At home with my family during this difficult time, I have been watching the American election campaign from a distance. My parents have Sky and I am obliged to watch the Fox News.
Until now, I had heard and read about how bigoted Fox News is. We have a local Fox station in the States, but it is not prejudiced and covers local issues. They are not considered one of the major networks.
I have been stunned by the blatant anti-Obama and Democratic Party rhetoric that is occurring at this station. And deliberate mis-information and skewed polls are being fed the audience, more so now that Obama is beginning to surge in the polls. Moreover there is NO attempt at journalistic or editorial impartiality--Geraldine Ferraro is their only token democrat of any repute and she tries her best to give the Democratic opinion against the snide comments of anchors.
Shame on Fox News. I am disgusted to the cusp of anger. A day of reckoning is due from the regulators they so hate.
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Tuesday
Saturday
Who'll be President Round 1
Last night's debate was meant to be about foreign policy, which no one wanted to hear about because this time it really is "the economy, stupid."
I mean, without a healthy economy, we won't need to discuss foreign policy issues, right?
Right.
On balance, I'd say McCain came off a hair's breath better than Obama in that he did look more presidential than I'd thought he would. (Our expectations are that Obama does already look and behave presidential at all times, so that's why McCain gets the edge here.)
Rudeness award also goes to McCain who failed to make eye contact with Obama, nor did he exercise common courtesy in using his first name even on one occasion.
McCain failed to brand Obama as a greenhorn, his failure helped in part by the fact he could not pronounce the name of the Iranian and Pakistani presidents.
Obama failed to get his rebuttals across during the remaining moments of the 'five minute' open floor because he was behaving too gentlemanly. In a crucial debate, get your point across Mate or the people won't know. McCain was very effective in this strategy and Obama needs to become more assertive here.
Next up is Biden v Palin. That will be most interesting. Can't wait.
I mean, without a healthy economy, we won't need to discuss foreign policy issues, right?
Right.
On balance, I'd say McCain came off a hair's breath better than Obama in that he did look more presidential than I'd thought he would. (Our expectations are that Obama does already look and behave presidential at all times, so that's why McCain gets the edge here.)
Rudeness award also goes to McCain who failed to make eye contact with Obama, nor did he exercise common courtesy in using his first name even on one occasion.
McCain failed to brand Obama as a greenhorn, his failure helped in part by the fact he could not pronounce the name of the Iranian and Pakistani presidents.
Obama failed to get his rebuttals across during the remaining moments of the 'five minute' open floor because he was behaving too gentlemanly. In a crucial debate, get your point across Mate or the people won't know. McCain was very effective in this strategy and Obama needs to become more assertive here.
Next up is Biden v Palin. That will be most interesting. Can't wait.
Tuesday
Scarey Days
Looks like Wall Street folks are beginning to experience some of Main Streets pain as they pack the contents of their desks into boxes and head out the door for the last time. I've always been suspicious of the greed on Wall Street, but now I'm hopping mad these guys have the keys of our economy in their hands.
Too many dodgy investments have been dreamed up by these so-called top-tier College financial analysts who 'earn' huge bonuses for creating them and getting the representatives of pension funds and Main Street commercial banks to persuade their clients (ergo 'us') to buy them. Even worse the CEOs' of these investment banks DO NOT understand the full extent of the risks their subordinates are exposing their institutions to, and the government's failed to ensure adequate control and regulation. And McCain and Palin are campaigning for even less regulation.
Are the chickens coming home to roost: First Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac being put under conservatorship (read Bankruptcy protection). Now Lehman Bros and Merrill Lynch--though technically the latter's a stay of execution; next AIG; after that WaMu? What's coming down the pipeline? What are we not being told? Are we heading toward another Great Depression? Huge financial institutions are failing and the public seems indifferent. Or are we going to wake up one morning to a massive run on the commercial banks?
Who needs to go to the movies and watch a horror movie to be scared?
