traveler - 27 April 2008 02:49 PM

Intelligent people in this country don’t listen to such crap. (But the other 50% do thrive on it.)

And all they need to do is scare up another 1% to vote their way and hey presto, they’ve got their 51%. Ain’t
democracy grand?

traveler - 27 April 2008 02:49 PM

I don’t find the (U.K.) article interesting. It’s too easy to write an article that does little more than quote ridiculous sites like cafepress.com (contains the Hillary vilification shop) or the likes of Tucker Carlson, Clifford May or Rush Limbaugh.

Intelligent people in this country don’t listen to such crap. (But the other 50% do thrive on it.)

I accept that outsiders can’t possibly know all that much (talking about myself here!).  Today I read a very negative article about the Clinton ‘machine’.  The reality of the contest is hard to understand when you don’t know the country very well at all.

I guess we are interested because of America’s position in world politics and our past relationship with your country.

My personal preference is for Obama.  I listened to a speech he gave a few months ago and thought he could provide the inspiration and hope America needs after Bush.  His background seemed appropriate as well, much more so than George W Bush’s background ever was.

Obama seems fresh as well.

Light60 - 28 April 2008 12:32 PM

I accept that outsiders can’t possibly know all that much (talking about myself here!).  Today I read a very negative article about the Clinton ‘machine’.  The reality of the contest is hard to understand when you don’t know the country very well at all.

I guess we are interested because of America’s position in world politics and our past relationship with your country.

My personal preference is for Obama.  I listened to a speech he gave a few months ago and thought he could provide the inspiration and hope America needs after Bush.  His background seemed appropriate as well, much more so than George W Bush’s background ever was.

Obama seems fresh as well.

I’m glad you’re wishing the best for the U.S.

There is this great british magazine call “The Economist”, you should pick it up. They talk about politics from all over the world, and are very insightful. They’d be a good choice if you want to learn how American politics work.

Light60,
Thanks for caring! You and many other “outsiders” likely see what’s going on in our country better than many who live here. Kinda sad. Like steveg144 implied, we are fighting to educate that 1%.

Light60 - 26 April 2008 06:44 PM

I am Australian and have been watching the contest between Clinton and Obama with great interest.  I think that both candidates each have much to offer.

What is the best thing you see each one offering (specifically)? 

The difficulty seems to the political process itself in such a huge and diverse country.  There are so many interests and demands that have to be met to in order to get elected and there is a real temptation for candidates to pander to these.  They inevitably compromise themselves.  The American electoral system is very strange indeed, almost unfathomable to outsiders.

Good synopsis of our primary system.  It’s a work in progress. 

The reports we get don’t seem to say much about the wider issues - the platform on which the candidates stand.  We mainly hear personal comments.  I don’t think, for example, it should matter that Hillary Clinton’s (Bill Clinton’s) wife any more than it should matter that Barack Obama had a friendship with a radical critic of racial inequity in the US.

For Hillary, it’s important because she presents her role as First Lady as significant job experience.
For Obama it’s not just “had a friendship” with a radical critic of racial equality.  It’s that he mentored under a political radical (not just on issues of race) for about 20 years.  He also sustained a friendship with radical leftist William Ayers (unrepentant former Weather Underground terrorist).

If John McCain had a past corresponding to Obama’s (but from a right-leaning perspective) he’d have no realistic chance of gaining the GOP nomination.  Imagine if McCain had kicked off his campaign at Randall Terry’s house.  You’d rightly take that as an indication that McCain isn’t politically mainstream.

What matters are the broad themes like health care, economic policy, aspects of foreign policy and the rest.  I haven’t heard anything about the policy commitments of either the Democrats or the Republicans.  The way your media presents the battle is more to do with the personalities of Clinton and Obama.  It is pretty nasty stuff.

The U.S. media industry is moved by readers with short attention spans, a limited taste for politics, and a desire for ad revenue.  Deeper issue of policy are treated in publications with a narrower market base (people who are intensely interested in politics) and by contrasting publications by think-tanks and political action groups.  The latter two tend to fulfill the role that newspapers once filled in American politics.  In a sense, Fox News may be viewed as an adoption of the European journalistic model, where papers worry little about journalistic objectivity (Fox has a strong conservative streak in its commentary, though the news itself follows the objective model about as well as that of any other network).

