The Cleansing
- 3 Nov 08, 04:45 AM GMT
Columbus, Ohio: At Barack Obama's rally in Columbus on Sunday he asked how many people had voted early. Hands shot up. In my estimation 70% of the crowd had already been to the polling stations. They were there not to be persuaded or convinced. They were there to celebrate their man.
This was party time. There were Obama hats, T-shirts, buttons and badges. I noticed some holding up small green-edged photos of Obama. When the music played they swayed. When the pastor finished his invocation they belted out "Amen". I detected no tension, no anxiety about the result.
In the speeches before Barack Obama arrived I realised that this was not just a celebration about the future but an exorcising of the past. The Mayor of the city said: "By defeating John McCain we are defeating George W Bush. We are ridding our country of the policies of George W Bush." It felt like a casting out. Then the Ohio Governor, Ted Strickland, took the microphone. "In a few hours," he said, "we will bring to an end the economic nightmare known as the Bush-Cheney regime."
At the mere mention of the president's name the crowd booed. I cannot remember a time when a president was so openly despised. But it was the word "regime" that caught my attention. It was as if the Bush presidency was somehow illegitimate.
For some people the election is a cleansing.
Another snapshot from today was Michelle Obama. She introduced her husband as she had done in Miami 10 days ago. She dresses down. She does not wear the suits of a political wife. She dresses casually and wears little make-up. She is her husband's greatest fan.
In Miami she said: "I'd like to give all the credit to my husband for all that is going on because I love him so much and I think he's phenomenal." She said these words with such intensity that the crowd immediately cheered. Later on she told a story about what she said to him when he first announced: "I said babe - you can get us 75% of the way there, maybe 80%..." It was the first time I had heard a politician's wife use the "babe" word. It came across as easy and natural. In Columbus she enthused: "Barack is ready, so ready to be President of the United States." If Barack Obama wins the First Family will be part of the change that the candidate has promised.
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
I’m Gavin Hewitt, following Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. My colleague, Matthew Price, is doing the same for John McCain.
Latest Photos
Clicking on any of these photos will take you to an external site.
Archive
« November 2008
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 |
Being Discussed Now
Latest: Reporters' blogs
|
Mark Easton: |
|
|
Richard Black: |
|
|
Stephanie Flanders: |
|
|
Robert Peston: |
|
- News Editors
- Sport Editors
- Journalism Labs
- BBC Internet Blog
- Radio 4 Blog
- Viewfinder
- dot.life
- Earth Watch: Richard Black
- Ethical Man
- Fergus on Flu
- India Election Train
- James Reynolds' China
- Justin Webb's America
- Magazine Monitor
- Mark Easton's UK
- Mark Mardell's Euroblog
- Mihir Bose on Sport
- Nick Bryant's Australia
- Nick Robinson's Newslog
- NI: The Devenport Diaries
- Open Secrets
- Peston's Picks
- Razia's Arthouse
- Scotland: Blether with Brian
- Scotland: Douglas Fraser's Ledger
- Stephanomics
- Wales: Betsan's Blog
- 5 Live Breakfast
- Daily Politics: Andrew Neil
- Newsnight
- Newsnight: Michael Crick
- Newsnight: Peter Marshall
- Newsnight: Paul Mason
- Newsnight: Mark Urban
- Newsnight: Susan Watts
- PM programme (iPM)
- Today: Evan Davis
- Today: Tom Feilden
- Working Lunch: Declan Curry
- World Tonight: Robin Lustig
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~09~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
About the word 'regime'... Many Americans feel that both the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen. Hence an illegitimate presidency. No 'as if' about it. There's even a popular bumper sticker - "Regime Change Begins At Home".
Also, the Bush-Cheney regime does not hesitate to apply that term to any government with which they disagree, whether duly elected or not. Sauce for the goose...
So this usage shouldn't surprise you!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
In 2000, the election came down to a questionable vote recount and about 500 votes in Florda. Just two weeks ago, CNN reported another 3500 uncounted ballots found in a Florida warehouse. In the end, a mostly-Republican-appointee Supreme Court ruled in George's favor. Bizarrely, Gore won the popular vote and (supposedly) lost the election.
In 2004, it came down to Ohio. Google "Ohio Election 2004" and you will find plenty of articles detailing the voting irregularities that cost THAT election.
