz in the coming years if it gets worse and does hit the Big Crunch?
.
When I was in the first-home buyer demographic (1980s), prices tended to rise and fall over time, not just interest rates – I actually did well with Keatings interest rate hikes, when they went so high so quickly, it meant prices fell dramatically and suddenly, and allowed me to enter the housing market much earlier than expected.
.
Winners and losers, swings and roundabouts etc – there were some unlucky bad-luck, bad-timing “losers” sure (and they are still whingeing about it 20 years later? Nearly all recovered within 3 years), many more were able to hold on if they had already paid off several years worth of the capital, so, it *hurt* a bit for a couple of years, but was not a major financial setback sending large numbers into poverty, and then some “winners” like me – who due to good-luck, good-timing, found those interest rates letting us laugh all the way to bank on that 18% mortage!
.
Prices rose again, then fell again in waves and cycles. At one stage, my house was worth much less on the, then, current market, than it was insured for. But that was the way of things – *shrug* – over a lifetime, it would rise and fall, but eventually keep pace with inflation at minimum as a life-time investment, sometimes you were lucky, in buying/selling depending on timing of the ups and downs of the housing market.
.
In my day, the price (or amount borrowed) was far more important than the interest rate, or so my old Year 7 maths on compound interest taught me.
.
But that all changed somewhere in the 90s when I wasn’t looking? Prices just keep rising and rising and rising… and demand is for bigger and better first up? The McMansion phenomenon – whatever happened to the little ones needing “some TLC” and advertised as “suit first-homebuyer”? They all get bull-dozed and turned into units? Can’t sell them? The land is worth more than the small, but comfy-enuff housing? Where does it end? Too many young people having grown up in McMansions want bigger and better than their parents had? But their parents might have worked 10-20 years to get there?
So, forgive my ignorance, but when they talk about the US housing slump and its flow-on impact on the economy (and potentially globally as well) what does that mean for us here in the burbs of Oz? Our rates are going up, with and without the RBA, which to me sounds sensible even if it will hurt some people, and a lot are whingeing about it etc – but why does the US keep trying to keep them low? Isn’t that just delaying the inevitable?
.
Jen 678. I support e-voting for multi-member elections. The main issue is that the counting of the election MUST be open and transparent and the Electoral commissions MUST provide ready access to the detailed elections results and not just the summary reports. On line meaning of the count would be helpful, if you have e-voting then the data files have to be accessible, safe and secure.
In a single member electorate e-voting should only apply to absentee and registered users. There is no advantage in using computers to distribute preferences for a single member seat. Undertaking a transcribed data-entry process can not be justified. The time and resources is the same and the scrutiny of the ballot significantly reduced. Particularly if they do not undertake a preliminary sort of the ballot papers into primary votes before data-entry (As happens in Local Government Elections) Its a case of boy with expensive toys and they do not want to share.
Rain. Try Swimming near a sinking vessel. The riptide effect draws you under..
http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/26347/
Rain
I’m no guru but I can see a lot of pain down the track.
The population is heavily in debt due to the false sense of security that the previous government projected and the lax lending practices by the financial institutions.
I’m not sure about the property market though. This market will be determined by supply and demand and I see many foreclosures, but I also see a lot of investment from overseas that will stabilise the market at the expense of Australian ownership.
The US Fed can not continue to prop up the money market and this could be the big one and there is talk about trading crude in Euros. If this eventuates, the US dollar will plummet to a point that I could not imagine.
The advice I have been giving to anyone that listens, is consolidate debt now and strap yourself in to ride out the storm.
“The advice I have been giving to anyone that listens, is consolidate debt now and strap yourself in to ride out the storm.”
.
*nodding*, not a good time to take on extra mortgages or loans or increase your credit-limits, no matter how solid your equity or net worth, or how risk-free an investment looks today.
.
I so totally agree with you on the statement “heavily in debt due to the false sense of security that the previous government projected, and the lax lending practices by the financial institutions”…
.
Maybe its my generation, and showing my age, but on the latter, I remember the opposite of tight credit as a young Uni student, arguing with the campus bank for a piddly few hundred bucks on my bankcard for textbooks etc, and learning the lesson that credit cards and similar, are NEVER “easy money”. (Not for me, anyway)
.
Having been conditioned into a scrooge tight-ar$e mentality over using credit, just means I get far more junk-mail and telemarketers with “unbeatable” credit offers, than most everybody else.
.
Only to be startled when I placed my very first election bets recently, (thanks to the tipping I found here I must add!) *sheesh*, if the banks and co, did the sort of checking that Centrebet, Sportingbet etc do, we might not be in such a mess when the debt crisis hits!
.
But, compared to Keatings “recession we had to have”, I’m guessing there are far more people in that over-extended debt category, than there were back then, so I’m guessing the impact will be much worse.
.
Chris B and Phil Robins,
The Democrats already have a strong candidate for the vacant New Mexico Senate seat in Congressman Tom Udall. Present polling shows Udall with commanding leads over his Republican opponents.
Richardson was apparently so disinterested in runing for the Senate that he recommended Albuquerque mayor Marty Chavez run. Which Chavez did, but has since withdrawn following Udall’s entry.
scaper, it is hard to see our real estate market withstanding the shocks that are on their way. I am amazed it has held up to the extent that is has so far. Like Kirribilli I am very pessimistic regarding the US economy. It is a house of cards built by greed, and we are seeing the signs of collapse now. This will be the granddaddy of all recessions made worse by the cavalier attitude to debt in the populace encouraged by rodent and co (may they rot in hell).
Basil
I’m afraid this could be the BIG ONE!
Sure, there will be a major shock in the real estate market, but my point earlier is that it will open the market up to foriegn exposure.
I’ve said this many times last year on many threads…”The Australian people will need to experience a recession to curb their consumer spending.”
And the last government (quazi-regime) has a lot to answer for this form of social engineering!!!
It’s not just that individuals are more in debt than we probably have ever been, but the country is too. Despite the biggest, most sustained resources boom in our history each new balance of payments figure is a deeper shade of red than the previous month’s. Now this might just be ok if we were buying something productive like new machinery, but almost all is being splurged on cars and plasma TVs paid for on the plastic!
So what happens when China’s demand slows, as it must if America’s problems tip that country into recession (assuming they haven’t already) setting off a domino effect through Europe and Asia?
Even more worrying is that most of the boom is from higher prices, not greater tonnages. Commodity prices can drop dramatically at the first whiff of problems so we may feel the impact literally overnight even if demand falls more slowly. Given that the main reason output has been static is the lack of infrastructure investment in the last decade, we can’t even hope that lower prices may boost demand in the short term so allowing a gradual adjustment.
And then there is the looming economic effects of global warming/climate change – higher energy prices, loss of agricultural production, more damaging weather, more disease, etc, etc, etc….
We are living at the beginning of some very ‘interesting’ times I fear!
MayoFeral
Yes, we are moving into interesting times.
As a nation, we will get floored by the economic punch…but then we will get up swinging as has happened in the past.
I’m sorry, I don’t confirm or deny the science of climate change…that is divisive.
What I am confirming is the need to establish a sustainable future for the generations that will inherit the results of the action or the inaction of us.
For this to be successful, all the players have to take their seat at the table.
Tall order???…Maybe so.
yep a nasty depression is on the way. However try telling that to our economists to continue to suggest that Australia will ride out the slowdown. I can remember these dills doing the same in 1989. As these people state the upsides people take notice and continue to spend and spend willingly and stupidly. What concerns me is the workforce where in this country we have 30 percent of people in in casual work and just think when these get the sack and move onto the dole queues, we will have our entire government expenditures concerned with employment handouts. That is why the tax cuts in the future years are madness. Governments should never provide tax cuts in a boom literally stupid economics.
Must spend the money on infrastructure and in renewable energy such as solar energy and windfarms.
Read a story regarding helping people on the fringes in todays Age where Julia Gillard suggests helping people in these areas. Yep the Victorian State Government has been doing that for sometime, providing no or little public transport in outer northern suburbs and western suburbs of Melbourne. Julia perhaps you should have a word with our pathetic State Governments.
I.m just going through my Information Clearing House posts and have read this Mike Whitney piece on the voting process in NH. Scary stuff! An extract:
If this election had been conducted in any other country in the world, the Bush administration would have immediately dispatched an independent team of election observers and demanded a recount. But not in the good old USA, where stealing elections is replacing baseball as the national pastime. Would it surprise you to know that (according to Black Box Voting) the Marketing and Sales Director of the company that tallies the votes (LHS) “was arrested, indicted, and pleaded guilty to “sale / CND” and sentenced to 12 months in the Rockingham County Correctional facility, and fined $2000.” That would be LHS Sales Director Mr. Ken Hajjar. Here’s an excerpt from Bev Harris’s Black Box Voting web site:
“The Diebold ballot printing plant at the time we got records on the overages (that is, more ballots than needed for election; MW) was being run by a convicted felon who had spent four years in prison on a narcotics trafficking charge. No, not New Hampshire’s voting machine programming exec Ken Hajjar, who cut a plea deal in 1990 for his role in cocaine distribution. This was another convicted felon, John Elder, who ran the Diebold ballot printing plant; he’s now an elections consultant.” ( http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/71260.html )
Thank God for the AEC!
marky marky
I’ve been sitting on my hands for over a decade waiting for a politician to take the lead and guide this nation into the future.
