For the first time, it appears to me that Obama is poised to win this thing. Now- I may eat my words in a month's time, but the way the polls are going, things aren't looking good for the McCain people. I would make the statement that if the election were held today, Obama would win. Further, barring three scenarios of variable likelihood, Obama should win the November election. What are the three scenarios: 1) if another 9-11 like attack happens between now and the election, McCain should win; this is, hopefully, unliklely; 2) if McCain routs Obama in the two remaining debates; this is also unlikely considering his mundane performance in last night's debate, which was on his strongest subject; 3) if race is more of a factor than it appears to be; this is something we simply cannot predict, but, in my opinion, it seems unlikely.
The most remarkeable thing about Obama's lead is that he hasn't really done anything to earn it. In fact, McCain seems to be working quite hard to give this election to Obama.
Follow me here. Empirically speaking, in January '08 it seemed like this election would go for the Democrats no matter what happened- what with Bush sporting a approval rating less than 30%. The primary season could not have gone better for the Repubs; Clinton and Obama fought to the bitter death, while McCain, the most moderate candidate, won handily. McCain is most certainly the best candidate for the Republicans due to his appeal to moderate independents. By the summer, this election was oh-so-close, even perhaps favourable for McCain.
Today it's still close, but increasingly favourable for Obama. Why? It has absolutely nothing to do with the Obama camp, except perhaps his charisma. What does it have to do with? The McCain campaign is destroying itself. Unfortunately for them, they don't have the brilliant Karl Rove working for them. This election, which could be McCain's to lose, is now Obama's to lose.
Here are four huge mistakes made by the McCain camp:
1) Really sleezy ads. It started in early August with the "celebrity" ad, which invoked Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears. What is Paris Hilton doing in a presidential ad????? What does she have to do with anything?????? Did the McCain people go insane????
Ok. Maybe give them a mulligan for that one. Then they aired this ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHx2P3Yixyk. This was a pretty low attempt to use Hiliary Clinton to their advantage.
Or there was this ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL_PYj7zZAs, baselessly attempting to call Obama sexist.
I think this one tops them all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JoFVoPCMfg. I don't think I need to comment on why this ad is ridiculous, insulting, and disrespectful.
This one is so ridiculous it's just funny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pPAdN6XQG0.
These ads clearly go away from the issues, and call into question McCain's honour. I have enough respect for McCain to believe he didn't personally approve of all these ads. I also think the American electorate is intelligent enough to not buy into these ridiculous ads.
Oh, and I must acknowledge that Obama has aired some negative ads as well. Such as this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK3Y1KPzW9k. The key difference in my opinion is that negative ads from the Obama people either stick strictly to the issues (and don't make baseless character judgements) or, as in this one are directly and justifiably respondind to the ads which I mentioned above.
2. Sarah Palin
At first, McCain's selection of Sarah Palin seemed brilliant. She's an "outsider", a "social conservative", and a "hockey mom from Alaska" who can relate to the average Joe... or Joan. And, after all, she's a women.... and Clinton voters like that, right?
Even I thought it was a brilliant pick. Until, of course, I heard her speak. Yes, she gave a good speech at the RNC.... rather, she gave a well-delivered speech, albeit one full of lies and offensive remarks (I still can't get over the community organiser business....).
But then she had interviews with the media, such as this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj6KviFGzng&feature=related. She doesn't know what the "Bush doctrine" is, she has only had a passport for a year, and she seems to believe she has foreign policy qualifications based on Alaska's proximity to Russia.
McCain's strongest argument against Obama was his inexperience. Yet he chose as his running mate someone with almost a complete lack of experience. Granted, she's running for VP and not president, but a VP still needs to be qualified and ready; after all, she would be a "heartbeat away from the presidency", which is definitely a concern given McCain's age and health.
Not only that.... but she has so much baggage of her own. How about "troopergate"- a scandal for which she's being investigated by the court of Alaska. Then there's the book banning issue; the bridge to nowhere; her pregnant 17 yr old daughter. As if this isn't enough, every time she speaks she seems to turn off more and more people.
