Very happy with President-elect Obama

For the record, while I take back nothing I have ever said about Obama, he has grown in these months and looks like a President. And obviously his opponents felt the same way, as they spent all of their time attacking him and no time actually saying why anyone in their right mind would vote for them. Has so much nonsense ever been spoken by so many people?

Some of the stuff they have been saying doesn’t bear repeating and if they had any combination of intelligence and decency, they would be ashamed of themselves. However, I know that they don’t. So it is a really good thing that unlike when Bill Clinton was elected, Obama will have a Democratic Congress to work with instead of a jealous Republican Congress who would, as history would surely have repeated itself, have done everything they possibly could to cripple the Administration and try to make the President look bad, instead of being good Americans and working for the betterment of their country and it’s people.

I spent last night with my new lady friend, Jan, and several of her friends on the Upper East Side. All were excited and felt and thrilled at the history that was being made. Between leaving there at after 1am and the MTA not informing passengers of a service change, my commute home took over 2 hours and I ended up with a little under 3 hours sleep. So right now, I am really tired. But tiredness, when achieved in a positive way – and this will stay with me forever – is no more bad than pain caused by a fierce workout or yearning caused by love.

For me, the abiding single image will always be seeing Jesse Jackson in tears. The emotion I have felt from Black friends has only served to deepen my appreciation of just how very important this victory is. Roll on January 20th, 2009. What a day that will be!

John McCain’s campaign: Redefining ridiculous!

There was a headline in a British paper the day after the last General Election: “How could 60 million Americans be so stupid!” Brought a wry smile to my face, because I had sort of thought the same thing. The difference was, I wasn’t shocked.

In much the same way, I’m not shocked that even after running one of the worst campaigns I have ever witnessed, John McCain is close in opinion polls.

This is a man I used to respect as someone who crossed party lines to build a consensus with Democrats on some issues. But he voted with President Bush 95% of the time in 2007, moving closer to a failed and largely despised President. (Probably a nice man, but easily the worst President of my lifetime!)

I was astonished to see McCain standing before crowds, and with a straight face, saying that he was the real candidate for change. And apparently, some people believed him! In fairness, I think there are some States where a decomposed Ronald Reagan would top the ballot in an election, if he was the Republican candidate, so I’m not sure that the closeness in the polls is as much to do with McCain’s brilliance as Blue State voters, ahem, naiveté. That was me being nice, by the way. Otherwise the word would have been stupidity.

After hearing last Friday about his choice of running mate, I was amused (bemused?) to see so-called pundits saying that this was perhaps a ploy to gain disaffected Hillary Clinton voters. OK. So people who wanted the opportunity to vote for someone who is towards the left of her party, are supposed to vote for an ultra-conservative Christian right winger and fervent anti-abortionist! Why? Because she’s a woman? There will always be a tiny minority or damned fools who do such things. In England, I met an Indian man who liked the National Front because they liked the Queen. OK, perhaps I should mention that he clearly had some psychiatric problems, but such things aren’t unheard of. A Jewish man actually stood (in England, people don’t run for election. Far more sedately, they stand) for the National Front in a Local Government election. I heard nothing about him being mentally incompetent, although clearly his reasoning was.

End of digression. Fast forward from Friday to Wednesday, and now the spin is that after having been Mayor or a small town in Alaska, and Governor of that State for two years, she is more experienced than Barack Obama! I’m sure that many of the converted will lap it up, but I don’t think I need to detail why this is laughable nonsense if a person actually uses their own brain instead of somebody else’s, when coming to conclusions on the respective pluses and minuses of the tickets.

The Republicans are currently trotting out any number of past and present politicians who are talking up Palin, and calling people who doubt her, sexist. I don’t like her because she’s a 2-year Governor of the State with the second smallest population; and she is ultra conservative. Not because she’s a woman, ffs! That’s like saying I don’t like McCain because he’s from Arizona! Truly, redefining ridiculous!

Obama the Candidate

This has really been a foregone conclusion for some time. Mercifully for everyone, the recent decision by the DNC to give each Florida and Michigan Delegate half a vote – this should have been their original decision and would have saved a lot of trouble if it had been – lowered the bar, so to speak, reducing the number of delegates needed to win the nomination and brought this moment forward.

Any objections I have to this candidacy are expressed plainly in previous posts. I will not repeat a word of it. Now is the time to look forward.

I feel quite sure that the Democrats will win both Houses in November, so at worst, the next Administration will be better than this one. At this time, it looks like there are two very beatable candidates in November.