Too many dodgy investments have been dreamed up by these so-called top-tier College financial analysts who 'earn' huge bonuses for creating them and getting the representatives of pension funds and Main Street commercial banks to persuade their clients (ergo 'us') to buy them. Even worse the CEOs' of these investment banks DO NOT understand the full extent of the risks their subordinates are exposing their institutions to, and the government's failed to ensure adequate control and regulation. And McCain and Palin are campaigning for even less regulation.
Are the chickens coming home to roost: First Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac being put under conservatorship (read Bankruptcy protection). Now Lehman Bros and Merrill Lynch--though technically the latter's a stay of execution; next AIG; after that WaMu? What's coming down the pipeline? What are we not being told? Are we heading toward another Great Depression? Huge financial institutions are failing and the public seems indifferent. Or are we going to wake up one morning to a massive run on the commercial banks?
Who needs to go to the movies and watch a horror movie to be scared?
Wednesday
A Clinton Obama ticket, anyone?
Congratulation to Senator McCain. The Republicians have selected and he's now got the blessing of Mr. Bush, which may not be such a good thing given his terrible ratings and the fact we're now in recession according to Warren Buffett. I think only idiots and those politically motivated to deny it still continue to bleat that we're on a slow down, that we are not in recession.
A quick drive through any town in the United States where the huge number of 'To Let' signs in empty stores is a true indicator of the reality. Unbelievable that the surplus we had when President Clinton left office is now replaced with a massive deficit and the dollar is trading at One Euro fifty-one cents. Less anyone forget, when the Euro was 'born', it was regarded as aa weak currency and it traded at about one dollar.
The democratic races last night were terribly exciting and Hillary Clinton to her credit did pull an upset, exactly what she said she was going to do. I am glad as I feel the Democrats really are discussing the real bread-and-butter issues that the next Presidential election will be about. The longer she and Obama campaign, the better for our democracy.
It looks like Pennsylvania will be the deciding state, which is also very exciting. Certainly it is the only large state with a huge number of delegates that's left. Already, Obama and Clinton have opened campaign offices in the major towns, including Bucks County where I live.
It looks like Senator Obama will come under a lot more media scrutiny now and will have to state his policies and positions with absolute clarity now. Taht is a good thing. In the past weeks, I've heard a lot more about Clinton's positions and am still pretty unclear about Obama's.
The best option would be for Obama and Clinton to run on the same ticket, but that will require senior democrats to get them in the same room and thrash out who will be on top. I suspect that's going to happen either before or after the Pennsylvania primary. It has to because Clinton is now unable to mathematically catch up and surpass the number of delegates Obama has in the bag. And Obama's argument that the super-delegates must vote according to how the people of their state voted (and thus secure him the necessary number of delegates to secure the nomination) does not hold water because there is no requirement for them to do so. Their duty is to vote for teh candidate they feel can win the general election. Moreover, Clinton has a very strong argument that she has won the IMPORTANT MAJOR states and Obama's wins are in small states--in other words, size does matter.
Of course there's always the matter of Florida. Always Florida. Does the Democratic National Committee reverse itself and allow their vote to be counted in the delegate count? If so, Clinton gets a lot of delegates. I'm sure her campaign's trying to twist arms here.
Some people argue that a ticket with a woman and a black man on it is not a winning formula--that America is not ready. I think it's time to see.
A quick drive through any town in the United States where the huge number of 'To Let' signs in empty stores is a true indicator of the reality. Unbelievable that the surplus we had when President Clinton left office is now replaced with a massive deficit and the dollar is trading at One Euro fifty-one cents. Less anyone forget, when the Euro was 'born', it was regarded as aa weak currency and it traded at about one dollar.
The democratic races last night were terribly exciting and Hillary Clinton to her credit did pull an upset, exactly what she said she was going to do. I am glad as I feel the Democrats really are discussing the real bread-and-butter issues that the next Presidential election will be about. The longer she and Obama campaign, the better for our democracy.
It looks like Pennsylvania will be the deciding state, which is also very exciting. Certainly it is the only large state with a huge number of delegates that's left. Already, Obama and Clinton have opened campaign offices in the major towns, including Bucks County where I live.