It has become quite apparent that this will never be the case.
Well , someone has to initiate the first step forward and I will give it a go. I’m duelling with the powers that be and I won’t back off!
A long term national strategy for the next half century needs to be put in place and enacted.
Commenting on Fred Thompson’s performance in the recent republican debate, Mark Shields on Jim Lehrer’s News Hour observed that ’someone must have spiked his Ovaltine’ or may he and McCain swapped personalities in the Green Room!
Funny!
But Fred, as the reincarnation of Reagan (or his reconstructed corpse), was in make or break mode, and had to let everyone know that he’s still alive.
Scaper although this is going off the American elections thread, i am with you. Our politicians sadly are too cowardly when it comes making tough decisions. These days money, superannuations and travel allowances come first. It may seem a little trivial in what i am suggesting but sadly the politicians care little about doing what is required for the future of us all. Climate change should be number issue, but sadly it is not. Here in Victoria another brown coal power plant seems imminent but we have significant alternative sources of power in solar, and gas. Meantime the Victorian climate continues to heat, this year we have had already a few days over 40 and sighnificant increase in hot nights, this i can’t remember in my life time. We are simply cooking ourselves to death. But instead we continue to do little.
On public transport we have system over utlised and falling apart but the Victorian Government believes it will much better in private hands and much better with little investment in the infrastructure. Put simply the Victorian Government is sitting on its hands and letting Vic Roads and Vecci dictate policy.
Interesting times, indeed. Now, we just need to find a convenient buried StarGate…
Also reminds me of my almost-forgotten Marxist economic theory – didn’t he say something about uncontrolled capitalist economic “growth” (Through the cyclic Boom-Bust cycles ..the bigger the booms, the bigger the busts), containing the “seeds of its own destruction”?
Followed by reading an essay (in Bulletin or Time magazine? not sure where I read it now) about globalisation economics around the time of the 1999 Seattle WTO meeting, of the rise of the TNCs (trans-national corporations). The author calling it the “Super-Industrial Revolution of the 3rd Millennium”, and dating it from the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, 200 years (almost to the day) after the date usually used to mark the beginning of the first Industrial Revolution (ie the fall of the French monarchy in 1789).
.
Quite poetic really! As someone else said “history doesn’t repeat itself, it rhymes” *chuckle*.
At its most simplistic, the essay traced the transition in economic base from feudal economies, (agrarian, cottage-industry based) to larger-scale industrial-based economies, and sparked the birth of the industrialised Nation-State.
.
The King is Dead. Long live the Nation-State!
.
Like any birth it can be bloody and painful, and a major shift in economic power-bases from land-owning nobilities to the rising merchant classes, also caused massive shifts in population, social upheavals, extremes of poverty and wealth etc – as depicted in the novels of Charles Dickens etc.
.
Fast-forward 200 years, and according to this particular theorist, most of the Nation-States birthed by the IR had developed controls to mitigate the worst excesses of exploitative capitalism, at least for its own peoples, eg International Child Labour laws.
.
Now, as the 20th century closed a new Industrial Revolution had birthed, leading to the decline of the Nation-State, and a transition from Nation-States to the trans-national corporation control of economic bases.
.
The Nation-State is Dead! Long Live the Corporation.
.
Just as one example, according to a Four Corners program back-when, the USA had reversed its earlier position on Climate Change AFTER the Kyoto Summit, after meeting with the cartels of Mobil, Exxon *et al*.
.
Beam me up Scotty!
.
Back to the thread though, I guess the US economic situation is taking a low-profile during the primaries, but will gain prominence during the campaign itself?
Does anyone know of a link or something, to a Democrat/Republican Party platform for what they each plan to do about it though?
I think these’s a Chinese curse “May you live in interesting times” .
703 KR- I saw that too, and was interested to hear all the Repub candidates hate Romney and that they all like McCain. It sounded like either Romney or Thompson would be bowing out after SC as well.
704
marky marky
I have canvassed my project here before.
It is making progress against the current, but it is a mammoth task.
I’ll tell you straight…I have approached the major parties and have had no response as yet, but I’m still trying to arrange a meeting with the man.
Failing that, I will use my contacts in the power base to exude pressure where possible.
This stone walling is the barrier at the moment…hey, if what I propose is out of the question…then inform me of such, don’t play a non game.
Damn it…I won’t lie down and accept the status quo, because it is our duty to provide a future as custodians.
I’ve lost faith.
Those Iranian ’swift boats’ left me wondering what in hell actually happened, and then the NY Times gets the info that the audio was ‘mixed’ to the video, from noisey Gulf naval chatter. In other words, there’s no way of ascertaining who said what:
‘ The audio includes a statement that says, “I am coming to you,” and adds, “You will explode after a few minutes.” The voice was recorded from the internationally recognized channel for ship-to-ship communications, Navy officials have said. Naval and Pentagon officials have said that the video and audio were recorded separately, then combined. On Wednesday, Pentagon officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak officially, said they were still trying to determine if the transmission came from the speedboats or elsewhere.”
The Iranian version is that it is standard procedure to verify the identity of ships in the region and that there was no threatening behaviour from them.
Once again, we are being asked to believe that a couple of speed boats were taking on US warships in open water, in full view, and without any visible weapons!
Sheesh, sounds like a stunt, a nice ‘warm up’, for George’s ‘peace mission’ to the ME. (The one he declared he would not do, not copy Bill Clinton.)
Kirribilli, 3 words, Gulf of Tonkin.
Bush is itching for a stoush and I expect a major incident this year.
Hitting Iran is not a good idea, but posturing about it to some very nervous Arab states who are looking askance at Iran’s growing stature in the region is probably as far as it will go.
Just imagine how at risk your army is, surrounded by Shiites, and then you attack the biggest Shiite country and mentor to the Iraqi Shiite government. I doubt even GW Bush is that stooopid!
But, then again….!!!
The way I see it the scrub turkey has nothing to lose.
He is running out of time to fulfil his stain on history…could have done some better things, but imperialism has its constraints.
I hate to agree with Glen (I really do – it makes me feel dirty and sick) but I do agree that McCain’s age really does make him unelectable. While Reagan was 69/70 when he ran and was elected, he simply didn’t look it – it’s amazing what jet black hair dye can do for you. It’s also amazing what a good electoral climate can do too (Financial crises, Iran hostages etc etc)
McCain is even pledging to only serve for one term! I don’t think this neutralises the age issue at all, it just compounds it further. It says “I’m here just for a term cause I wouldn’t live much longer than that, and when you elect me I’ll do whatever the hell I want without a silly little re-election to worry about”.
Also, as I (and many others much wiser than me have said), being a Vietnam veteran is inexplicably electoral poison over there in presidential politics. Just wait until the Republicans do a Bush on McCain again if he wins Michigan. The Romney or Guiliani campaigns wont hesitate to try that trick again. And failing that he’ll be Swiftboated (probably not by the Dems, but a PAC) in a general election.
Guiliani has the best chances for the Republicans – but I still think it would be difficult for him. He might be a crook, but when has that ever stopped you from being elected president?! It’s been a prerequisite mostly.
I think some people here get confused between who they want and don’t want as US president rather than answering questions on what they think will/could happen in the elections (ie. preference vs analysis). Guiliani being a crook (Newsweek) may be a good reason as to why he shouldn’t be president, but it is not a reason as to why he wouldn’t be elected president!
Marky Marky @ 704. Weather is always changeable and never certain. It snowed today in Baghdad.! http://www.usatoday.com/weather/storms/winter/2008-01-11-snow-iraq_N.htm
With Australia now in La Nina most of us will have a cooler time. In my neck of the woods Normanton had it’s coldest summer day on record. And with China adding the equivalent of Australia’s entire generating capacity every 9 months what the Victorian Government does with a power station or two is irrelevant to global weather. We have to set an example and hopefully carbon trading will provide the financial inducement to do the right thing.
If anybody is interested in the current delegate counts for both sides.
http://ozdemocracy.com/?p=70
Giuliani has no chance of winning GOP preselection with so much baggage hanging around him. Does anyone seriously believe fundy Republicans will vote for a drag queen.?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8
He has done this a couple of times. And with his Status Quo view on abortion I give him no chance of capturing the republican nomination.
What people outside of the US don’t understand is the lack of party loyalty they have. People will vote for the candidate that best suits them rather than the party they come from. Giuliani may miss out on some usual Republican voters but get some Democrats in return.
Rudy needs some cash……….
CNN has learned that top staff members of Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign were asked to work without pay for the month of January, and perhaps longer, so that campaign resources could be focused on the Florida Republican presidential primary.
Two sources in the campaign, speaking on condition of anonymity, insisted the campaign was not in dire financial straits. A third campaign source, however, said “things are starting to get tight” and that “it was more telling than asking” the senior staff to forgo paychecks beginning the first of the year.
Red Wombat @ 719
This would explain why he has basically pulled out of Michigan.
