And why would an Australian care? It's another country, so what business is it of mine?
Well, apart from the fact that whoever is US president affects the rest of the world (and historically the best party for Australian benefit is Republican, as their anti-protectionism tends to help Australian exports), there's the fact that a good many of my friends are American.
But that isn't it. Nor is it the Iraq farce, the cronyism, the corruption, or the belief that somehow a Democratic president will magically return America to the right path. It's simply this: America and the rest of the world needs some ideals again. And Hillary isn't going to deliver that.
Sure Bill's presidency was a relative period of peace and prosperity. But basically, he and Hillary represent professional politics. And let's not forget that the K Street hegemony developed during those years. But I could forgive all that if only because the Republicans controlled Congress under the execrable Gingrich.
But this, this is beyond the pale, and no matter how much Hillary denies knowledge of it, it represents the worst of gutter politics for its own sake:
Recently, there have been waves of robocalls in South Carolina repeatedly attacking "Barack Hussein Obama."
I think America needs ideals. I think America needs moral guidance. And I think that either of the other two candidates would be able to provide it, but most of all Obama. I don't care if he has no experience running a state or a corporation - that's what the chief of staff is for. I listen to him and hear the best of public service and civic virtue, and if America needs anything, it needs that. John Edwards has the policies I like, but Obama has the right stuff.
That's a foreigner's opinion. It will no doubt confirm those in favour of Hillary they are right.
- Log in to post comments
As it appears now, we may end up having a floor fight to determine between Hillary and Barack, and I will enthusiastically campaign for Obama although my preference remains for John Edwards.
I would be hesitant to assume, however that the robocalls were directed by the Clintons. Robo-Calls are hard to trace, but if they are directed by the campaign they have to say "This message was approved by..."
Any racist asshole could have done the robo-calls. As to the point on Reagan, I agree that the Clintons are too much the political machine. Don't forget that Clinton had Dick Morris on his staff during the impeachment trial. Look for more of this type of stuff as the road to the convention nears its end in Denver.
Unless you were a former-Yugoslavian, or an Iraqi, or a Sudanese, or ...
Mostly, the first (& with luck, only) Clinton presidency was a period of wonderful and unique opportunities - all wasted.
Just think of what someone who had fully learned the lessons of the '60s-'70s peace movement could have done while in leadership of the world's only superpower, especially during the economic boom resulting from the birth of the Web.
As another foreigner (albeit one who lives in the US and is married to an American), I strongly agree with you.
I'm a bit skeptical that the calls came from the Clinton camp. That's not because I think - in the slightest - that they would be opposed to using a tactic like that. It's just that there's no way that Hillary would come out ahead by using that tactic, and her campaign staff is smart enough to know that.
The Democratic primary in SC is a closed primary, which means that only registered Democrats can vote. (In New Hampshire, both Democrats and independents can vote in the Democratic primary.) Tossing the "Hussein Obama" line around is likely to piss off Democrats, but it's not likely to get them to vote against him. I just don't see Clinton's people pulling a stunt that's likely to help Obama in the primary more than it hurts him.
At the same time, funding those calls would be a low-risk, high payoff move for the Republicans. They get to plant the anti-Obama message with independent and Republican voters who receive calls. The Clinton campaign, as the most obvious suspect, takes the blame, which hurts Hillary. And, best of all, it generates bad blood within the Democratic party.
Actually, the SC primary is an open primary--I live in SC, and was at the polls yesterday, so I'm pretty darned confident about that statement. So, Republicans can vote in the Democratic primary and vice versa, but you can't vote in both.
These particular robo-calls also appeared in Nevada the night before the primary there. Here's the link to the Obama campaign's release of an mp3 of a Nevada call (also available from Ben Smith's Politico blog and Digg): http://tinyurl.com/22p9mn
As another foreigner who married an American and now lives in the US, I am afraid I view all the candidates with a degree of cynicism born of age.
I take it as axiomatic that no one can reach the highest echelons of American politics without compromising whatever principles they might once have held and dancing to the tune of whoever pays the piper - and this includes Obama.
As for whatever policies they espouse, I am pleasantly surprised whenever they make a gesture towards carrying them out but holding one's breath is not a good idea.
Obama seems like an honest, decent man who inspires hope that he can take politics and public life a in a whole new direction. If he were to become the first black president of the US and fulfilled all that he promises, it would indeed be a fairy tale come true. I really hope it happens but I don't believe in fairy tales.
Edwards I simply wouldn't trust as far as I could throw him - too slick by half.
With Hillary you are getting a well-organized machine politician with an ex-president as an adviser thrown in for good measure.
You pays your money and you takes your choice. If I were able to vote, I'd probably plump for Hillary on the grounds that any woman who reaches the same heights as a man in politics or business has to be twice as good as the men and it's time for the US to catch up with the rest of the civilized world and elect a woman to lead its government.
I think if I had a choice, I would go with Obama. He's not that inexperienced, and he seems much more of a new voice than Clinton, who really is an old-school Democrat. I think she's a damn smart lady, and has probably the most effective campaigner since Reagan in her husband, but her machine (and probably she herself) seem absolutely merciless. She's also seeming more and more the wounded animal, who will in her death throes intentionally or otherwise do an incredible amount of damage to the Democrats.
There's no perfect candidate, of course, and no candidate is going to be able to repair in a single term or even two all the damage. Whoever becomes President is going to have to deal with Iraq for their entire time in office. The economy is in serious trouble, and by November it may very well have reached a crisis point. I don't envy whoever wins.
I wouldn't take it for granted that the Democrats will win. We could easily end up with McCain, in which case not much will change. The war will go on forever, the economy will continue downhill, as will the dollar. And when it reaches .5 euros, none of us will be able to move out. The republican solution will of course be more tax cuts, which will increase our debt even further, and zap the dollar even more. But hey not to worry - when the dollar drops far enough, other countries will outsource to us, grunt-work manufacturing jobs will return, and we'll become a full-blown third world country!
As yet another foreigner, I simply don't understand the Obama hype. On concrete policies, insofar as he commits himself, he's almost indistinguishable from Clinton. Which leaves the rhetoric about change, which sounds lovely but is in fact almost completely content free, and the "post-partisan" stuff, which is a tired rerun of Tony Blair's "Third Way". In the British context, reaching out to the other side was concretised in 1997 by promising to adhere to the previous government's budget for two years. What would it mean in America? Making Bush's tax cuts permanent?
Obama strikes me as being as phoney as a four dollar bill.
It looks to me like standard Republican tactics. If the call hits some retard who is put off Obama by reference to his association with Islam, Obama is hurt. If a lot of people who think it's disgusting think someone in the Clinton camp did it, Hilary is hurt. Either way, it's a win for the Republicans, and bad for whoever ends up with the democratic nomination.
The thing that really has the republicans scared is the huge turnouts for the dem primaries. How do you slow that down? With tactics that muddy both main candidates, so the voters stay home in disgust.
That's what is going on here, as far as I can tell