It looks like Senator Obama will come under a lot more media scrutiny now and will have to state his policies and positions with absolute clarity now. Taht is a good thing. In the past weeks, I've heard a lot more about Clinton's positions and am still pretty unclear about Obama's.
The best option would be for Obama and Clinton to run on the same ticket, but that will require senior democrats to get them in the same room and thrash out who will be on top. I suspect that's going to happen either before or after the Pennsylvania primary. It has to because Clinton is now unable to mathematically catch up and surpass the number of delegates Obama has in the bag. And Obama's argument that the super-delegates must vote according to how the people of their state voted (and thus secure him the necessary number of delegates to secure the nomination) does not hold water because there is no requirement for them to do so. Their duty is to vote for teh candidate they feel can win the general election. Moreover, Clinton has a very strong argument that she has won the IMPORTANT MAJOR states and Obama's wins are in small states--in other words, size does matter.
Of course there's always the matter of Florida. Always Florida. Does the Democratic National Committee reverse itself and allow their vote to be counted in the delegate count? If so, Clinton gets a lot of delegates. I'm sure her campaign's trying to twist arms here.
Some people argue that a ticket with a woman and a black man on it is not a winning formula--that America is not ready. I think it's time to see.
Friday
American Zeitgeist
Watching and trying to interpret the American Zeitgeist as we wend our way to the Presidential election is hugely exciting. I was here during the election of Bill Clinton and can remember the sense of unrestrained optimism that eddied around the dinner tables and parlors of my friends. No British or Irish election had ever generated such a sense of expectation times squared, no make that tripled.
It must be acknowledged Bill Clinton did deliver and I have often wondered why Ronald Regan is lauded still by many as the president who swept America to a new prosperity. They forget the heartless policies behind this trickle down economic "success" and forget conveniently that Bill Clinton left this country with a surplus when his time finished. The current administration, conservative it proudly heralds, has spent more than any Democratic administration in memory. Why is this not being shouted from the roof tops? Why are conservative Republicans with a small 'c' not being more vociferous and still leery of Democrats as being the party of 'Big Government?' I can't understand.
But back to the current primaries. It's certain now that John McCain will be the Republican nominee and Huckabee (and Chuck Norris) are now only in the running in order to secure their name on the ticket as Vice President.
I could not vote for him because he is 'out to pasture' on the war, but one thing I truly admire about McCain is his stance on earmarks--favorite wish lists that senators try to slip into legislation no matter how unrelated to their project; in other words pork barrel politics. McCain is right to want to end their use and, to be fair to him, he has not sought any while Clinton and Obama have made use of the practice. Clinton and Obama are silent about that. This must be noted. (It will be interesting to see how the 'affair' with a lobbyist that's been reported by The New York Times plays out, because there's no smoke without fire.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's race is of a very different color. I find myself swinging back and forth, torn between Obama's call for change and Clinton's cry that she has the experience. My gut feel is that an amalgam of the two would be superb. But that we can't have.
Who to choose?
Zeitgeist suggests that Barack Obama has a decided edge and this is conformed by the fact that ex-pats eligible to vote in the primaries have also given him the edge. Americans are angry with the current administration and are clamoring for real change. They don't want talk. They want it to occur. He's a visionary leader--in other words he presents what he believes America wants like say Roosevelt and 'The New Deal', seeking consensus among the competing interests, leaving it for the 'managers' to implement the policies and hold them utterly accountable. Hillary, on the other hand, managers from the 'top down' and gets involved in every aspect. I don't think that works because we've tried that and it didn't work.
Can Obama deliver? This is the elephant in the room. His handling of the nuclear power issue in his own back yard would not seem to suggest he can wield the sort of change Americans are seeking. his bill got diluted and he accepted it; worrying when one considers it was on an issue of health and safety.
Given this, is the question of experience then not more important than the change the direction of this country. Is it experience that is necessary to navigate the ship of state through the shark-infested waters in order to achieve some achievable change.