Konrad Adenauer was elected German Chancellor for the first time at age 73 and retired undefeated at age 87. Gladstone was elected Prime Minister for the fourth time at age 83.
marky marky @ 705 – Humans have been fouling their nest for a long time and its caused quite a few civilizations to collapse beginning with what was probably the first, the Sumerians. Of course many claim that this time it’s serious because we have nowhere else to go, so we’ll wake up to ourselves and put things right.
The history of Easter Island suggests otherwise. Wood was crucial to the islanders for 2 reasons, they needed it to build boats to catch the major part of their diet, fish (actually porpoises formed a major part of the catch), and to move the Malcolm Fraser statues which were at the core of their religion. So you’d think they would have managed the forests better, perhaps eased off chopping them down when the number of trees fell to 1,000, or 100, or ten. But no, eventually someone took an axe to the last #@#$ one in the full knowledge that there was no way back. And there wasn’t. When Europeans discovered the island they found only a few thousand wretches surviving on eating grass and each other.
KR @ 709 – Did you note the lack of noise in the background when the ‘Iranian’ was issuing the treats? Weird, huh. He’s supposedly on one of the speed boats roaring past like a banshee from hell, but apart from his voice there’s barely a sound. Maybe the boats run on silent nuclear engines and glide over the waves on a cushion of radioactive particles.
That said, however, a speedboat packed with explosives did put a very big hole into the USS Cole with substantial loss of life. Though why Iran would start of war it doesn’t need and couldn’t win is a mighty interesting question.
I know that it’s off-topic, but it seems WA Deputy Liberal Leader is suffering from a does of the “Rudy’s”
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,23043470-948,00.html
And no, Mr Buswell isn’t cross-dressing, but it does involve improproety with a female ALP staffer, plus the demon drink.
PS. William, can we please have a “Saturday Salon” type post like our friends at LP ? Would reduce the off-topic noise ratio.
715
Exquisite ending to that report of snow in Baghdad:
For a couple of hours anyway, a city where mortar shells routinely zoom across the Tigris River to the Green Zone became united as one big White Zone. There were no reports of bloodshed during the snowstorm. The snow showed no favoritism as it dusted neighborhoods Shiite and Sunni alike, faintly falling (with apologies to James Joyce) upon all the living and the dead.
…and it reminds me of that surreal moment in Fellini’s Amarcord where the little piazza and it’s fountain are covered with snow, and a peacock flies down from a balcony.
Magic.
This is a hoot.
http://www.slate.com/id/2181495/
722
MayoFeral
Yes, amazing that they’d approach and tell you what they intended to do you! (Unlike the USS Cole, which was a sneak attack when the carrier was docked).
It smacks of Monty Python, and no matter what we might be lead to think about Iranians, we should not forget they had almsot a decade of war with Saddam in those parts, and are not amateurs.
I think it was Ron Paul who said with some sarcasm that his collegues were urging a war on a speedboat!
Dahlia for President.
Reading the various contributions on PB the hair on the back of my neck is starting to prickle.
The US economy is about to go into freefall, global warming appears to be entering the unstoppable feedback point (snow in Baghdad?? to the ignorant who think that it indicates that this means the globe is not warming, then I am even more afraid), Bush is playing the Bogey Terrorism game with Iran, Iraq is a bloody disaster and the world press foceuses on Hilary shedding a tear.
F@#$ sake.
It’s getting serious, and to Scaper, Kirribilli and the others who are declaring their desire to take action ( and I include Bob Brown here from Australian politics, then thank you.
Time is clearly running out. And I Hate Armageddon-Evangalists, but I’ve got young kids.
focuses on Hillary shedding a tear.
crap.
What a breathtakingly self destructive rabble the WA Libs are. Can’t win a trick even with the two most biased Newspapers in the country still on side.
However even the press is starting to dispair over their darlings.The papers have decided on which factions they support and the battle lines have been drawn. Murdoch’s Sunday Times in the Omodei camp and the West Australian in the Buswell bunker. The inane backing the incompetent and the intolerable supporting the insufferable.
And while the war of the bra strap is raging within their ranks, the Libs here find the time rant about the absolute necessity of a statue being built in honour of their last great hero.
Better they pay for a monument to their current stupidity instead. Perhaps a row of statues set up in a circle, each one with a knife in its hand? R.Court, Barnett, Birney, Omodei, Blaine, Buswell…..
(sorry William, but without an appropriate thread, an inappropriate one will have to do!)
729
The inane backing the incompetent and the intolerable supporting the insufferable.
that is great FS-
and completely appropriate on a thread which mentions the Republican party of the United States.
Warning: Satiric Humour
(and, oh yeah, very coarse language, but very funny!)
http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/i_got_what_america_needs_right?utm_source=EMTF_Onion
A more serious taking down of Hillary:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/01/10/hillary/index.html
…ouch! And she’s a Democrat too.
Fulvio,
Just saw the ABC News Update on the story – two of the runners if Buswell doesn’t run include Colin Barnett (who is retiring at the next election) and Rob Johnston.
What can I say, the 2009 State Election will be a bloodbath for the Libs.
Hi K’billi,
read this today, looking for some light relief from my current doomsday mood.
I laughed, (nervously), but it didn’t lift my general mood. Neither did the fact that Senate Watch was on evey second blog.
Ahem KB,
my previous comment was about the Onion article.
I must say that the Salon article on Hillary is a litle harsh – is it not Ok for a woman to be politically expedient ?(our Kevin did a pretty good take on that), and if she chooses to forgive the Walking Cigar, then who are we to judge???
Other people’s relationships are a constant mystery: that’s how New Idea and most of the MSM survives.
How about Fictional Characters for President?
Republican: Ned Flanders
Democrats: Doc Brown
Independent: Gomez Addams
America can be a scary place.
On a Mike Huckabee aligned blog the following post was submitted with no opposing opinions raised.
Thanks davidoff,
now I am building a bunker in the tomato patch-
The lunatics are running the asylum.
I found it interesting in terms of the end-game was the loot the underlying management objective or am I just being cynical?
Hey davidoff, ofcourse everybody remembers when Jehoshaphat was King of Jerusalem????? LOL.
Brenton: What? Current affairs isn’t clear on this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehoshaphat
Oh Glen – get a life – get real – please – for all of us!
davidoff, I believe you and yes America is a scary place with Christian fundamentalists! But I was trying to have a joke that is all!
News from the Votemaster: The state of play in the US congress.
http://www.electoral-vote.com
Brenton: Yep – I got the joke – just threw in the link for everyone else (a.k.a. Glen, ESG, etc.).
For the truly addicted – live coverage of the Taiwan legislative election results:
http://www.cec.gov.tw/en/T1/s00000000000.html
The KMT (Chiang Kai-shek’s old party) is making a big comeback, apparently on the slogan “we’re not nearly as corrupt as we used to be, and we promise not to impose martial law like we did for 40 years last time we were in.”
Yes, Adam an interesting turnaround which will have huge implications for US foreign policy.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/01/12/taiwan.election/index.html?eref=onion
Oh what joy, the WA Liberals are in as big a mess as the ones here in Queensland. What a pack of clowns!
Heard on BBC last night that Rudy is in serious financial straits, that is why he hasn’t put much into campaigning so far, with a bit of luck he will be out of the way after super tuesday.
Rain at 705: I hear you. Computer voting is beyond scrutiny, The Fix is in bigtime, the Military-Industrial(political)Complex have Jeffersonian democracy by the throat, effectively snuffed.
The MSM facilitate the tyranny by finessing the rubes with 24/7 Manichean psychobabble furled in stars and stripes. Gore Vidal has been onto the rort for ages.
“He pointed to online reports alleging disparities between hand-counted ballots, which favoured Obama, and those tallied by machines, which leaned more to Clinton.
A TV documentary has claimed 81 per cent of New Hampshire votes were counted on machines that could be easily hacked into. ”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=507558&in_page_id=1811
Obama is a serious threat to the Big End status quo because he would bring his own people to D.C. He is much harder to control than HRC or McCain who are both beltway connected up the wazoo.
davidoff @ 742,
I’m not saying Glen’s argument is a good one per se, but I think the point is that many (?most?) Americans could buy that in November if the surge is still perceived as successful by then.
Speaking of the black box…this might be of interest.
http://news.google.com.au/news?sourceid=navclient&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GZAZ_en-GBAU231AU238&q=black+box+voting+in+new+hampshire&um=1&sa=X&oi=news_result&resnum=1&ct=title
KR- A wonderful book about militant vs secular Islam is “Snow” by Orhan Pamuk, who won the 2006 Nobel Prize. It is a fantastic insight into the competing ideologies in the Middle East and is gut-wrenchingly beautiful and profound. And it uses the Snow metaphor as well as Joyce did.
Scaper @ 751… Only in America (?)
The US Govt’s blind faith in good ol’ home-made technology is astounding. After chad-gate in 2000 it was made abundantly clear that the best ‘technology’ for recording unambiguous votes (though not immune to human error) was pencil and paper. Witness also GWB’s faith in techno solutions to global warming. Can the planet stand one more year of this guy?