The McCain people seemed to believe that she would draw Clinton voters. Yet based on the women with whom I've talked, this is far from true. In fact, I've heard some women say that they decidedly dislike Palin because if she ever became president, she would be so bad that it would ruin it for any other women. To top it off, they're trying to play the sexist card.... something which even top Republicans like Huckabee finds ridiculous.
3. Agreeing with "Bushenomics"
Quite simply, this is why Obama is winning right now. Bush subscribes to X economic theory, particularly tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations. X economic theory has been practiced since 2000. After 8 years, the economy is in dire straights and people are suffering. McCain still believes in X econonmic theory. Obama supports Y economic theory. Y is different than X, and since people are not happy with the current economy, they want to support Y. McCain should present a radically different economic policy if he wants to win, but that would mean breaking with party lines.
It's important to note that I am not saying that our current economic crisis is BECAUSE of X economic theory. That's something that I do not profess to know; but most Americans will probably see it this way, seeing how things were so good under Democrat Bill Clinton. I personally support Y simply because it benefits me and my family more- as a member of the middle class family.
My Thoughts on the Debate
Personally, I don't think either candidate won the debate. I thought both candidates appeared poised and articulate. I got the impression that both candidates were equally qualified to serve. Most pundits say that Obama won the economic part, but I'm not so sure that's true. Both candidates dodged the question about the bailout, and how their spending would change. Most pundits say McCain won the foreign policy part, but I don't think that's true either. They both showed they're knowledgeable. McCain perhaps is a bit stuck in a 20th century mindset, and Obama is perhaps in a 22nd century mindest. (My personal bias is with Obama's mindset).
I said that I thought the debate was a draw. This is true if you consider the debate in itself. Considered in larger context, it's a victory for Obama. Why?
1) McCain is currently the underdog, and he needed a change in momentum. He didn't get it here.
2) In Obama's perceived weak areas, he was able to stand up to McCain. I said that both candidates appeared equally ready to serve, and this is what most people think following the polls. Empirically, this is a draw, but in reality it's an Obama victory. Before the debate, no one would argue that McCain is qualified in ready, but there were still doubts about Obama. Thus, the only thing that has changed is the doubts about Obama. Obama did a great job in appearing presidential, articulate, and knowledgeable.
Those are my thoughts and observations. Politics aside, I think this election has been supremely interesting and entertaining, albeit little more than a political circus. Whoever wins will inherit a total mess of a country, and will probably be quite unpopular in the first year. But only time will tell these things.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Updates Thoughts on US Election (Part 3)
SO, the RNC is over and the race is on. And so we get an amazing look at a truly compelling and historical race.
1) I must say that McCain gave quite a good speech. If I had to grade him, I would give him probably a B+ (of course, Obama would still get an A). Yes, McCain is not quite the orator that Obama is. And his speech was largely devoid of specific policy issues. But, his speech made me like him more than I had. Unlike all the other speakers at the RNC, he did not spend much time attacking Obama. Instead, he took "the high road", and was mainly seeking to put partisan politics behind you. If someone ONLY watched his speech (and not the rest of the RNC), I could see why they might want to back McCain. And is it really fair to judge McCain by his backers? After all, some of the Dems key speakers could be equally as off-putting to right of centre moderates.
That said, I still had some grave concerns with his speech. First and foremost, as i,ve already said, is his lack of specific policies. It always seems that Repubs criticise the Democrats for their lack of specifics. But if you listen to McCain's speech, he just kept talking about stimulating the economy and reaching accross party lines, without really getting into specifics. Obamam on the other hand, is actually quite concrete in his speeches (at least int he more recent ones), and anyone who says otherwise hasn't actually listened to them.
The other thing is that he keeps talkin about his bloody record in Vietnam. Great. Who cares? It's like that's all they have going for them.