During the course of the last eight years, America has been a grim place to live. At least half the country has been treated to rhetoric implying we're not "real Americans," we've watched our President embroil us in one or two wars that were unnecessary, we've watched the world's opinion of and support of America drain away to dour resentment, we've watched our economy tank and gas prices go up, we've watched thousands of citizens left to die in New Orleans, we've watched the housing market crash and massive layoffs, we've watched prisoners held without charges and tortured, we've watched the government wiretapping and spying on citizens without warrants, we've watched rights curtailed and the Constitution eroded... on and on...
and every time Bush does something else we think is reckless or idiotic, every time some thing bad happens and he fails to share intelligence or leadership, we think back to those elections, and we despair.
Now, finally, it feels like we're coming out of a long, dark tunnel. But we're still not sure. We're still afraid to hope. Obama's phrase "the audacity of hope" is very apt, after the nightmare of the last 8 years.
Cleansing indeed. Whoever gets into the White House has inherited the Augean Stables!
Complain about this comment
The only way bush could have won elections is by stealing them. Beware Americans the Rove and team tactics are being used again. If Obama doessn't win or even if he wins in a squeaker there have irregularities and cheating again.
Complain about this comment
I hope Obama wins - for this reason. I hope (there's that word again!) that it will start a sea-change among the ranks of Black Americans who have felt so disconnected from their country for so long. I hope (promise I won't say it again) that it gives every young kid at school just know, whatever their colour, ethnic background or creed, the sense that they too, if they want to put in the work at school, use their brains and turn away from the past, attain the highest power in the land - who are we kidding, the world.
It will take a generation, but, fingers crossed, it will start on Wednesday morning.
Complain about this comment
What Obama will need to be ready for are those who will smile at him whilst plotting his downfall.
They can't stop him deciding his 100 day course, but they will already be trying to ensure that he fails.
It might be helpful to highlight not that he failed but THE EFFECT ON THOSE HE IS TRYING TO REACH by having others engineer failure.
That is where politics is at right now. Tolerating political vandals, boo boys and thieves.
If Obama is to change anything, if he wins, he has to marginalise and ostracise those who will destroy good policy for the sake of seeing him fail.
Is that possible?
Well, maybe not.
But only maybe.
He also has to be big enough to change course if decent opposition engage constructively to highlight unintended consequences of well meant policies.
Is that possible?
Well it is from Obama, so it depends on him imposing a similar discipline on his administration.
Can he do that?
Well, that will determine to no small degree his history as President, if he becomes President, and how America evolves over the next four to eight years.
Complain about this comment
Vested interests that, behind the scenes ,pulled the strings of the Bush-Cheyney regime will use every dirty trick to ensure that the McCain-Palin regime takes its place. If it were to succeed nothing would change. If Obama is elected USA will truly have a democracy 'Government of the People, by the People, for the People' instead of Government by vested interests i.e. the International Arms Trade, and there will be Hope for the Future of the rest of the world.
Complain about this comment
Democrats always make me smile when complaining about stolen elections. What about the most blatant one ever that got Democrat JFK elected against Nixon in 1961
?. What about Obama's tactic, against his own Party colleagues, to get all other Democrats de-listed off the Senatorial ballot paper and thereby getting an unchallenged election. Then also the Obama supported voter encouragement that has seen thousands of dubious registrationsmade, including a Micky Mouse of Florida!!
Complain about this comment
"The Revolution will be televised and documented"
I am witnessing history being written. For the evil's of the past i got one word for you!
ENOUGH!
I Live in London and i have a lot of American friends who are serving in the US army who are sick and tired of saying they are Canadians, because of what follows if they were to say thier Americans.
These guys are bleeding for the same country, and yet they don't know the cause they are bleeding for, they are neither republicans nor democrats, they are just ordinary Americans, they are white, and black who are hoping to see a better day and longing for that day they could once again claim they are pround Americans.
That day is Nov 4th.
I am looking forward to watching McCain defeat! What he would say for his supporters.
Obama 08!
Change is coming! In few hours, the would will be a different place!
History is written by the winners and Obama shall win and change the course of History!
Amen!
Complain about this comment
OOOPS!
reading the quote from the mayor of ohio," by defeating mcain we are deafeating bush jr and his policies...and the economic nightmare of bush jr and cheney"..
If bush jr signed the "security and prosperity patnership of north america " ..aka.."the north american union"...with a new currency..the "amero"..on 23march 2005 in waco, texas..will mr obama carry this policy into the next term??