Edited to add:  I think because you elect a president, not party with a developed policy platform, you have a very personality flavoured system.

That’s a solid observation.  Woodrow Wilson was instrumental in bringing that aspect of the American presidency to the fore.  Wilson established the basis for Roosevelt’s presidency, which in turn established what we call the modern presidency.

For Obama it’s not just “had a friendship” with a radical critic of racial equality.  It’s that he mentored under a political radical (not just on issues of race) for about 20 years.  He also sustained a friendship with radical leftist William Ayers (unrepentant former Weather Underground terrorist).

If John McCain had a past corresponding to Obama’s (but from a right-leaning perspective) he’d have no realistic chance of gaining the GOP nomination.  Imagine if McCain had kicked off his campaign at Randall Terry’s house.  You’d rightly take that as an indication that McCain isn’t politically mainstream.

On the other hand, it’s a short step from here to guilt by association. As tough as it is, voters have to try to sift through to what a candidate’s policy positions and general ideology are, and while affiliations and funding aources are a clue, they’re only one fact. Many politicians have endured or even cultivated relationships for pragmatic reasons with indivviduals with whom they did not share much in terms of ideology or policy positions (the “strange bedfellow” of politics).

mckenzievmd - 28 April 2008 02:52 PM

On the other hand, it’s a short step from here to guilt by association.

Agreed.  That’s why one shouldn’t simply assume that Obama is politically radical because of Ayers or Wright individually (combined the case grows stronger, certainly).  One should examine his record.  Part of his record is 20 years of preaching from Pastor Wright, and there’s more than just that to look at.  You’d also condemn writing off McCain if the latter kicked off his campaign at Terry’s house on the same basis, apparently.

As tough as it is, voters have to try to sift through to what a candidate’s policy positions and general ideology are, and while affiliations and funding aources are a clue, they’re only one fact. Many politicians have endured or even cultivated relationships for pragmatic reasons with indivviduals with whom they did not share much in terms of ideology or policy positions (the “strange bedfellow” of politics).

And some have their relationships for principled reasons while conveying the importance of those relationships to the public on the basis of pragmatism.

Edit to add:  Seems like Pastor Wright thinks that’s what Obama’s doing.  Some mentor he turned out to be.
http://en.sevenload.com/videos/MWtCMGH-Wright-electable

For people dead set on voting against the GOP no matter what, it’s not going to matter what Obama has said or done (I trust that’s a minority of Democrats).  For some, a radical leftist is just what the United States needs and some leftists apparently perceive Obama as a fellow traveler.  As you suggest, it does come down to the voters’ judgment between campaign rhetoric and the underlying political philosophy.

From what I can tell, the evidence that Obama’s underlying political philosophy is essentially leftist is growing.  I think the perception of his vulnerability on this point (whether real or not) accounts for much of his recent erratic performance in polls against Senator Clinton.  Clinton is perceived as untrustworthy (particularly in light of her recent well-publicized exaggerations/lies), but she’s pretty strong right now against Obama among Democrats.

Three people. Two appear to me to offer some hope for turning around a nightmare. I have heard people say that it’s just a President and a President has limited power. But then I saw what just one President with an agenda can do. In that sense, yes I am voting against the GOP - but I wouldn’t say “no matter what.” I think there is good reason to do so.

traveler - 28 April 2008 03:32 PM

Three people. Two appear to me to offer some hope for turning around a nightmare. I have heard people say that it’s just a President and a President has limited power. But then I saw what just one President with an agenda can do. In that sense, yes I am voting against the GOP - but I wouldn’t say “no matter what.” I think there is good reason to do so.

You must not think you’re paying enough for energy and food. 

Either Clinton or Obama will be disastrous for domestic policy.  My local paper blasted McCain’s economic policy because it didn’t do enough to reduce the deficit.  For some reason they’re silent about the billions in new spending proposed by each of the Democratic candidates.

If the answer is higher taxes, then be prepared to see a shrinking economy.  That’s how it works.