2) The republicans seeem to want to make this an election about character, and not about issues. Thats why, if you notice, the Republicans don't really talk much about concrete issues- half of their campaign has been how McCain is a Vietnam war hero, and the other half is how Obama is an inexperienced rat's ass. They are also trying to push the "change" idea. But, seriously.... how could McCain possibly be a greater agent for change than Obama? After all, McCain has had over 2 decades in Washington without much of a history of change.... so why is he waiting for now? The Republican argument once again falls to pieces.
3) The democrats continue to play it clean. Is this a mistake? Now don't get me wrong... I'm no fan of mudslinging. But the Republicans are never going to stop- and the sad news is that it works for them. It seems that the democrats give themselves a HUGE handicap in always playing it clean. Of course, at this point its simply too late to start playing dirty, and the dems would hurt themselves in doing so, simply because the republicans would just run ads about how they said they would "take the high road" and then renig on it. Such is the Republican way.
4) This was really evident in the election of 2004, but is just as evident now. The US is undergoing a cultural civil war. Sure, when its not election time, everyone can all get along, right? I don't know. It seems that the difference between Massachussets Liberals and Alabama Conservatives are far too great. While they can get along on non election years, the tension is going to keep returning at least every four years. The unfortunate consequence is this: such a fragmented America is not sustainable. Unless mainstream America can find, as Obama advocated, a middle ground- especially on social issues- America as a nation will have outgrown itself. This is a long topic for another entry, but such cultural fragmentation is one of many issues that will lead, in my view, to the significant decline, perhaps even collapse, of the American empire in our lifetimes!
1) I must say that McCain gave quite a good speech. If I had to grade him, I would give him probably a B+ (of course, Obama would still get an A). Yes, McCain is not quite the orator that Obama is. And his speech was largely devoid of specific policy issues. But, his speech made me like him more than I had. Unlike all the other speakers at the RNC, he did not spend much time attacking Obama. Instead, he took "the high road", and was mainly seeking to put partisan politics behind you. If someone ONLY watched his speech (and not the rest of the RNC), I could see why they might want to back McCain. And is it really fair to judge McCain by his backers? After all, some of the Dems key speakers could be equally as off-putting to right of centre moderates.
That said, I still had some grave concerns with his speech. First and foremost, as i,ve already said, is his lack of specific policies. It always seems that Repubs criticise the Democrats for their lack of specifics. But if you listen to McCain's speech, he just kept talking about stimulating the economy and reaching accross party lines, without really getting into specifics. Obamam on the other hand, is actually quite concrete in his speeches (at least int he more recent ones), and anyone who says otherwise hasn't actually listened to them.
The other thing is that he keeps talkin about his bloody record in Vietnam. Great. Who cares? It's like that's all they have going for them.
2) The republicans seeem to want to make this an election about character, and not about issues. Thats why, if you notice, the Republicans don't really talk much about concrete issues- half of their campaign has been how McCain is a Vietnam war hero, and the other half is how Obama is an inexperienced rat's ass. They are also trying to push the "change" idea. But, seriously.... how could McCain possibly be a greater agent for change than Obama? After all, McCain has had over 2 decades in Washington without much of a history of change.... so why is he waiting for now? The Republican argument once again falls to pieces.
3) The democrats continue to play it clean. Is this a mistake? Now don't get me wrong... I'm no fan of mudslinging. But the Republicans are never going to stop- and the sad news is that it works for them. It seems that the democrats give themselves a HUGE handicap in always playing it clean. Of course, at this point its simply too late to start playing dirty, and the dems would hurt themselves in doing so, simply because the republicans would just run ads about how they said they would "take the high road" and then renig on it. Such is the Republican way.
