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.

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!

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.