Bryan - 28 April 2008 02:44 PM

Light60 - 26 April 2008 06:44 PM

I am Australian and have been watching the contest between Clinton and Obama with great interest.  I think that both candidates each have much to offer.

What is the best thing you see each one offering (specifically)? 

Remember, I’m not an American and am speaking from memory and knowledge gained principally from reading newspapers and internet articles .

Hillary Clinton seems to have acquired a broad awareness of community issues through both her life experience and experience as a politician.  I don’t think it matters that she may have acquired some of this during her time as Bill Clinton’s wife.  She seems to have actively involved herself in public affairs in her own right during this time.  Later she was involved in Clinton’s presidency in reviewing the US health insurance system but this was ito prove impossible to change.  Her own experience as a US Senator would have given her more in-depth experience and knowledge as well.  She seems to have been concerned with social justice.  I can’t, right now, give more specific detail about that but it is to do with jobs, healthcare and opportunity for people who are not so well-off economically or socially.

She is also extremely resilient.  Whatever one thinks of her defence of her husband’s philandering, she seemed to manage that with dignity and her values and skills have been strong enough to win her the support of many.  She is also extremely courageous as the first woman to run for the Presidency itself.

Barack Obama is a very intelligent and articulate man.  He has the capacity to inspire change and that is essential in a leader.  From memory he was a grass roots community worker before he became a politician and he, too, seems to have a strong sense of social justice.  His own life experience would have given him that perspective as well.  Like Hillary Clinton, his experience as a Senator would give him essential knowledge of government and the political system.  He is bright enough to know who to ‘command’ to get things done.  He has the advantage of being less ‘tarnished’ by the media than Hillary Clinton.  I have listened to some of his speeches and been deeply moved.

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have unique symbolic importance as well:  a woman and a black man.  They are each representative in their own way of groups which have been singularly disadvantaged in different ways.  Both are immensely talented.

I think it is poignantly ironic that these two should be battling each other and that this battle may mean that the Republicans are re-elected.

Bryan - 28 April 2008 05:00 PM

If the answer is higher taxes, then be prepared to see a shrinking economy.  That’s how it works.

Just saw this!

Sometimes I think that higher taxes for some are essential.  At least, some way of minimizing tax avoidance.  In our media today there are reports of many extremely wealthy Australians evading legitimate taxation through off-shore schemes.  I am sure that Americans do this too.  There are so many taxation loop holes for the well-off and they have the money to exploit these.

I guess I think that the State has some responsibility to provide more of a safety net to those of its members who are significantly disadvantaged but this needs to happen against an array of other policies.  A more equitable taxation system may be one way of providing a safety net.

Bryan - 28 April 2008 05:00 PM

You must not think you’re paying enough for energy and food. 

Either Clinton or Obama will be disastrous for domestic policy.  My local paper blasted McCain’s economic policy because it didn’t do enough to reduce the deficit.  For some reason they’re silent about the billions in new spending proposed by each of the Democratic candidates.

If the answer is higher taxes, then be prepared to see a shrinking economy.  That’s how it works.

The price of energy and food cannot be separated. The price of energy seems to have gone up a bit in the last 7+ years. and I’ll raise you a

As I wrote: “Three people.” You say Clinton and Obama will be disatrous for the domestic policy - apparently due to spending. Do you believe McCain’s 100 year war will do the economy good? We would have a couple of extra bucks laying around if they weren’t spent on a lie-based war, no?

Please don’t pretend to tell me how it works, as I have not recognized you as an expert. Taxes are certainly not the only way to move money around. Taxes move money from citizens’ pockets to government. Increased taxes on the very wealthy do not bother me. I see some windfall profits in the oil industry that might help a bit, but it might be better to tax those profits as an excess profits tax rather than a windfall tax since it seems reasonable to view the profits as wartime profits. These are just ideas because I don’t know how “it” works precisely; nobody does. Those who say they do scare me.

Light60 - 29 April 2008 01:48 AM

Remember, I’m not an American and am speaking from memory and knowledge gained principally from reading newspapers and internet articles .

Hillary Clinton seems to have acquired a broad awareness ...

Barack Obama is a very intelligent and articulate man ...