4) This was really evident in the election of 2004, but is just as evident now. The US is undergoing a cultural civil war. Sure, when its not election time, everyone can all get along, right? I don't know. It seems that the difference between Massachussets Liberals and Alabama Conservatives are far too great. While they can get along on non election years, the tension is going to keep returning at least every four years. The unfortunate consequence is this: such a fragmented America is not sustainable. Unless mainstream America can find, as Obama advocated, a middle ground- especially on social issues- America as a nation will have outgrown itself. This is a long topic for another entry, but such cultural fragmentation is one of many issues that will lead, in my view, to the significant decline, perhaps even collapse, of the American empire in our lifetimes!
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Updated thoughts on US Election (part 2)
So it's been a few days into the RNC, and I had a few new thoughts I thought I'd share.
1) Bush's role in this convention has been interesting. He gave one 8 minute speech, not in prime time. This speech did little to address issues, and spoke almost nothing of the last 8 years. Instead, Bush went on about McCain's courage, and how, if he could survive the "Hanoi Hilton" (vietnamese POW camp), then he could surely survive "the Angry Left". A part from this speech, I have not noticed any allusion to Bush, or to the last 8 years. I guess it's because Republicans know it's their Achilles heal. I'm just amazed that this hasn't damaged them more than it actually has.
2) I'm sick and tired of all this about soldiers "fighting for our freedom". That is simply not true. Would my freedom be at risk if my country had no soldiers in Iraq? Umm.... no. Iraq never attacked the US. Iraq never threatened the US. Iraq is not currently a threat to the US. This is, and always has been an offensive war. Despite what republicans think, Iraq has nothing to do with Al-Qayda... or at least it didn't- until the US invaded the country. If the war ended today, my freedom would not be effected. Sure, the freedom of the Iraqis might be, but I won't believe for a second that soldiers in Iraq are fighting for my freedom. The same goes for vets from Vietnam. Vietnam was an offensive war. The north vietnamese never threatened directly the US.... but that is a different story. Maybe one could argue that the war was preventing a Soviet attack? But, alas, I digress. The point is, despite what the Repubs say, the current soldiers in Iraq are NOT fighting for our freedom, and anyone who believes this is simply a fool.
3) Why can't the Republicans talk about anything else BESIDES McCain's experience as a POW? I have a few problems with this. Firstly, there's a lot we don't know about his days in the prison camp. I'm not prepared to make judgements in any direction, although there have been people skepitical of McCain's claims. Of course, we just assume what they tell us is true. Secondly, what does it have to do with ANYTHING? Let's assume that he's telling the truth about his experiences. Ok. Does that qualify him for presidency? Umm... No. That's like saying being a holocaust victim qualifies you for the presidency. Sure, enduring such hardship may have built character. And I write with all due respect to Mr. McCain. But, is this all he has going for him? If it is, it isn't much.
And another thing about his experiences in Vietnam. You notice that the Reps go on and on forever about McCains Vietnam days. And even the dems are respectful of it. They will not deny the service that McCain has given to his country. But what about when John Kerry ran in 2004? He was a vietnam vet just like McCain, and he certainly tried to use that to his advantage, just like McCain. But the Republicans spent so much effort trying to trash his experiences there. Seems a bit hypocritical, eh?
4) I have a few problems with all the Repubs saying that Sarah Palin has more "executive experience" than Obama and Biden combined, and that she has more foreign policy experience than Obama.
This is their argument. Palin's "executive experience" comes from her years as mayor of the town of Wasila, and her less than 2 years as governor of the state of Alasaka. Whereas Biden and Obama, being senators, never really led anything. Well.... this may be partially true- with a few problems. First of all, being mayor of a small, peripheral town of less than 10k people is not exactly "executive experience" which qualifies you for the oval office, and neither is less than 2 years as governor in one of the country's most peripheral states. Secondly, if you're going to get n Biden and Obama for their lack of executive experience, than you need to talk about McCain too... what exec experience does he have? He's been a senator every bit as Obama and Biden- not a governor.
Then, they say she has foreign policy experience. Why? Because she's "deployed the Alaskan Reserves" and.... get ready.... because Alaska is close to Russia! Give me a flippin' break. Anyone who buys this line of thinking seriously needs to get their heads checked.