I don’t take John McCain to be a bully like George Bush and I do believe that his right-ward move is strictly a ploy to get a constituency behind him that he cannot win the Presidency without. I expect the dirty tricks people to be working overtime to try to overcome Obama. But somehow, I also expect McCain, a very poor campaigner, to run a Bob Dole like campaign which will give Obama a good chance of victory. What was that speech all about that he made yesterday! He’s all for change? I think my mouth was open as I was listening – aghast and incredulous that these words were coming from this man. Many more speeches like that will certainly make things easier for Obama.

But the path is not clear for Mr. Obama. He has believability problems among Blue Collar workers which could seriously hurt him. I don’t think it will matter too much to him that some people will not vote for a Black Man no matter what, as I think they will not be a factor in core Democratic States. I’m more concerned about the States that I think Clinton could have won, but without the right Running Mate, Obama will be weaker in: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arkansas and Tennessee come to mind.

In Obama’s favour is that he will probably not hesitate to pick a strong Running Mate. I’m actually hoping that he will also make known a couple of names for his first cabinet. Edwards for Labor is an obvious choice. I would absolutely love to see Bill Clinton as Secretary of State – I think he’s perfect for the job. Would Al Gore accept a Cabinet role as Secretary of the Environment if such a post was created, as indeed it should be?

VP? I think that his Running Mate should be someone who can be President in 8 years and that is the only reason I wouldn’t propose Hillary Clinton for the job, even though I felt a year ago that she would make a superb Veep. My reason is that she will be 70 come January 2017. But could Obama possibly not pick her if she wants the job, and not potentially alienate some of the millions of people who may or may not switch their support to him? I think he and the DNC will know that the short and simple answer to that question is ‘NO’.

Obama’s conceit

At a fundraiser in San Francisco last weekend, Barack Obama made the following statements:

In response to a question on what he would look for in a running mate:

"I would like somebody who knows about a bunch of stuff that I'm not as expert on. I think a lot of people assume that might be some kind of military thing to make me look more commander-in-chief-like. Ironically, this is an area -- foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain."

He continued:

"It's ironic because this is supposedly the place where experience is most needed to be Commander-in-Chief. Experience in Washington is not knowledge of the world. This I know. When Senator Clinton brags 'I've met leaders from eighty countries'—I know what those trips are like! I've been on them. You go from the airport to the embassy. There's a group of children who do native dance. You meet with the CIA station chief and the embassy and they give you a briefing. You go take a tour of a plant that [with] the assistance of USAID has started something. And then—you go.

"You do that in eighty countries—you don't know those eighty countries. So when I speak about having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa—knowing the leaders is not important—what I know is the people. . . .

"I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college—I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. . . ."

To me, this last statement is something that George Bush would be proud of. He lived in Indonesia between the ages of 6 and 10! He went to Pakistan as a student. This makes him an expert on world affairs?

When told of this, Hillary Clinton’s response was to first laugh and then say:

"Well I’m somewhat shocked by that since I don’t see any evidence of it. This is kind of hard to square with his failure to ever have a single policy hearing on the only responsibility he was given, chairing the European and NATO subcommittee the foreign relations committee. "I don’t know. I’m speechless. Making an assertion like that belies the facts and the record."


The other Obama quote came from the same City and same day, but I have been unable to confirm that it was a different fundraiser. He was talking about his problems in winning over some working class voters and talk of their frustrations with economic conditions:

"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

After the story came out, he said:

There has been a small "political flare-up because I said something that everybody knows is true, which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois, who are bitter. They are angry. They feel like they have been left behind. They feel like nobody is paying attention to what they're going through.

"So I said, well you know, when you're bitter you turn to what you can count on. So people, they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community. And they get mad about illegal immigrants who are coming over to this country."

"If I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that,"

"The truth is that these traditions that are passed on from generation to generation, those are important. That's what sustains us. But what is absolutely true is that people don't feel like they are being listened to."

There’s certainly truth in some of his words, but when working class people get frustrated they go back to what they know, those things being guns, religion and anger about illegal immigration (and they cast their votes for candidates other than Barack Obama)? How insulting! How demeaning and clueless! His explanation was worse than the original statement!


Clinton called the comments "elitist and out of touch."

"The people of faith I know don't 'cling' to religion because they're bitter. People embrace faith not because they are materially poor, but because they are spiritually rich.

"I also disagree with Senator Obama's assertion that people in this country 'cling to guns' and have certain attitudes about immigration or trade simply out of frustration.

"People don't need a president who looks down on them; they need a president who stands up for them."

I have been unable to find McCain’s statement on the subject, but he apparently called Obama elitist.


For me, Obama continues to prove that he shouldn’t be President and continues to get away with his many gaffes…. for now. He does so because he smiles nicely and makes rousing speeches. But I think things are finally starting to catch up with him. For the Democrats to have any chance in November, this had better be the case. Because the Republicans are just going to slaughter him if he is the candidate.