I don't know the answer. The reservations I have are: Hillary Clinton is NOT talking about change in the way Barack Obama is talking about it and she is not talking about reigning in corporate greed; And Barack Obama, contrary to what he says, may not be able to get sensible Republicans to work with him as is vitally needed for the good of this country in order to achieve the change the country wants desperately. He didn't seem to pass the challenge in Illinois and that worries me. Washington is a meaner, tougher game, one where he could easily be sidelined for four years.
I am also annoyed at her juvenile attempt to accuse Obama of plagiarism because he borrows from the speeches of others. Come on!!! All politicians do that. It is unfitting for a woman of Clinton's caliber and education to resort to such silliness, and the fact she is angering the voters here suggests she is insulting their intelligence. It highlights that she is threatened by his oratory and suggests her campaign is in crisis.
Drop it and move on to discuss your vision, Hilary. Let the people do their job and decide which is the better of the two.
It must be acknowledged Bill Clinton did deliver and I have often wondered why Ronald Regan is lauded still by many as the president who swept America to a new prosperity. They forget the heartless policies behind this trickle down economic "success" and forget conveniently that Bill Clinton left this country with a surplus when his time finished. The current administration, conservative it proudly heralds, has spent more than any Democratic administration in memory. Why is this not being shouted from the roof tops? Why are conservative Republicans with a small 'c' not being more vociferous and still leery of Democrats as being the party of 'Big Government?' I can't understand.
But back to the current primaries. It's certain now that John McCain will be the Republican nominee and Huckabee (and Chuck Norris) are now only in the running in order to secure their name on the ticket as Vice President.
I could not vote for him because he is 'out to pasture' on the war, but one thing I truly admire about McCain is his stance on earmarks--favorite wish lists that senators try to slip into legislation no matter how unrelated to their project; in other words pork barrel politics. McCain is right to want to end their use and, to be fair to him, he has not sought any while Clinton and Obama have made use of the practice. Clinton and Obama are silent about that. This must be noted. (It will be interesting to see how the 'affair' with a lobbyist that's been reported by The New York Times plays out, because there's no smoke without fire.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's race is of a very different color. I find myself swinging back and forth, torn between Obama's call for change and Clinton's cry that she has the experience. My gut feel is that an amalgam of the two would be superb. But that we can't have.
Who to choose?
Zeitgeist suggests that Barack Obama has a decided edge and this is conformed by the fact that ex-pats eligible to vote in the primaries have also given him the edge. Americans are angry with the current administration and are clamoring for real change. They don't want talk. They want it to occur. He's a visionary leader--in other words he presents what he believes America wants like say Roosevelt and 'The New Deal', seeking consensus among the competing interests, leaving it for the 'managers' to implement the policies and hold them utterly accountable. Hillary, on the other hand, managers from the 'top down' and gets involved in every aspect. I don't think that works because we've tried that and it didn't work.
Can Obama deliver? This is the elephant in the room. His handling of the nuclear power issue in his own back yard would not seem to suggest he can wield the sort of change Americans are seeking. his bill got diluted and he accepted it; worrying when one considers it was on an issue of health and safety.
Given this, is the question of experience then not more important than the change the direction of this country. Is it experience that is necessary to navigate the ship of state through the shark-infested waters in order to achieve some achievable change.
I don't know the answer. The reservations I have are: Hillary Clinton is NOT talking about change in the way Barack Obama is talking about it and she is not talking about reigning in corporate greed; And Barack Obama, contrary to what he says, may not be able to get sensible Republicans to work with him as is vitally needed for the good of this country in order to achieve the change the country wants desperately. He didn't seem to pass the challenge in Illinois and that worries me. Washington is a meaner, tougher game, one where he could easily be sidelined for four years.
I am also annoyed at her juvenile attempt to accuse Obama of plagiarism because he borrows from the speeches of others. Come on!!! All politicians do that. It is unfitting for a woman of Clinton's caliber and education to resort to such silliness, and the fact she is angering the voters here suggests she is insulting their intelligence. It highlights that she is threatened by his oratory and suggests her campaign is in crisis.