Of couse he will!!! why? because in reality there are no political parties and its basicaly role play.
Will the public have a say in the forthcoming north american union? of couse not!!, its already signed into law!
kind regards
nomorefakenews
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#1 "Many Americans feel that both the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen."
Many also believe in creationism and alien abduction. What people 'believe' is irrelevant.
The facts are rather simple: The dems lost the 2000 election because Clinton wouldn't campaign for Gore in Arkansas and because Ralf Nader took a suprising amount of votes from the dems. The supreme court (which had been filled with judges by Clinton) ruled that Bush won so Bush won.
The claims that the 2004 election was stolen was simply sour grapes. Bush had the largest popular vote in US election history. Kerry was an atrocious candidate who was very, very similar to Bush and who had a shocking record of flip-flopping on important policies. The dems have learnt from this mistake and with Obama they have a guy with a consistent voting history who is obviously very different from Bush.
Complain about this comment
Re SaneYouth #9
Saneyouth, If after all that has happened through the actions of Muslim extremists, the destruction of U.S. embassies in East Africa killing hundreds of mostly innocent Africans, blowing up of buildings in Saudi Arabia, the bombing of the USS Cole killing 17 sailors, and then then destruction of the World Trade Centre, U.S. soldiers still don't know "the cause they are bleeding for", they wallow in shameful ignorance.
The fact is, you generalize disgracefully. Many U.S. soldiers others clearly do understand "the cause" and courageously return to war on artificial legs.
I'm neither British nor American, but have read considerably and consequently enough to know that the smooth-talking but shabby-charactered Barack Obama has nothing of value to offer the U.S. and the world that will cure the ills of the past.
If he does become president, expect America's dramatic decline, and a more dangerous world than the one we already have.
Complain about this comment
Obama "cleansed" the campaign last week of any reporters from papers which disagreed with him.
Some people are so angry about Bush, that they are willing to throw out the First Amendment and common sense.
Complain about this comment
#8
How many times does it have to be explained? Any new voters registered who were not real people were as a result of ACORN workers trying to make some extra money without doing the work. These will always be picked up and discarded. Even if it was an orchestrated attempt at fraud, it would not work because these people do not exist, so they would not be able to vote!
And by the way, if you visit www.411.com, you will see that there are actually several people with the name 'Mickey Mouse' in the American phonebook - and a few Donald Ducks as well. Wouldn't be very fair if they weren't allowed to vote would it?
Complain about this comment
Re- robolop
Please read more, and more and more. In order to understand the events of the last 10 years you would need to go back to right after the second world war and understand the American mandate behind the new world order and to the Bretton Woods Agreemet.
What you have to understand is that, world orders change and the balance shifts from one to another, and no one country would like to remain where it was 40 years ago.You cant see the current world in the eyes of the previous one. Times have changed, so does politics, old politics and beliefs need to go and believe you me, they will.
The wars American has fought in the last 10 years is not a conventional war, its ideological which means, my friend, its always possible to find a middle ground and avoid conflict!
While it is legitimate for the US to go after a nation or a group of exterimists that have attacted it, the most costy interms of human life and money seems to be the one they went in for NO APPARENT REASON!!
For the considerably well informed person you claim you are the statements you made about Obama seem to a little baised and backward....don't you think?
But keep on reading, you will open up to new ideas eventually......if not now maybe in about 10 years time when you live in a better world than the one you are living now!
How about that?
Complain about this comment
#1 Drew
100% agreed and seconded.
Complain about this comment
I've already taken advantage of early voting and cast my ballot for Barack Obama. I voted for the candidate who will be best able to turn this country around. I voted for the candidate whose "special interests" are the millions of citizens who have donated to and volunteered for his campaign and voters like myself, rather than the shadowy interests who donate to campaigns and expect a return on their investment.
That being said, I have a few questions for Peter Sym,comment # 12:
1. What version history are you reading? Clinton only appointed 2 of the 9 justices that sat on the Supreme Court in 2000. The rest were appointed by Nixon, Reagan, and the first President Bush.
2. While turnout in the 2004 election was a record, the fact is that Bush only got 51% of it.
3. Kerry vote for funding to rebuild Iraq, then spoke out against it when he discovered, as the rest of us have, that most of the money was going to Haliburton and other White House connected private firms, instead of rebuilding the infrastructure we destroyed during the invasion. This DOES NOT constituted a "shocking history of flip-flopping".