Three flawed candidates

I have been letting this blog slide because I am so disillusioned with the way things have been going. I shall explain the source of my upset.

Still in the race, there is a man who, before he decided to become George Bush’s biggest supporter outside of his family and his Administration, was that rarest of creatures – a Republican that I actually liked and respected.

Also in is a woman who is married to the man I firmly believe to be the best President in my lifetime. To be sure, she doesn’t have his savvy or his likeability. She has been the butt of much criticism in this election, and while I think the treatment of her has been generally abysmal, she certainly has deserved at least some of what she has got.

And then there is the new guy who smiles ever so nicely and says “yes we can” with annoying frequency, as befits the brainwashed teeny boppers who follow him around. This is the guy whose supporters insist is likeable and different. This is the guy whose leading fundraiser was a slumlord who profited from Human misery. A guy who took campaign money from nuclear lobbyists but criticised use of lobbyists’ money in the campaigns of other candidates. While he was plying, or should that be playing Ohio and Canada with opposing stories on NAFTA, someone tried to say that it was his Democratic rival who actually contacted the Canadians. No proof was forthcoming and the ‘story’ disappeared.

Polls are taken that clearly slant towards Obama’s demographic. While this distorts the truth, he benefits from appearing to regain momentum. So people continue to call for Clinton to pull out. And on that subject; before the Ohio Primary, calls came loud and clear from the Obama camp that Hillary should get out of the race. Fast forward to Pennsylvania, and he is saying that she should stay in as long as she wants to. And nobody brings up the contradiction. For me, it is disingenuous in the highest order.

Governor Richardson wants to be VP. He endorsed Obama after the candidate went through a very rough period. Lee Hamilton, presumably angling for Secretary of State, followed suit, and the campaign was back on track.

So is Obama so different? He smiles nicer and is a rousing orator, but ultimately the only ways he is different is that we know him less and he’s an even bigger hypocrite than the average politician.

For me, as detailed in my previous posts and in many places on the web, he has run easily the dirtiest campaign of any Democrat I can recall. When the whole Reverend Wright episode was foremost in the news, Obama spent over a week alternating between defending himself and viciously attacking his opponent through his proxies. But he’s lovely! How blind can so many people be?!

Maybe, just maybe, he is dirty enough to take on a Republican at their own game – and do so while smiling sweetly enough that those who watch but don’t listen, or listen but don’t really quite hear, will not realise what is going on. I’m talking about the people who think that Maxwell’s Silver Hammer by The Beatles is a nice, happy song because that is the tone it is sung in. (Check out Warren Zevon's Excitable Boy for a stronger example

But there are things which Democrats can’t say but Republicans will have no qualms about. They too use proxies to spread lies and tell the lies often enough that they at some point start talking of them in the matter-of-fact manner that people will use when established facts are spoken. They wrote the book on those tactics! No, as fast as Obama has proven he can learn and adapt, I honestly can’t see how he is electable once the Republicans sink their teeth into his meatless campaign but very juicy mainly unknown side.

And the main reason he can’t be elected? Sadly, it won’t be because he is not trustworthy. His preacher and his wife made comments which will be used time and again in the General Election campaign. There will be TV Ads replaying the words. And Conservative Democrats and Independents alike, who hang flags from so many houses across America, will simply not be able to vote for him. I state again that the man has proven me wrong before and might do so again, but for me the course of a General Election campaign with him in it is all too clear and obvious. The Democrats have one candidate who may be able to beat McCain, and one who, once the Republicans work their filth, stands no chance whatsoever.

I do want to add a short disclaimer of sorts. Whereas in my experience, most people who I have heard talking enthusiastically about Obama are politically naïve, I certainly know some smart and politically savvy people who support him. I believe they are allowing themselves to be blind to his shortfalls, but at least I can respect their opinions as the words they use are their own and not the poppycock that has substituted for political news these last too many months.

The Race effect: Was Geraldine Ferraro wrong?

Sometimes, there are truths better not spoken – at certain levels at least. But that doesn’t make them any less truthful. The question of whether Barack Obama would be in the position he is in now if he was not a Black man is not so easily answered with a knee-jerk yes or no, as it is fairly complex.

When Obama said a few weeks ago that this is the right moment for him to be making his historic run, I saw two truths. America is ready to put the awful George Bush Presidency behind it, so a fresh face promising change is particularly attractive this time around. And what could be more different than that the face belongs to a Black man? So I find Obama’s indignation at Ferraro’s remark to be political posturing, at best. Looking at the list of things that might count for and against a candidate, his contention that being Black would not be on the positive side certainly holds true in normal times. But he is entirely aware that these are not normal times.