5) Palin's speech. I'll hand it to the woman- she gave a very well-delivered speech. I believe she is certainly a smart cookie, and a force to be reckoned with. And, policies aside, I don't altogether dislike the woman. But I did have a problem with some things she said. I've already addressed the soldiers fighting for your freedom bulls**t. Then she's trying to glorify the fact that her son is going to Iraq. The fact that she is glorifying this disgraceful war- or war in general- is disgusting. Then she says that Obama has no answer to the energy crisis. Umm... what about his plans to invest lots of money in alternative energy? Then she says that Obama will raise taxes. What she fails to mention, is that these tax hikes are only for the richest 10% (specifically, people making over $200k per year). Such a detail is conveniently left out of her attack. In fact, he claims to lower taxes. and she says that McCain will simultaneously lower taxes for everyone AND balance the budget. Umm.... would someone like to tell me how this is possible? Unless if he slashes funding for education and healthcare. Anyone with half a brain should buy through this bulls**t.
After all these things, there was one thing that Palin said that boiled my blood... that made me want to throw items at my TV set, and that made me lose almost all respect I had for her. She was answering attacks that she lacks experience, and she was addressing the criticism that being mayor of a small town isn't really impressive. She said that "being mayor of a small town is like being a community organiser- except with actual responsibilities". How rude!!!! For those of you that don't know, Barack Obama passed up a job offer on Wall Street to become a community organiser in inner city Chicago, helping the impoverished underclass deal with everyday issues. This comment by Palin was blatantly disrespectful to Barack Obama, and to impoverished inner city dwellers. Much like OBama may not understand rural small town voters, which he rather accurately describes as "bitterly clinging to religion and guns", Palin clearly does not understand urban populations. Beyond this... how dare she blatantly disrespect Barack Obama. The Democrats do not do that. When have the democrats blatantly disrespected John McCain or Sarah Palin?
I'm well aware that all of my readers probably can't vote, or will vote for Obama. In this sense, I'm preaching to the choir. I just hope and pray that people don't buy this Republican crap. Now, I don't believe Obama is a dream candidate.... nor do I actually expect him to keep all of his promises. But at least he promises the right things. At least he plays cleanly.
1) Bush's role in this convention has been interesting. He gave one 8 minute speech, not in prime time. This speech did little to address issues, and spoke almost nothing of the last 8 years. Instead, Bush went on about McCain's courage, and how, if he could survive the "Hanoi Hilton" (vietnamese POW camp), then he could surely survive "the Angry Left". A part from this speech, I have not noticed any allusion to Bush, or to the last 8 years. I guess it's because Republicans know it's their Achilles heal. I'm just amazed that this hasn't damaged them more than it actually has.
2) I'm sick and tired of all this about soldiers "fighting for our freedom". That is simply not true. Would my freedom be at risk if my country had no soldiers in Iraq? Umm.... no. Iraq never attacked the US. Iraq never threatened the US. Iraq is not currently a threat to the US. This is, and always has been an offensive war. Despite what republicans think, Iraq has nothing to do with Al-Qayda... or at least it didn't- until the US invaded the country. If the war ended today, my freedom would not be effected. Sure, the freedom of the Iraqis might be, but I won't believe for a second that soldiers in Iraq are fighting for my freedom. The same goes for vets from Vietnam. Vietnam was an offensive war. The north vietnamese never threatened directly the US.... but that is a different story. Maybe one could argue that the war was preventing a Soviet attack? But, alas, I digress. The point is, despite what the Repubs say, the current soldiers in Iraq are NOT fighting for our freedom, and anyone who believes this is simply a fool.