752
Diogenes
Thanks Dio, I’d come across his name, but havn’t read him. I found a good review by Margret Attwood in the NY Times, and thought you might like:
The twists of fate, the plots that double back on themselves, the trickiness, the mysteries that recede as they’re approached, the bleak cities, the night prowling, the sense of identity loss, the protagonist in exile — these are vintage Pamuk, but they’re also part of the modern literary landscape. A case could be made for a genre called the Male Labyrinth Novel, which would trace its ancestry through De Quincey and Dostoyevsky and Conrad, and would include Kafka, Borges, García Márquez, DeLillo and Auster, with the Hammett-and-Chandler noir thriller thrown in for good measure. It’s mostly men who write such novels and feature as their rootless heroes, and there’s probably a simple reason for this: send a woman out alone on a rambling nocturnal quest and she’s likely to end up a lot deader a lot sooner than a man would.
Jen, the funniest thing about that Jimmy Carter spoof was that it’s yet another marker on the calender from Groundhog Day! It would be funnier if it wasn’t so broadly true ie Carter was well ahead of the times with his notion that America was on a consumption/oil binge that was not going to end well. He was also, seperately, rather badly engaged with the Iranians! There was a lot of irony packed into that little piece.
As for Hillary being attacked by badge wearing sisters, well, Paglia’s got a right to her views, she argues them, and from what I can see, she’s telling more about Clinton’s pyschological make-up than any ‘news’ article you’re likely to see. Does it matter that Hillary has a problem with men? The answer must surely be how many Presidents have had problems with women! (LOL). Is it really unexpected that Hill would let Bill drag his peccadillos onto the international stage while she held her nose? After all, she knew he’d come in handy down the track, and so she covered for him. (Sisters are split by this: ie she belted up the poor victims and protected the predator). But hey, it’s a cruel world, and none more vicious than politics.
KR, one is inclined to add Thomas Wolfe to Atwood’s list, however she’s quite right. From Salem to Ankara; from Teheran to Timbuktu, female midnight ramblers have always had a much shorter shelf life.
“It’s mostly men who write such novels and feature as their rootless heroes,”
Ain’t that the truth, too!
Diogenes, you sold me, will give “Snow” a go.
Meanwhile, back in New Hampshire, Michigan and beautiful, historic South Carolina, Americans are learning all about how to live free or Diebold!
Live free or Diebold!
Perfect, just perfect!
None of the US democrat & republican candidates will force Israel to cease settlements as per UN resolutions. Abbas cann’t stop Hamas sending a missile a week. After 40 years of no peace , a further 40 years minimum of no peace seems not too pesimistic.
The real fear is the US proped up the despotic Shah of Iran for 25 years and does so for the Saudi royal family. What happens if there is a people revolution in Saudi Arabria
And speaking of outraging the sisterhood, what about that other ‘minority group’ ie blacks?
Bill Clinton fouls his nest with disparaging comments about the ‘kid’ Obama, while Hillary almost disses ML King as an also-ran to Lyndon Johnson!
Sheesh, talk about sailing closs to the wind. It’s just lucky Bill didn’t call him “boy” or use the ‘n’ word! Their both backtracking at the speed of light, but it’s typical innuendo and smear type stuff.
And, speaking of Lyndon Johnson, in semi-consciousness this morning, I listened to a Radio National piece with Philip Adams interviewing an American writer who recounted how Johnson, immediately on hearing of JFK’s assasination, muttered something about how long before the missiles began. In other words, he knew the total distrust between the forces of darkness in the US military and intelligence and JFK, and just presumed they had begun a military takeover of the government. At any moment, they’d be starting war with the USSR, and not ‘living in peace’ with our enemies as Kennedy had implored. His fears soon dissipated, but for a short time at least, the true ’state of the union’ was by his darkest thoughts.
There wasn’t much in the local press about this operation last week, but here’s the salient point:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/24598.html
BAGHDAD — The U.S. military dropped 40,000 pounds of explosives southeast of Baghdad on Thursday in a series of airstrikes that underscored the tenuousness of U.S. progress against Islamic extremists in Iraq.
The targets were near the town of Arab Jabour, a Sunni Muslim-dominated district on Baghdad’s outskirts that American officials recently held up as a security success and an example of how local Sunni tribesmen known as “concerned local citizens” had turned against al Qaida in Iraq.
…one week it’s an example of the victorous ’surge’ and the next week they’re bombing the cr@p out of it!
Anyone thinking this war is anywhere near over (hint: this means you Glen!), is very seriously deluded.
PS McClatchy news on Iraq is of a very high standard, its journalists take huge personal risks, and they will not just regurgitate Pentagon press releases.
All very 1984ish the reporting from Iraq these days.
The petrol price was $1.40 in 2007 thanks our success in Iraq it will be going down to $1.50
The Clinton camp is alienating many Democratic activists by its use of Karl Rove-type tactics in the primaries. In New Hampshire, the Clintonites misrepresented Obama’s stance on abortion and employed pettifoggery to hamper his people in getting out the vote. In Nevada, where the union representing casino workers is backing Obama, the Clintonites are taking legal action to try to curb the Democratic opposition.
Clinton is divisive in her own party and divisive in the country. She’ll prabably get the nomination, by fair means or foul, but she’ll lose in the end to John McCain. What a pity Gore is too fat and lazy to run!
KR and EC- As a lover of the genre Atwood is talking about, I consider Haruki Murakami and David Mitchell its two leading exponents currently.
The novel “Snow” and the Nobel that Pamuk got for it just saved him from arrest for his criticism of the Turkish genocide of the Armenians, which it was illegal to acknowledge. Interestingly, at about the same time the French government made it illegal to deny the Armenian massacre took place. The novel “Snow” is not difficult to read but it really packs an enormous punch and is very unsettling. Pamuk said he found it so troubling to write a political thriller that he would never do it again.
759
Concludes:
His fears soon dissipated, but for a short time at least, the true ’state of the union’ was revealed by his darkest thoughts.
…oops, left out the important verb!
762
Diogenes
Speaking of Turkey, the other US ally on the war on everything they don’t like, I note they are bombing the other US ally in the war on everything they don’t like, Kurdistan.
Two US allies starting their own territorial war, one of whom won’t acknowledge its genocides against a neighbour, nor it’s continuing suppression of an ethnic minority.
How drearily familiar it all sounds! (Hint: When the US backed Saddam as ‘our bastard’, he’d already gassed Kurds and Iranians)
736
Jasmine Pierce – you forgot Gill Gunderson running for the Libertarian Party lol!
759
Kirribilli Removals – as per usual all flare and no substance…
Anyone thinking this war is anywhere near over (hint: this means you Glen!), is very seriously deluded.
Kirribilli the ‘War’ was over 5 years ago, what we’re facing in Iraq is an insurgency they are two very different things IMHO. Firstly you failed to mention that the precision strike killed a top al-Qaeda leader in the southern Baghdad region and around 20 terrorists/combatants as well as arms caches and IED making facilities.
Whenever there is a success in Iraq the Left simply say how bad things are but in actual fact while Iraq is still a dangerous place in some parts its getting better not getting worse something you should be happy about. But why should you care anyway Kev’s already given up on Iraq by not continuing our training mission there, what a way to start off fighting al-Qaeda is you give up on a friend in need hah typical left wing solution.
In response to the WA Libs the one group who if they got their act together and took out Omodei they’d probably win in 2009 but they don’t deserve to win or come close if they continue to carry on like headless chooks.
My one hope is that the conservative parties, Nationals and Liberals will merge to form a new conservative political party because its about bloody time, for gods sakes the Brits have one Tory party, the Yanks have one right wing party, the Canadians have one Tory party, the New Zealanders have one Tory party. The sooner we merge the sooner we’ll become competitive again in Australian politics IMHO.
So says Glen
But Glen we do not want the liberals to be competitive.
We want the status quo…Labor in power everywhere
see the light glen , join us at labor/Greens …we forgive sinners
Ron politics in Australia is boring with one side in power, and it would be boring if the Libs were in power everywhere too the Status quo is not Labor in power everywhere its a mix of both parties in power everywhere.
ttfn
Glen, all Washington talking points and no depth.
2007 was the MOST violent year of the war (as in, war of occupation), and just take a look at how ’success’ is achieved:
The president singled out for praise a U.S. program that pays mostly Sunni volunteers $300 a month to protect their neighborhoods and hold al Qaida at bay. The program is known as Concerned Local Citizens or Awakening groups. They now number more than 80,000 people, mostly armed.
…in other words, the Sunni’s are happy to take arms and money to fight their own internecine battles, and the Yanks are happy to call this ’success’.
Even if we take the modest figure of 150,000 Iraqis killed directly through violence in the last 5 years, (and that does NOT include IRaqis who’ve been injured, or died indirectly from disease, malnutrition and other ancillary causes), then this would represent, in US terms, about 2.25 million deaths!
Just for one second, try and imagine if America was occupied, and 2.25 million citizens had been violently killed, 30 million fled the country, and tens of millions were internally displaced. Tens of millions injured, health services had all but collapsed, electricity was severely in short supply, and the government had allied itself to Hugo Chavez’s regime!