Drop it and move on to discuss your vision, Hilary. Let the people do their job and decide which is the better of the two.
Tuesday
Super Tuesday Ahoy
I think this is one of the most exciting primaries I've ever witnessed, at least on the Democratic side. I can't wait, simply can't wait, until tomorrow night to see the results coming in. However, I am not euphoric because, let's face it, we've been down this road before when President Clinton came to power and everyone was euphoric and the earth didn't move. Lots of good things happened and we were euphoric but the earth did not move.
The truth is only true change will come when responsible Republicans and Democrats work together for the benefit of American society, when we stop seeing people we disagree with us as foes and un-American.
Regardless of who wins between Clinton or Obama or whether no front runner emerges until Pennsylvania, etc , I feel strongly we're all winners because this is what happens when democracy is working. We're hearing real bread and butter issues being discussed, real visions as to how universal (or near enough) health care can be implemented, how the economy can be improved and, most clearly from Obama, how the excesses of large corporations must be reigned in and corporate welfare terminated.
From John McCain, all I'm hearing is the tired old rhetoric that America is under threat and we're going to be annihilated by the Islam extremists and we must stay in Iraq because our vital interests are involved. Hey, a Democratic administration owill be as capable of looking after our security as a Republican one so stop this tired 'trying to scare us witless' nonsense.
Mitt Romney--still horrified by his financing his bid for the presidency and parading he's a true conservative.
Mike Huckabee--the chap needs to leave when he can still do so with a bit of grace.
Really did enjoy seeing Maria Shriver wiggle out of Arnold's grip to endorse Obama. Republican Governor and Democratic California First Lady. Great to see.
Not that sure the country is as swayed by a Kennedy endorsement as they were in say, seventies or eighties. People have moved on and become a lot more knowledgeable, a lot more sophisticated. Era's over, I think.
Oprah on the other hand--will be interesting
Onward!
The truth is only true change will come when responsible Republicans and Democrats work together for the benefit of American society, when we stop seeing people we disagree with us as foes and un-American.
Regardless of who wins between Clinton or Obama or whether no front runner emerges until Pennsylvania, etc , I feel strongly we're all winners because this is what happens when democracy is working. We're hearing real bread and butter issues being discussed, real visions as to how universal (or near enough) health care can be implemented, how the economy can be improved and, most clearly from Obama, how the excesses of large corporations must be reigned in and corporate welfare terminated.
From John McCain, all I'm hearing is the tired old rhetoric that America is under threat and we're going to be annihilated by the Islam extremists and we must stay in Iraq because our vital interests are involved. Hey, a Democratic administration owill be as capable of looking after our security as a Republican one so stop this tired 'trying to scare us witless' nonsense.
Mitt Romney--still horrified by his financing his bid for the presidency and parading he's a true conservative.
Mike Huckabee--the chap needs to leave when he can still do so with a bit of grace.
Really did enjoy seeing Maria Shriver wiggle out of Arnold's grip to endorse Obama. Republican Governor and Democratic California First Lady. Great to see.
Not that sure the country is as swayed by a Kennedy endorsement as they were in say, seventies or eighties. People have moved on and become a lot more knowledgeable, a lot more sophisticated. Era's over, I think.
Oprah on the other hand--will be interesting
Onward!
Wednesday
New Hampshire and on
I LOVE when the pundits and polls are wrong, as they were in New Hampshire last night--at least on the democratic side. It sure makes for exciting telly.
This year is going to be an exciting one in the US and there's going to be interesting debates and spats because all sorts of normally silent segments of the electorate are fired up--women over 45, voters between 18 and 45, hell-fire zealots, lefties and righties--if the Iowa and New Hampshire initial turn-out results holds. Makes for great politics and strengthens a democracy. Gone is citizen ennui and indifference.
As an independent--my leanings are obviously democratic given my background, but I do not vote the party line out of obligation or urge because I feel the Democratic party, like the Republican Party, needs to clean house as well--my view so far:
Sen. John McCain--a likeable warhorse who's well intended but not in touch.