3) Why can't the Republicans talk about anything else BESIDES McCain's experience as a POW? I have a few problems with this. Firstly, there's a lot we don't know about his days in the prison camp. I'm not prepared to make judgements in any direction, although there have been people skepitical of McCain's claims. Of course, we just assume what they tell us is true. Secondly, what does it have to do with ANYTHING? Let's assume that he's telling the truth about his experiences. Ok. Does that qualify him for presidency? Umm... No. That's like saying being a holocaust victim qualifies you for the presidency. Sure, enduring such hardship may have built character. And I write with all due respect to Mr. McCain. But, is this all he has going for him? If it is, it isn't much.
And another thing about his experiences in Vietnam. You notice that the Reps go on and on forever about McCains Vietnam days. And even the dems are respectful of it. They will not deny the service that McCain has given to his country. But what about when John Kerry ran in 2004? He was a vietnam vet just like McCain, and he certainly tried to use that to his advantage, just like McCain. But the Republicans spent so much effort trying to trash his experiences there. Seems a bit hypocritical, eh?
4) I have a few problems with all the Repubs saying that Sarah Palin has more "executive experience" than Obama and Biden combined, and that she has more foreign policy experience than Obama.
This is their argument. Palin's "executive experience" comes from her years as mayor of the town of Wasila, and her less than 2 years as governor of the state of Alasaka. Whereas Biden and Obama, being senators, never really led anything. Well.... this may be partially true- with a few problems. First of all, being mayor of a small, peripheral town of less than 10k people is not exactly "executive experience" which qualifies you for the oval office, and neither is less than 2 years as governor in one of the country's most peripheral states. Secondly, if you're going to get n Biden and Obama for their lack of executive experience, than you need to talk about McCain too... what exec experience does he have? He's been a senator every bit as Obama and Biden- not a governor.
Then, they say she has foreign policy experience. Why? Because she's "deployed the Alaskan Reserves" and.... get ready.... because Alaska is close to Russia! Give me a flippin' break. Anyone who buys this line of thinking seriously needs to get their heads checked.
5) Palin's speech. I'll hand it to the woman- she gave a very well-delivered speech. I believe she is certainly a smart cookie, and a force to be reckoned with. And, policies aside, I don't altogether dislike the woman. But I did have a problem with some things she said. I've already addressed the soldiers fighting for your freedom bulls**t. Then she's trying to glorify the fact that her son is going to Iraq. The fact that she is glorifying this disgraceful war- or war in general- is disgusting. Then she says that Obama has no answer to the energy crisis. Umm... what about his plans to invest lots of money in alternative energy? Then she says that Obama will raise taxes. What she fails to mention, is that these tax hikes are only for the richest 10% (specifically, people making over $200k per year). Such a detail is conveniently left out of her attack. In fact, he claims to lower taxes. and she says that McCain will simultaneously lower taxes for everyone AND balance the budget. Umm.... would someone like to tell me how this is possible? Unless if he slashes funding for education and healthcare. Anyone with half a brain should buy through this bulls**t.
After all these things, there was one thing that Palin said that boiled my blood... that made me want to throw items at my TV set, and that made me lose almost all respect I had for her. She was answering attacks that she lacks experience, and she was addressing the criticism that being mayor of a small town isn't really impressive. She said that "being mayor of a small town is like being a community organiser- except with actual responsibilities". How rude!!!! For those of you that don't know, Barack Obama passed up a job offer on Wall Street to become a community organiser in inner city Chicago, helping the impoverished underclass deal with everyday issues. This comment by Palin was blatantly disrespectful to Barack Obama, and to impoverished inner city dwellers. Much like OBama may not understand rural small town voters, which he rather accurately describes as "bitterly clinging to religion and guns", Palin clearly does not understand urban populations. Beyond this... how dare she blatantly disrespect Barack Obama. The Democrats do not do that. When have the democrats blatantly disrespected John McCain or Sarah Palin?
I'm well aware that all of my readers probably can't vote, or will vote for Obama. In this sense, I'm preaching to the choir. I just hope and pray that people don't buy this Republican crap. Now, I don't believe Obama is a dream candidate.... nor do I actually expect him to keep all of his promises. But at least he promises the right things. At least he plays cleanly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)