Just for one second, try and think of this as ’sucess’.
Nah, just give me Beltway claptrap and Faux News ‘in depth’ reporting, it’s what you understand best.
But glen if you join us you can enjoy a party with passion & compassion who are
quite comfortable getting stuck into each other over racial & equity issues
Whereas the US Republicans write liberal policy and its all “dry” & clinical
..small government , lower tax’s , family values , church , terrorism , strong army
do not be afraid to leave the “dark” side….jeda Rudd is here
Glen…and who will unite them…or is there a new charter to be written?
The sooner the conservatives stop licking their wounds and refashion themselves into a real political force, the better for the sake of democracy.
If Rudd stuffs up (and I have no reason at this point to think this will be the case) then the people will need an alternative option.
scaper…
Kirribilli Removals there you go and spoil it by telling Glen some home truths about the idiot Bush just as I was within a chance of enticing Glen to join Labor
Now you both have blown my cover!
More Democrat material I reckon.
Crikey, sorry Ron, I hadn’t noticed how you were so cunningly enticing that tower of analytical strength to lean away from the lunar right and cast his formidable shadow this side of the line!
Good luck! But somehow I think he’s better off where he is: it’s not challenging for him to cut and past Faux News opinions and we get a good laugh!
Why would we want Glen to change? He is a constant reminder of why we are so mkuch better off now without right-wing Bush fans running oiur country. Howard would have been telling us that Iraq was a”success’. Try telling that to the civilian mothers of thousands of dead children.
Or are they Ok with it, because it was “friendly fire”?
What a bunch of morally bankrupt cynics.
Or in Glen’s case, completely deluded.
So, what good has come out of the Iraq war? The removal of an evil and brutal dictator the conservatives may say. And at what cost? Who bloody cares about a few yankee lives and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis including children and children being left without families – many billions of dollars the conservatives may say.
Bloody idiots, they could have got the Russians to do it for about one hundreth as much. What the hell, I would have done it for about one hundreth as much (only kidding).
Don’t forget, Hillary supported The Idiot all the way. Not to mention likewise, The Dessicated Coconut.
Jen , I watch US media and the subject of civilian losses is rarely mentioned & if it is then the cause is the “insurgents”
only the US military could create such a quaint term …”insurgents”
To be fair Ron, I think the Poms were using the word a long time before the Yanks began throwing their weight around internationally. Certainly, it was used from at least the mid East India Company rule of India period – c. 1730-40.
The earliest use of the word in print appears to be in William Falconer’s ‘The Demagogue’ printed in 1765: “His sanction will dismay, And bid th’ insurgents tremble and obey.”
Human foibles are so abundent that they’re bound to surface, even in those you admire. For example, one of Hillary’s campaign staff Sidney Blumenthal was arrested and charged for drunken driving in New Hampshire, the day before the poll.
I’ve read a lot of Blumenthal’s recent stuff on Salon before he resigned to work for Hillary, and I’ve always enjoyed his style and relentless dismantling of neoconservative claptrap.
Never forget, even your heroes have feet of clay!
Interestingly, the foundering fathers of America proudly called themselves insurgents – Jefferson recommended insurgency as a remedy for tyranny. Lincoln preferred to call the Confederates insurgents rather than rebels.
Take heart Glen, you will notice that they offer no logical arguments, just abuse.
Don’t try to appease them, the only way you get a pat on the head from these types is if you are on your knees before them.
#746 – Adam, Huge come back. It looks like KMT has won over 2/3 majority that means it can basically do anything it likes. It will be greeted with great disappoint and dismay in DC, Tokyo and Canberra. Sorry, not Canberra, still can’t get use to Howard being kicked out. The DC, Tokyo and Canberra axis was established 2 years ago to contain PRC and was using Taiwan-PRC as a wedged issue.
The current President Chen Shui-bian is an idiot who has called for indpendent regardless and played right into the hand of Axis. Thanksfully he has only 2 months to go and has been proven to be corrupt especially his own family. The real irony is that the old enemy KMT is now the real friend of the PRC. Last year, its chairman Lien Chan was feted and hailed whe visited the mainland. His message was reconciliation and potential unification with the mainland.
The real funny thing is that all of the players of the Axis are gone or nearly gone. Abe of Japan, Howard of OZ and soon Bush of USA as well as Chen of Taiwan.
Looks like Kevin07 is also getting lucky because Taiwan now will not be an issue, Japan political leadership is in shamble, DC will be in a more friendlier hand. It means he can focus on building his special relationships with PRC.
782
wpc
You obviously don’t bother to read the arguments and just nominate yourself to be a camp follower of someone who backed every loser in the last election at home and now wants to be a faithful Bushy! LOL
OMG, ya crack me up! Call yourself a ‘fundy’? too. Oh dear.
WPC, Hans Blix made it crysyal clear that all he needed were a few more weeks to finish his job. Saddam was being disarmed. Dubya formed the conclusion that Hussein was such a threat with his WMDs that the world (without UN approval) could not wait a few more weeks.
C’mon, let’s cut all the crap. I’ll tell you why Dubya couldn’t wait a few more weeks, because then he couldn’t get his grubby hands on the oil. If it wasn’t about oil (which it was) what percentage of normal human intelligence would it take to form the view that it would have been wiser to give Blix his requested few more weeks?
Is this only logical or not? C’mon you tell us?
Also, the US have already had 8 years of a Clinton, give them another stint in the white house – and nothing changes.
And just before the ‘good news’ hits the headlines, that the Iraqi government has started some kind of reconciliation with Ba’athists, consider this about the new law:
The passage of the new law will be hailed by the War party as a major achievement. But as usual they will misread what really happened.
If the new law was good for ex-Baathists, then the ex-Baathists in parliament will have voted for it and praised it, right? And likely the Sadrists (hard line anti-Baath Shiites) and Kurds would be a little upset.
Instead, parliament’s version of this law was spearheaded by Sadrists, and the ex-Baathists in parliament criticized it.
Somehow that little drawback suggests to me that the law is not actually, as written, likely to be good for sectarian reconciliation.
(Juan Cole)
But hey, let’s hear Faux News tell us that this a major breakthrough, that it’s further proof, (if any was needed, as they’ve been telling us for months how well it’s all going in Eye-rack) that the political process is ‘going forward’!
What in fact it has done is remove a lot of senior civil servants and retire them, and let some low level party members have some low level jobs outside of security clearances. It is, once again, the now dominant Shiite’s making sure no Sunni gets higher than office clerk.
Welcome to the new face of sectarian hatred and mistrust.
OK, here’s how it’s done:
Mr Bush says the new law has great significance.
“It’s an important step towards reconciliation. It’s an important sign that the leaders of that country understand that they must work together to meet the aspirations of the Iraqi people,” he said.
“I come with an upbeat message, a hopeful message, a message that peace will prevail here in the Middle East.”
- BBC
…but just consider this from some of the Sunni parties:
Members of the Iraqi National Front (Allawi’s group), the National Dialogue Front (Mutlak), and two of the three constituent parties of the Iraqi Accord Front (Sunni Arabs), along with some IAF independents, denounced the law in a circulated, signed letter. They said that the law would be “difficult to implement.” They indicated that they had not voted for it and do not support it. They called it “unrealistic” because it contains an article forbidding the Baath Party “from returning to power ideologically, administratively, politically or in practice, and under any other name.” The law’s opponents charged that this language was unconstitutionally vague and could easily be “misused.”
What are the ex-Baathists afraid of? Well, they are ex-Baathists in politics. So this objectionable passage seems to make it possible for the Sadrists, e.g., to keep people like Iyad Allawi from ever again enjoying high office. His secular, nationalist Iraqi National Dialogue party could easily just be branded too close to the original Baath Party and dissolved, and he could be excluded from high office by this new provision.
(Juan Cole)
But hey, let’s not bother with what the Sunni politicians think, George Bush says it’s good for them, and how could he be possibly wrong?
PS Glen, that’s what you call examining the issues from the available evidence and not just repeating Whitehouse press releases
And wpc, that’s called an ‘argument’, based on reason and facts. You should try it some time!
Is that the same George Bush who’s been buying off the Sunnis lately with guns and money so Da Surge plays well back in the good ol’ USA? Nah, he couldn’t possibly be wrong. I mean it’s not like the Sunnis would ever dream of turning those weapons against the Shias, or buying more with the piles of cash, would they?
762 Phil Robins. Yeah right Phil. You obviously aren’t following the facts.
1. The polls indicate Democrats in a landslide.
2. The Republicans are just about broke.
3. It’s the economy stupid. (Bill Clinton).
If you want to do a bit of research this site will be very helpful.
http://www.electoral-vote.com
US journo who did a very good report on the NW frontier in Pakistan:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06PAKISTAN-t.html
…just got deported. Appears like Musharraf does not want the world to know how dodgey it is in Swat, or how he’s not really chasing the Taliban there at all.
Gotta love them dictator allies that take your billions and deport your journalists.
Adam @ 725
Black power baby bib!
Classic
Obama draws a really mixed crowd in Charleston. So mixed in fact, that one guy is wearing a college fraternity T-shirt of Kappa Alpha.