The prospect of defining history has clearly been the overriding element in this race. A woman of whatever race, against a non-White person of whatever gender. Looking at the three major candidates presented to Democratic voters at the beginning of this process, John Edwards was surely likeable, intelligent and spoke most closely to core Democratic values. He was the man who seemed most likely to effect positive change for working people. Nobody could call him inexperienced. Nobody could call him mean. He apparently has no baggage. In effect, he was by far the most electable of the three candidates when faced with a Republican challenger in a Presidential election.

But for John Edwards, this was the wrong time. He could not create the history that has defined the race. He is a White Man. He was not different enough.

And that, even more than Obama getting 80-90% of the African American vote; even more than the number of students who have been galvanised by the amount of change they see an Obama Presidency offering – and make no mistake that the dream of improved race relations is a real consideration for many and a reason for some Obama support – is why what Ferraro said is true.

Slightly off subject, I must say that the hope of improved race relations initially had me most excited about an Obama candidacy. But as I have detailed in other posts, other considerations have since overridden this for me.

Email to Anderson Cooper

No way will this be added to his blog!

I watched your program briefly last night, but long enough to hear you ask the question of whether the media has been unfair to Hillary Clinton; to basically absolve yourself of this while firing in a little Hillary negative and to issue a little statistic about positive reporting of the candidates.

I had tuned in wondering if you would be talking about an Obama aide telling Canadians that the protectionist talk of his candidate on the campaign trail should be seen in the context of who it was being told to. Which I believe is rather like playing off different sides, and clearly lying to one or both of them. For me, this was the most serious thing to have happened so far in the Presidential campaign. On your program however, I saw you wondering why Clinton was not more firm in her denial that Obama was a Muslim, even though she had been so the first three times her interviewer asked.

You apparently don’t realize that when all you can say about Bill Clinton is that he is baggage for his wife to bear, that you are doing both Clintons a huge disservice. Here was a President who was hamstrung throughout his term of office by nasty Republicans who only wanted rid of the President, without regards for the country which was going through growth that was unsurpassed for 3 decades. It was the first time in 3 decades that Middle Class income grew in real terms. The Stock Market appreciated more than three-fold. The country was trading in the black and paying down its deficit.

Had you taken the Democratic line instead of the Republican line, it would be seen by every Democrat as a huge positive that the great Bill Clinton will be a part of a Hillary Clinton administration. But your constant matter-of-fact statements make it seem that his entire Presidency comes down to an impeachment! The same Republicans, whose line you support, supported their President after his lies took the country into a war that has further destabilized a region, cost thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars and made the world a far more dangerous place.

Did the media speak to Obama’s lie about passing a nuclear regulation bill as much as it talked about Clinton wearing pants suits? The lie that encompassed conflict of interest and supreme hypocrisy, where he accepted $227,000 from nuclear lobbyist while watering down a strong bill to where it became toothless, voluntary nonsense? Did you or any of your colleague seek from Obama the date when he decided hat lobbyists money was bad?

And a look at the statistic showing 86% positive coverage for Obama against 51% positive for Clinton, when turned around, shows 14% not positive for Obama as against 49% for Clinton. For every two less than favorable reports on Obama, there are seven such reports on Clinton. And I wonder if all the snide little comments such as the one about her husband are factored into the statistics. I suspect not. Further, what is the level of negative reporting against Obama? How long do you re-hash his negatives, like his incompatible statements on the Middle East (he will talk with everyone, but bomb wherever, whenever he pleases). Have you even noticed this? Or the nonsense that he will speak without pre-conditions but after preparations!!!!!!!!!! What kind of double-speak is that! Would you have let Clinton get away so lightly had she said that?

Has anyone ever questioned how Obama can criticize Clinton for mandating Healthcare coverage, while he mandates that parents provide it for children? Did anyone after the last debate agree that when some people don’t pay, those who do pay, pay more? Or did you agree with Clinton that sick parents can’t look after healthy children, so it is right that everyone should be covered? Of course not!

Any Obama supporter claiming that you are unfair on their man clearly has some issues and should be entirely discounted. There is nothing to support their allegations. I have felt this anger for a long time. And for you to now suggest that with the front-running status comes the scrutiny is clearly nonsense. You still obviously talk more to Clinton’s negatives than Obama’s. The media has demonized both Clintons while ignoring some very serious issues with their chosen one. Of course there is bias. There is bias like I have never before witnessed. But would I expect you or any of your colleagues to admit it? No. You are so far up your own backsides, you can’t see the truth through your own shit.