4. The Democrats didn't "find" Barack Obama, he's had to campaign as hard against the Clinton influenced Democratis Leadership Council a he as against John McCain. Obama is his own man, he is the only candidate in this election who is a leader.
Complain about this comment
Rer 16. SaneYouth
No nastiness intended, but if you expect a "better world" were Obama to succeed, then keep dreaming. A person who on many occasions over many years has demonstrated poor character by lying and deceiving, and who associates with people of low moral fibre, not least raving racist preacher Jeremiah Wright (without objection for 20 Years! - during which he never heard a racist utterance!), rabid Muslim extremist Louis Farrakhan, an unrepentant ex-terrorist who evidently still aspires to a Marxist order of the type that existed in the Soviet Union before crumbling in abject failure, demonstrates graphically the flawed nature of their character and consequently that they possess little or none of the wisdom and other qualities necessary to usher in a new world order of the nature to which you evidently aspire. Barack Obama is no Pericles or Socrates and alongside George Washington (who never told a lie) he is a dismal speciman. In all candour it is you who needs to read and research. I haven't any illusions about the world in which we now live, but a fine orator's voice does not conceal from me an agenda that could embrace disastrous policies and flawed agendas. We will see how long free speech and true democracy last should this man become president.
Complain about this comment
6. rjaggar wrote:
"He also has to be big enough to change course if decent opposition engage constructively to highlight unintended consequences of well meant policies.
Is that possible?
Well it is from Obama"
Evidence for this? He has never stood up for his own beliefs if they differ from the party hierarchy. He is a driven man, I'll grant you. His 'career', short and lacking actual content as it is, has always seen him striving for the next rung of the ladder.
Him "wanting it" though is no reason for me to support him or his policies which I find objectionable and believe will do more to destroy the United States than a hundred Bin Ladens could hope to achieve.
Complain about this comment
18. life-of-brian wrote:
"I voted for the candidate whose "special interests" are the millions of citizens who have donated to and volunteered for his campaign and voters like myself."
I think you mean the candidate whose special inetrests are the unions and other "shadowy special interest groups". That is the thing about "shadowy" groups, the affiliation is not worn on the sleeve. Most political entities in the US have their "special interest" backers. Clinton did. Bush-43 did. It is just the groups that differ. The only ones who probably don't are Ralph Nader's independents.
I voted early, like you, but for McCain. Obama is a panderer with dubious views on sharing other people's wealth.
Complain about this comment
18. Kerry has also spoken out in favour of and then against (or vice versa) Kyoto, The israeli wall, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and basically any other issue you care to mention. He'd agree with anything he thought was popular at the time.
His election manifesto was basically 'the same policies as Bush but different'. His links to big business were exactly the same as Bush's, his educational background was the same as Bush (right down to that weird skull and bones club) & his dodgy war record was no better than Bushs- both joined reserve units to beat the draft but Kerry was unlucky.
He was a crummy candidate.
The fact that Bush got 51% of the popular vote means he did better than Clinton both times. Clinton won the college vote twice but never managed the popular vote. Equally 2 supreme court appointments is pretty good going for any president.
Actually I quite like Obama- if I had a vote I'd probably vote McCain but only probably. Both candidates have pluses and minuses. What I object to is this hysteria on these blogs were its basically 'a vote for McCain is a vote for Satan and the apocalypse and only super-Obama can save the world.. and if he loses its because of racism and vote rigging'. Its utterly pathetic.
Complain about this comment
This is payback time for W. Beginning from an unpopular victory in 2000, the Iraq war, then the tanking economy.
Obama couldn't come out at a better time. I was for Hillary, but remember how Barack beat the odds in the primary? Now, Mccain's only chance is for all the undecided to break his way and hope that all Dems who haven't voted yet to stay home on Tuesday.
Complain about this comment
I find the comments of Schwerpunkt interesting among the class of conservatives that actually think about politics in a semi-serious manner and then throw out the evidence of the last 8 years and vote McCain anyway.
Basically Schwerpunkt believes the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Obama isn't even my perfect candidate.
But the obvious general trend of conservatism for 30 years has never been denied by McCain with any substance. And that general trend is obviously very bad. Wars of preemption (they weren't even required), corporate collusion and corruption with politics, socialism for the top 5% of earners but brutal, Darwinian capitalism for the rest of us...