It rang a bell, and yes, it’s origins go back to the defunct order of Kuklos Adelphon, which literally means Circle of Brothers (gotta love Wiki eh?) And it’s rituals were later adopted by that other famous southern organisation, the Ku Klux Klan.
He draws a really ‘mixed’ audience! LOL
Hillary isn’t a “breakthrough for women”
Hillary is A) white, B) has white privilage and C) has Bill Clinton as her husband
The real breakthrough for women in the U.S. will be when the candidates are “Carmen Cortez” and “Shanice Knowles”.
Well we can not have a journo exposing the terrorist enclave in northern pakistan can we
The enclave only crosses into Afghanistan & attacks our troops
After all , Musharraf says he’s trying as he receives the billions of US aid
Essentially, the US primaries are between:
2 charismatic preachers (one black, one white)
2 battle scarred party warriors (one male, one female)
OK, that’s a very big simplification, but sometimes its useful to break things down to the essentials.
My money is on the preachers!
LOL
(I don’t believe I said that!)
It’s hard to fathom that what you and the left advocate vis a vis Iraq is precisely what the insurgents want…a quick and speedy US retreat. This would be a disaster especially considering the ground made up by the ‘Surge’ which you left wingers never supported either and has helped turn the tables in the insurgency.
Let’s rationally look at the situation, will withdrawing from Iraq make the situation worse or better it follows that the best decision would be the one that produces the better outcome would it not. So how is withdrawing and letting al-Qaeda back into a position of power in Iraq a good and positive outcome the last thing we need is another haven for terrorists and now that we’re killing them in sufficient numbers in Iraq it would be stupid not to battle them there in the Middle East than else where.
BTW As much as i respect Iyad Allawi the man is never going to have enough votes to become Prime Minister again. Iraq is a tribal country in more ways than one and that is how their political parties are positioned. Its sad but inevitable.
Regardless of how you argue about the wars’ beginning the fact is we have a choice do what Osama Bin Laden wants and pull out or stick in there just as we’re gaining the upper hand.
And BTW you left wingers cannot claim and statistically reliable numbers of civilian casualties for Iraq since 2003 and besides whatever the number it actually is it would be far less than the deaths of Iraqis and Middle Eastern Citizens during Saddam’s Rule. Just as we took out Saddam so should we take out other despots like Mugabe et al, when we can we should IMHO.
It’s sad to think that if we had it your way Saddam would still be torturing, raping and butchering his own people thank god he was finally taken out! Had it been done in 1991 i doubt we’d be having the same sorts of troubles we’ve faced in the past few years IMHO. GWB had to fix the problem his father and Clinton created.
BTW when you sprout your left wing positions i don’t say they came from Barrack Obama HQ or ALP HQ or whatever yet because i hold right wing positions they are somehow carbon copies of GWB’s i mean come on get a grip! It is the lamest attack on someone to say their political beliefs are just propaganda…yawn!
Oh and Juan Cole isn’t exactly credible either this guy has said some stupid things in the past that it’s no wonder that his anti-israeli comments have led many to assert that he is antisemitic.
“It wouldn’t take much now to settle the Israel-Palestine thing, and the time is ripe to have Israel give back the Golan to Syria and the Shebaa Farms to Lebanon…” Anybody let alone a ’scholar’ with half a brain would know that doing this would achieve nothing and anyway why should Israel a democratic state appease Syria a dictatorship!
There i’ve said enough to give the Glen haters some more material with which to try and belittle my political views i await your responses….
So much for McCain being too old, coz not according to the betting markets. This from Rasmussen:
Current pricing shows McCain with a 45.0% chance of winning the nomination. He is followed by Giuliani at 20.0%, Mike Huckabee at 15.8%, Mitt Romney at 11.0%, and Fred Thompson at 3.5%. Numbers in this article are from a prediction market, not a poll. The markets currently show that Democrats have a 62.3% chance of winning the White House in November.
(Glad I covered my Huckabee bet with one on McCain!)
MayoFeral
Re ‘insurgency’ & ‘insurgents’
Curious that GWB should attempt to overcome an insurgency with a surge.
Of course in other times we used to call an insurgency an insurrection. Perhaps however insurrection didn’t quite have the nuances the boys in the White House were looking for. (On the other hand perhaps they are just illiterate.) But the origin of insurgent and insurrection is the same Latin verb. Conjugate after me: insurgo, insurgere, insurrexi, insurrectum.
I assume also that insurgents must insurge and am a bit surprised that this verb hasn’t put in an appearance. It has an excellent pedigree: ‘All the heretikes that rebelle againste it, nor all the tyrauntes vppon earth that ensourge & oppugne it’. (Thomas More ‘The confutacyon of Tyndales answere’ (1532)). More was referring to the catholic church, not western civilisation as represented by the USA, but people are free to draw whatever parallels they wish.
While I am in classico-whimsico-pedagogical mode, someone referred on this thread a couple of days ago to a ‘pater familius’. It is pater familias (or paterfamilias) (for reasons I am prepared to explain if absolutely necessary).
Glen @ claimed;
But bin Laden wanted the US to invade Iraq and he doesn’t want it to pull out, Glen. Not only did the invasion allowed Al Queda into Iraq its been a hugely successful recruiting tool (and a superb training camp). By advocating they stay you are doing his bidding!
You haven’t been hearing any strange noises on your phone line lately, have you Glen? I understand ASIO like to keep a close watch on you jihadist supporters! Or have they already put a control order on you? It’s okay, you don’t have to answer that, given that you probably aren’t allowed to.
Um, because Israel’s theft of Syria’s and Lebanon’s land is illegal? Perhaps made doubly so because Israel, especially on the Golan, instigated the 1967 war so that its farmers could steal the land. You jihadi fellow travelers don’t have any respect for the law, do you?
Glen I am really surprised that you are still clinging to the Howard mantra/spin that the terrorists want us to retreat (Mr Howard has been voted out of office by the way). Iraq has been all Osama’s dreams come true: a cause, a breeding ground, a theatre for combat.
oops! Bit of a miscount.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiiaBqwqkXs
Glen-
where to begin?
your statement “regardless of how the war began” implies that this has no relevance. You are utterly wrong. This war was morally and possibly legally the wrong decision and our government of the day supported it. This is a stain on our country, and has created a dangerous and unstable situation that has increased the threat of terrorism against our citizens, by increasing hatred of the west and allowing recruitment of young angry muslims by the jihadists.
I cannot think of a worse outcome for us than what we have done in Iraq, and we have not even begun to reap the consequences.
The Surge is irrelevant – whatever violence it “prevents” is temporary. Like the myth of the Hydra, for every head chopped off 100 grew.For every dead Iraqi, more hatred and revenge is sown in the hearts of the people who are left.
Brilliant.
This report from Princeton University is interesting.
http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/summary.html
Good to hear that Shrub hasn’t lost his sense of irony, preaching democracy to the Arabs.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7186346.stm
This from the man who gave us Florida in 2000, Carl Rove and Diebold voting machines, message to George…… “cognitive dissonance”.
Basil,
the idea that there is any cognition at all ,dissonant or not, is a gross over estimation.
Jen, provide evidence the the war in Iraq has “increased the threat of terrorism to our citizens”.
jen @ 805
798
Artie B
“insurrectum”? No wonder they’re buggered!
I’m slightly curious:
Are you Lefties now a little bit dissappointed that violence in Iraq has plummetted to its lowest level since 2003? Or are you guys still in denial about this?
It basically means that you’ll have to put the anti-US schadenfreude on hold for awhile.
804
Basil Fawlty
Isn’t it a complete joy to see the Gulf States implement ‘democracy’ too? You know, the royal family picks the candidates in one for example.
They are all autocratic states, and as long as the US has the sheiks of those states complient and friendly (enough) to the US, they can run their sheikdoms like they always have.
Democracy it ain’t, but let’s not get too precious, because if George Bush says it’s democracy then it’s, well, a two-headed camel probably
“The vaunted decline in violence must also be put in perspective. There are still more than 575 attacks a week, well more than 2,000 a month. The number of attacks has declined only to early 2006 levels, one of the deadliest years of the war. Moreover, the drop cannot necessarily be attributed to the US military presence. As American officials on the ground have admitted, the move by Sunni groups to rein in Al Qaeda has made a huge difference. So has the decision by Muqtada al-Sadr to order his militia to stand down. Iran is also said to have used its influence to curb the violence by certain Shiite militias. They all had their reasons, unrelated to the American strategy, for trying to quell the violence. ”
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071217/editors
By the way A-C, folks who have been unhappy about the war and the conduct of those prosecuting it are not ‘disappointed’ that less people are being killed and maimed. Probably more so just a little wary that those who used (I’m being generous here) very troubling evidence to go to war, then employed tactics which were demonstrable failures, are now promoting more of the same.
Unfortunaley A-C, the “evidence” will be there if there is an act of terrorism, and I hope to God there isn’t. However there is no doubt (and I ‘m not going to provide likns to all the articles etc: take your pick), that there is an increase of anti-western sentiment since the Iraq invasion, both inside Iraq ,and in other middle-eastern countries. This allows the jihadists to recruit more people to their cause, and therefore we are less safe. Or do you think that I am wrong about this?