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have unique symbolic importance as well:  a woman and a black man.  They are each representative in their own way of groups which have been singularly disadvantaged in different ways.  Both are immensely talented.

I think it is poignantly ironic that these two should be battling each other and that this battle may mean that the Republicans are re-elected.

I found it interesting that you launched a poignant criticism of the American system as being very personality-based and then in answering my question focused on who the candidates are as people rather than on their specific policy positions.  I was after the policy positions, as a matter of fact.  I’m sorry if I didn’t communicate that clearly.

traveler - 29 April 2008 06:56 AM

Bryan - 28 April 2008 05:00 PM

You must not think you’re paying enough for energy and food. 

Either Clinton or Obama will be disastrous for domestic policy.  My local paper blasted McCain’s economic policy because it didn’t do enough to reduce the deficit.  For some reason they’re silent about the billions in new spending proposed by each of the Democratic candidates.

If the answer is higher taxes, then be prepared to see a shrinking economy.  That’s how it works.

The price of energy and food cannot be separated. The price of energy seems to have gone up a bit in the last 7+ years. and I’ll raise you a

As I wrote: “Three people.” You say Clinton and Obama will be disatrous for the domestic policy - apparently due to spending. Do you believe McCain’s 100 year war will do the economy good?

Yes, actually, but it has more to do with his serious approach to the budget and entitlements along with his advocacy of nuclear energy.  He’s also coming around to a free market approach to energy (I hope--he’s wrong on ANWR).

We would have a couple of extra bucks laying around if they weren’t spent on a lie-based war, no?

Sure, but instability in the Middle East, such as we would have if sectarian violence had been left to fester (the position of American left over the last few years) would affect markets and oil prices.  The emphasis on ethanol production has as much to do with rising food prices as any other factor--and the party on the left is pushing that quite directly.
And if you go back to the start of the war the WMD claims were based on faulty intelligence.  Not lies on the part of the political leadership.

Please don’t pretend to tell me how it works, as I have not recognized you as an expert.

You’re free to ignore what I say, but I’m not going to muzzle myself simply because of your closed mind! 

Taxes are certainly not the only way to move money around. Taxes move money from citizens’ pockets to government. Increased taxes on the very wealthy do not bother me.

Then you don’t understand the economy.  The wealthy provide capital for investment.  They don’t bury their money in the back yard.  They take risks and create jobs with it.  You tax that money and you restrict the available capital for investment.  That raises the price of capital (loans become more expensive).

I see some windfall profits in the oil industry that might help a bit, but it might be better to tax those profits as an excess profits tax rather than a windfall tax since it seems reasonable to view the profits as wartime profits. These are just ideas because I don’t know how “it” works precisely; nobody does. Those who say they do scare me.

Then vote for McCain.  He’s the candidate who says he’s not an expert on the economy while Obama (I’m not sure about Clinton) has brought up McCain’s statement to ridicule him for it.  Obama should therefore scare you while McCain should make you comfortable.  Plus you apparently can’t know that the Iraq War is hurting the economy without scaring yourself.

Tax windfall profits and you’ll be taxing everyone who owns stock in an oil company (including blue collar guys who are invested in 401-Ks with money resting in oil stocks).  You put shackles on oil companies’ ability to search for new sources of oil and develop new sources of energy.  With profits capped with a windfall profits tax, investment in oil makes less sense, leading to decreased supply (* higher price).

*had “increased demand” in there, but it wasn’t accurate so I took it out.  Flat demand with decreased supply results in higher price all by itself.

Then you don’t understand the economy.  The wealthy provide capital for investment.  They don’t bury their money in the back yard.  They take risks and create jobs with it.  You tax that money and you restrict the available capital for investment.  That raises the price of capital (loans become more expensive).

That is a generalization. The wealthy don’t all take risks and stimulate the economy. SOME do, but not all. When you speak so broadly about something like that it doesn’t lend credit to your case concerning economic know-how.

I’m not sure that it’s entirely fair to tax people with higher income higher rates, which is one of my problems with Democrats. But I promise you McCain’s continuation of the war (regardless of its basis) is going to accomplish nothing but raising the deficit.