Mitt Romney--a shiftshaper, opportunist. Too many of his ilk currently in Congress. Don't need another in the White House. Despise he will try to buy the Presidency if he runs out of donors. Founding Fathers would hate that.
Mike Huckabee--a charmer, and pretty smart except when it comes to his denial of evolution--this, unfortunately, raises its head as a criteria to be discussed in the sophisticated US every election cycle--and justice for all, and I don't believe the majority of the country is in the mood to have another four years of the dangerous 'same old-same old' from a Baptist minister-cum-politician.
Sen. Barack Obama--I like the guy, like his common touch, eloquence, fighting spirit and desire to change things. But what exactly does he want to change and what will he do? I'm unsure of what he represents currently.
Sen. Hillary Clinton--Who can't help feeling a soft spot for her after what she's had to endure from the zealots? I feel a strong pull toward her, but again what is it she's representing, exactly? Is she left of center or is she center? If she's center, we've had that before from the Democrats so where would 'change' occur? She's got backbone and I want to see it as rigidly on display as Joan of Arc held her standard on the battlefield.
We got a glimpse of her passion and concern for the country, our country, two days ago when she thought she was going to lose in New Hampshire. In her cracked voice, in her drawn face, in her intense gaze. She spoke from the heart. I want to see that more, and I want to know what she will change. I don't need to know everything at this stage, but I do need to know enough to believe she is the only person I want as my President, a President who will lead this great country back to its proper place in the world, a President who will serve ALL the people.
Sen. John Edwards--youthful and well-intended and I really like his desire to rein in the corrupt influence of big corporations. His doggedness and genuine desire to better the country will keep him in the race, though his ability to raise money will suffer as a result of his performances.
This year is going to be an exciting one in the US and there's going to be interesting debates and spats because all sorts of normally silent segments of the electorate are fired up--women over 45, voters between 18 and 45, hell-fire zealots, lefties and righties--if the Iowa and New Hampshire initial turn-out results holds. Makes for great politics and strengthens a democracy. Gone is citizen ennui and indifference.
As an independent--my leanings are obviously democratic given my background, but I do not vote the party line out of obligation or urge because I feel the Democratic party, like the Republican Party, needs to clean house as well--my view so far:
Sen. John McCain--a likeable warhorse who's well intended but not in touch.
Mitt Romney--a shiftshaper, opportunist. Too many of his ilk currently in Congress. Don't need another in the White House. Despise he will try to buy the Presidency if he runs out of donors. Founding Fathers would hate that.
Mike Huckabee--a charmer, and pretty smart except when it comes to his denial of evolution--this, unfortunately, raises its head as a criteria to be discussed in the sophisticated US every election cycle--and justice for all, and I don't believe the majority of the country is in the mood to have another four years of the dangerous 'same old-same old' from a Baptist minister-cum-politician.
Sen. Barack Obama--I like the guy, like his common touch, eloquence, fighting spirit and desire to change things. But what exactly does he want to change and what will he do? I'm unsure of what he represents currently.
Sen. Hillary Clinton--Who can't help feeling a soft spot for her after what she's had to endure from the zealots? I feel a strong pull toward her, but again what is it she's representing, exactly? Is she left of center or is she center? If she's center, we've had that before from the Democrats so where would 'change' occur? She's got backbone and I want to see it as rigidly on display as Joan of Arc held her standard on the battlefield.
We got a glimpse of her passion and concern for the country, our country, two days ago when she thought she was going to lose in New Hampshire. In her cracked voice, in her drawn face, in her intense gaze. She spoke from the heart. I want to see that more, and I want to know what she will change. I don't need to know everything at this stage, but I do need to know enough to believe she is the only person I want as my President, a President who will lead this great country back to its proper place in the world, a President who will serve ALL the people.
Sen. John Edwards--youthful and well-intended and I really like his desire to rein in the corrupt influence of big corporations. His doggedness and genuine desire to better the country will keep him in the race, though his ability to raise money will suffer as a result of his performances.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)