Are you going to claim that the Iraq was has lessened anti- western sentiment????
809
A-C
Oh, another one! Don’t bother reading the arguments, just sit in front of Faux News (who brought you Saddam’s WMD, Mission Accomplished etc etc etc and all the pablum that spills from the feeble minded scribes of the Beltway), and give us ‘your’ researched ‘opinion’.
Go on, tell us, that Iraq is paradise, that the sectarian wars are over, and that the US can keep it’s bases there to eternity in peace and love.
Here’s the hard answer: The US cannot solve the sectarian problems of Iraq, even though their foolish invasion started it. There is no military solution, there is only the game of ‘whack a mole’, which they are playing now.
Now that the ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Baghdad is complete (the Shiite population has grown considerably), and there are huge barriers around the remaing Sunni ones,and the provinces have mostly segregated, the stage is set. And it is NOT for a happy ending.
Politically, Iraq is stagnant, and even that law to allow some Ba’athists some low level jobs was OPPOSSED by the Sunni parties! (There was barely a quorom in the parliament by the way, and has hardly been for the last year or more, as most of the politiicians actually live outside the country most of the time.)
Sunni tribes are taking US money and arms, mostly under the pretext of killing the Salafi and Wahabbi nutters, but in reality they are also settling old tribal and gang rivalries, but hey, as long as there is a body count at the end of the day.
So, divided, walled, armed, politically moribund, and almost complete distrust across the sectarian divide.
Oh yes, and 2007 was the most violent year since 2003, but hey, the ’surge’ has fixed everything?
And what draws in the Wahabbists? The occupation of Iraq by US troops. Pure and simple.
Take the US out of Iraq, and the strong magnet attracting every brand of jihadi crazy is gone, bin Laden cannot use it as recruiting material, and the Iraqi’s can get on with solving their own internal dispute without the Yanks constantly meddling in their politics (which they do on a daily basis, and have done from the beginning with hideous results).
Now, tell me, again, what’s ‘your’ opinion?
Thank you Kirribilli – succint, and erudite. And correct.
811
Pancho
Good point: if the Sunni’s will hunt down al Qaeda, then the argument that by leaving we give the country to bin Laden is pure and utter tosh.
Iraqi Sunni’s only allowed Wahabbists to oust the US until they realised that the Shia were a bigger threat.
So much for the ‘logic’ of Faux News talking heads.
Jen, I’m sure KR really appreciates your camaraderie and words of wisdom in his support.
BTW I love it when one Lefty calls another “erudite”, they really are a narcissistic bunch!
————————————————————————————————-
Looks like I really stirred the pot with post 809. The Iraq war is seriously a sore point for you ACTU members / Green-Left weekly subscribers. Among other things, it basically demonstrated how completely emasculated an irrelevant our “world government” (the UN) was and that decrypt body has continued the rotting process since.
Kirribilli, you really are a dolt. The sectarian problems in Iraq preceded the US invasion. They were fomenting for generations. Saddam only kept them in check through his iron grip on power. The vacuum following his overthrew made a confrontation highly likely.
The fact that Iraq’s various sects can sit in the one Parliament is a significant step towards co-existence.
[KR writes]: “Take the US out of Iraq, and the strong magnet attracting every brand of jihadi crazy is gone, bin Laden cannot use it as recruiting material, and the Iraqi’s can get on with solving their own internal dispute without the Yanks constantly meddling in their politics (which they do on a daily basis, and have done from the beginning with hideous results).”
Comprehension was evidently not one of your stronger suits in high school. If Al Qaeda was able to recruit Islamists “angry” enough to crash passenger jets into office buildings prior to the Iraq war, I really don’t think the act of toppling a secular dictatorship tremendously expanded their marketing base.
According to your “logic” (I’m using that word very loosely here) we should also pull out of Afghanistan because we might be making more people angry at us. I’m also guessing bombing Germany and Japan were bad ideas too, as they lead to a significant “escalation”.
V.true A-C, a lot of Neville Chamberlain’s on this blog at the moment.
AC- I’m going to have to point out that your logic is flawed.
You state “If Al Qaeda was able to recruit Islamists “angry” enough to crash passenger jets into office buildings prior to the Iraq war, I really don’t think the act of toppling a secular dictatorship tremendously expanded their marketing base. ”
Your phrase “I really don’t think” sums up the fact that your observation is a purely subjective one. Just because 19 people are fanatical enough to commit suicide-terror it does not follow that radical Muslims could not be further provoked by having their country invaded by “infidel agents of hate etc etc”. The technical term for your argument is a “fundamental attribution error”.
A-C, two quick points:
One, if you play a little more for the middle ground instead of opening up with ‘you ACTU members / Green-Left weekly subscribers’, you’d probably strengthen any point/s you wanted to make by actually having people read on.
Two, your argument that about ‘how completely emasculated’ the UN was holds to an extent. But the flipside of this episode has been to show that the incredible military power of the US can’t win every war, and the leadership of the US must use its immense power wisely and in consultation with others if it is to remain the great and respected nation we want it to be.
I don’t understand people who celebrate the breakdown of International Law and Institutions, particularly when those people are likely to be first to want to use them. Seems just stupid to me.
Ac
good to see that a different point of view comes on here every now and again
I fully support our involvement in iraq/afghanistan (didnt originally)
the problem is Perception versus reality
the real issue is: do we value our comforts (tv,mobile phones etc etc) versus our bleeding hearts.
Do not confuse an issue of imperialism versus modernisation
ps how many people here actually know an iraqi/afghani and have discussed with them the inherent problems that most posters (well meaning though they are) have no concept of.Viz equal rights ,standing of women etc
Diogenes, RE “fundamental attribution error”:
Christ, mate. I’m too embarassed to even consider posting on this blog from now on.
822 gusface 0 tell us about the people you actually know who are iraqi/afghani and the discussions you’ve had with them about the inherent problems.
A-C did claim
Looks like I really stirred the pot with post 809. The Iraq war is seriously a sore point for you ACTU members / Green-Left weekly subscribers. Among other things, it basically demonstrated how completely emasculated an irrelevant our “world government” (the UN) was and that decrypt body has continued the rotting process since.
The fact that Iraq got rid of its WMD proves that the UN inspection process worked just fine. Try and rewrite history all you want, but the truth is the UN was right, and you war mongers were wrong.
It sees the US intelligence services don’t agree with your assessment:
BTW-If you believe the occupation of Iraq is such a wonderful thing why haven’t you joined the war? I’m sure the Army would love to send you there.
Interesting how anyone having an opposing point of view re Iraq is labelled a ‘bleeding heart’. What a bloody put down that is.
Edit:
The fact that Iraq got rid of its WMD proves that the UN inspection process worked just fine. Try and rewrite history all you want, but the truth is the UN was right, and you war mongers were wrong.
A-C Says:
January 14th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Jen, provide evidence the the war in Iraq has “increased the threat of terrorism to our citizens”.
A-C
I presume this statement is to wind people up, because even Bush’s dad can’t bring himself to say that Bush got Iraq right. The surge has cut reported violence in some provinces in the short term. As soon as it ends, things will be worse than ever. See Juan Cole’s “Informed Comment” for reasons why.
But the threat of terrorism generally has increased from the war in Iraq, and long before the surge. Only selective memory would suggest otherwise. Remember that back in late 2002 Al Quaida was pinned down in a mountain in Afghanistan and quite weak. Within 12 months of Iraq, they were mounting major opeartions in Bali and later Spain. There have also been London and second Bali bombings. And look at what else has been happening – Pakistan, Lebanon, Palestine – there are a lot more hothead out there, and I have no doubt that Iraq has enabled various organisations to recruit another generation of suicide bombers. The US may have kept its own shores safe for a while through draconian measures and trashing their own freedoms, but in teh long term it is a loosing game. I could quote Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, never mind any “lefties” as to why the whole war on terror is stupid adn self defeating.
Finally, on the whole left-right thing, that is your neurosis not mine. Just because I recognise that what calls itself right-wing politics is brain dead, doesn’t make me a marxist academic. I can call John Howard dishonest, and George Bush stupid, and still recognise that some Labor policies are wrong too. Don’t label the rest of us with your own obsolete boxes.
MayoFeral:
Congratulations. You have single-handedly destroyed every single pro-Iraq war argument put forward by every supporter on the planet.
-read my last paragraph on #817.
It’s a completely specious argument. Bombing Germany filled up their reserves with Volksturm and hitlerjugend. Of course waging war against your enemies makes them angrier. BTW: Notice we’re fighting Al Qaeda over there instead of here?
You really couldn’t help yourself with the “If you’re for the war why don’t you sign up” rubbish. It’s like saying you have to be gay in order to support
gay marriage
A-C – ‘Notice we’re fighting Al Qaeda over there instead of here?’
You’re not in Afghanistan and talking of Iraq are you?
No brilliance, I try to avoid the ABC’s method of referring to “our” country’s army as “Australian”
A-C I was merely pointing out to you that, if you are going to complain about other bloggers logic, you should use a logical argument yourself. Such as your counter-argument re gay marriage which is logical.
No prizes for guessing who said this
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”
gary please quote in context not an isolated statement-makes your logic a bit fuzzy
I have no poblem with being laballed a “bleeding heart” over Iraq.
My heart does bleed for the now hundreds of thousands of dead innocents. And so should we all.
Even the Pope has spoken out aginst the war in Iraq. Hardly a left wing radical.
OK
so what if we didnt go in to iraq
what then
So who did you support in the TWO iran/iraq wars where over 500000 innocents were killed including child soldiers
or is that a little too hard to rationalise
gusface -
if we didn’t go into iraq we would not be complicit in a war that has killed the very civilians that it proported to be protecting from Saddam.
I do not support war except in self defence, and we were not under threat from Iraq.
well i’d feel better if we’d gone to war against the warlords in Africa at Darfur who’ve starved millions to death
but there’s no oil or statregic importnce there I guess
A-C’s insults are a poor substitute for thought, but judging from the calibre of the neocon claptrap he posts, it’s about on a par.
As most of it has been amply refuted by others, just one important point about Iraqi sectarianism:
All the neocon camp followers now try and rewrite Iraqi cultural history by asserting, incorrectly, that Iraqi’s were at each other’s throats before George Bush so kindly came and overthrew Saddam.
This is WRONG. Mixed marriages abounded, many tribes are actually mixed, and the average urban Iraqi hardly knew if his neighbour or workmate was from the same sect or not. Largely, it did not matter, and if you don’t believe me, go and read the Iraqis who commented about this from the beginning of the war. They were appalled that people they’d known all their lives suddenly distrusted each other, that the Iraqis were suddenly “Shia” or “Sunni”, or “Kurd” (although the latter are not Arabs, and so were always ‘outsiders’ to some degree).
And who promoted this? Paul J Bremmer, the CPA and every silly thought process of the invading armies. In other words, this was a ‘manufactured’ idea that had none of the horrendous impact it came to have before the invasion.
Sure, Saddam, a Sunni, favoured certain Sunni tribes, but there were Shia even in the Ba’ath Party.
I’ve read so many Iraqis lament what has happened to them, and so many were shocked when this sectarian war was unleashed on them.
Typical neocon tactic, unleash the dogs of war and then pretend it’s the victim’s fault.
Completely re-write the cultural history and then deny all moral responsibility. How utterly contemptable.
Gusface
you ask what if we didn’t go to war
Thats a “Howardism”.
We went to war because Sadam allegedly had WMD’s
We went to war despite UN and all other countries saying we were wrong to believe there were WMD’s (They believed their UN inspectors were correct)
Iraq is the easiest proven WRONG war in history
since there were no WMD’s in Iraq after all
For the record the other countries didn’t say there were no WMD’s, they accepted the expert evidence of Hans Blix that there was no evidence there was, and that further time should be allowed to confirm the negative.
For the record the US and UK (and then US) based on really very little very bad intelligence thought we knew better. Blix and the UN were amazingly right and insightful the coalition that invaded massively and stupidly wrong.
Also many many many commentators and experts predicted the massive trouble that would follow perfectly correctly and we believed the fanciful dominos of freedom and democracy dream of the stupid Neocons.
That they haven’t had the maturity courage or wisdom to admit these fundamental errors is key to the analysis of anything they have said or done since. These are demonstrably very stupid people without any credibility and they are still running the disaster.
Oh, sorry Gusface – let me supply the full quote. “ps how many people here actually know an iraqi/afghani and have discussed with them the inherent problems that most posters (well meaning though they are) have no concept of.Viz equal rights ,standing of women etc”
Now, tell us about the people you actually know who are iraqi/afghani and the discussions you’ve had with them about the inherent problems. You are the one who has changed his mind on the war. Something has persuaded you. If it’s not the
iraqi/afghani people you have discussed the inherent problems with then what was it? If you haven’t had such discussions the aren’t you committing the same “sin” you accuse others on the other side of the argument as committing?
I wonder if you can actually answer the question this time rather than hiding under the “you’ve taken me out of context” safety net.
Kirribilli Removals agree , they are trying to re-write history
Why ?
because the sole reason for going to war (the existence of WMD’s)
has been proven false.
As you correctly point out mate , the neocons are now trying to RETROSPECTIVELY change their reason for going to war by rewriting history.
I cann’t help feeling the existence of massive oil in Iraq and the close proximity of Iraq to Israel have had some impact.
Certainly the “Palestinian” issue gets secondary priority now
Correctio:
horrendous impact it came to have before the invasion.
should read….
horrendous impact it came to have AFTER the invasion.
A-C @ 829
But there weren’t any Al Qaeda in Iraq until after the US/UK/Australian conquest! Invading Iraq was the equivalent of Britain invading Poland in 1939 rather than taking on Germany thus opening the way for German special forces to set up shop in Warsaw and allowing the Wehrmacht cart blanc in France.
I’m sure bin Laden is very grateful for your support for keeping American troops tied up in Iraq, just as he wanted. Keeps the heat off so Al Queda can destabilize Pakistan in relative peace and keeps the recruits coming. You might find the NY Times article Kirribilli Removals linked to in 790 instructive, particularly the laments of old guard Taliban about what is now happening in Pakistan.
Where is “here”? Madrid? London? Bali? Glasgow?
From an interview last year with Abduljabbar al Kubaysi, influential political leader of the Iraqi resistance and secretary-general of the Iraqi Patriotic Alliance:
There is another striking example. Al Qaeda started in Falluja as the entire resistance started there. While it is a 100% Sunni town right after the beginning of the occupation about 12,000 Shiite families from the South took refuge in Falluja and Ramadi because they were accused of being Baathist. I was not only an eyewitness, but also involved in organising the relief for them. They were helped by the ordinary population because they regarded them as being with the resistance. Until today about 20,000 Shiite refugees remain in Falluja and not a single hostile act on sectarian base could be observed not even by al Qaeda. There certainly are quarrels between the resistance groups over domination, this is normal, but not on the basis of religion.
http://iraqresistance.blogspot.com/2007_08_01_archive.html
…so, it’s much more complex than the simple-minded Faux News talking heads and Whitehouse press releases would have us believe.
Anything coming from Glen or A-C on this subject is dribble, pure and simple.
Have I missed any US foreign policy success’s:
Pakistan
US propps up a Dictator with a ‘nuk’..home of numerous terrorists traning camps
Iran :
US propped up the despotic Shah then people kicked out the Shah AND the US
Lebanon:
was pro west & democratic..
but bombed back to the dark ages in 2005 as US remained silent
Afghanistan:
almost got rid of Tailban but when more important countrie like Iraq with oil needed the US , deserted Afghanistan 100% for the Tailaban to remuster
Gazza Strip :
had democratic elections…but US rejects the democratic victor
Saudi Arabia:
US propps up a despotic Royal Family …has massive oil supplys
Kuwait
US propps up a despotic Royal Family …has massive oil supplys
Egypt
US propps up a despot – the world’s largest ‘arab’ population
Iraq
US invades…finds no WMD’s…civil war starts & continues without an end
Hi gary
i ahve met and have as friends both refugees from iraq and afghanistan
Frazan was from afghanistan,awaiting a tribal marriage (she was 10) when her parents spirited her out of the country,she ended marrying an aussie afghan (remember the old camel herders that built our overland telegraph) and then went back (at least attempted to).upon finding that her family (and most reliies ) had been killed she has returned to OZ vowing never to leave-maybe it was the mysogny,living standards,denial of basic rights for females or just the fact that these middle eastern countries in the main are better suited to the middle ages.
her story and network of fellow refugees ALL tell the same story.ps she considers herself persian,not arab,not afghani not iraqi-go figure
i have drinks occassionally with 3 fellows who served in iraq (one was part1 also) and their view is quite instructive
coming from OZ with our inherent rascism etc they were amazed not just at the points made above BUT also how stratified(my words) Iraq is and possibly will be-from a scholarly point Iraq is state created by Britain to keep the Hashemites on side IT WAS NEVER A COUNTRY BEFORE
So please do a bit of research,and look around you at our Society-not great admittedly but a far sight better than what is over their-and if you truly believe in Human rights then you will understand that iraq/afghanistan is a battle that must be won
In order to help our resident red necks please talk slowly, don’t use big words or technical terms.
851
gusface
“then you will understand that iraq/afghanistan is a battle that must be won”
The real problem with that idea gusface is that none of the neocons, or anyone else for that matter, can define just what ‘win’ means in Iraq, or Afghanistan for that matter.
Like so much that has been said about them, the arguments are manufactured in binary terms, win/lose,Shia/Sunni, good/evil, religious/secular, jihadi/moderate but the realities are infinitely more varied and the transitions more shaded and complex.
Just what on earth does it mean to ‘win’ in Iraq? From whose point of view? Who gets to decide?
There are books being written on the subject that only scratch the surface! So whenever I hear the old ’stay the course’ and ‘defeat the terrorists’ and all the other euphimisms for keeping an endless war of occupation going, I immediately distrust either the intelligence or the intention (or both!) of the speaker.