Yet because Obama is not the perfect solution to reverse that trend you vote against him? You vote against the good because he is not perfect, yet support that which evidence has repeatedly shown is very bad for the USA.
Complain about this comment
Schwerpunkt wrote: I voted early, like you, but for McCain. Obama is a panderer with dubious views on sharing other people's wealth.
I hate to break it to you but McCain will also be sharing people's wealth.
Unless of course he plans to fund the war on terror by holding a jumble sale.
If elected President you will find that McCain will also share some of the wealth into his own pocket (at least I assume the President gets paid from public taxation and not the magical pot of gold found at the end of the rainbow)
But as he has been attacking Obama for "Sharing the Wealth" McCain will obviously be stopping taxation - what a brave move that would be! Although, I think he is more likely to be a hypocrite and will continue to share the wealth in the typical Republican way (i.e. to their friends in big business and not to the little people).
Complain about this comment
Peter_Sym wrote:
Actually I quite like Obama- if I had a vote I'd probably vote McCain but only probably. Both candidates have pluses and minuses.
If I could vote I would probably go with Obama, ironically before the campaign it would have been a much harder decision - but McCain's campaign would have put me off voting for him. Before the campaign I thought he was an honourable man who had the country's best interests at heart but now I get the impression that he is running for McCain and not the country and would do almost anything to win the election.
Complain about this comment
to references of stolen elections. the current electoral system was designed to be manipulated.
voter registration rolls are monitorerd and managed by elected officials who belong to one of the two parties, some of these elected officials are even running for office in this election, like the current sec. of state of colorado. He has the authority over voter rolls although he is running for congress on nov 4.
Just the other day i was reading a commentary on cnn.com and one pundit was celebrating the fact that if the Dems hold a majority they can gerry-mander congressional districts, like the republicans did a few years ago, so that they can stuff districts with their supporters.
how can someone be so openly proud and excited about something so unethical?
The fact that there is no independent oversight over the process shows that the entire system is suspicious, so 2004 (ohio) and Florida 2000 should not have been much of a surprise , this is deliberate design 'my friends' :):)
Complain about this comment
19. robloop wrote:
"NA person who on many occasions over many years has demonstrated poor character by lying and deceiving, and who associates with people of low moral fibre"
Some might argue that Sarah Palin herself is of extremely low moral fibre.
"rabid Muslim extremist Louis Farrakhan"
Bit much.
"an unrepentant ex-terrorist who evidently still aspires to a Marxist order of the type that existed in the Soviet Union before crumbling in abject failure"
Despite the irrelevance of this to Obama's campaign, Marxism has never been implemented in the Soviet Union. It has always been some corrupted version of socialism.
"Barack Obama is no Pericles or Socrates and alongside George Washington (who never told a lie) he is a dismal speciman."
Are you forgetting that there are two candidates for this election? This is not "Fantasy Election". Electing dead people is not an option.
Electing Obama, however, is an option; a wise option in my opinion.
Complain about this comment
#14 - Obama "cleansed" the campaign last week of any reporters from papers which disagreed with him.
Some people are so angry about Bush, that they are willing to throw out the First Amendment and common sense.
You had an odd notion of what the 1st amendment is about.
It is about being able to say or not say what you like.
It is NOT about being forced to speak to people you'd rather not speak to.
The first amendment rights of those reporters were NOT violated. They are still free to report whatever they like, including the fact that they are no longer with the campaign.
However, if you are going to claim lack of access is a problem, what about the lack of reporters' access to Palin?
Complain about this comment
#16 - What you have to understand is that, world orders change and the balance shifts from one to another, and no one country would like to remain where it was 40 years ago.
Unfortunately, many ultra-conservatives would like the U.S. to return to what it was i the 50s. They have a nostalgia for that time period that looks at it through rose-colored glasses, as if it was really lived like the TV shows of the period (i.e. Father Knows Best, Leave it to Beaver). Those types of TV shows showcase the value systems of the religious right, which have hijacked the republican party. When Bush or Palin talk about "family values" or "preserving the American way of life," that is what they mean. They are living in the fantasy-land of the past that never existed in reality. And they DO want to stay there.
Complain about this comment
#19 alongside George Washington (who never told a lie)
Don't tell me you still believe in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus, too? The little gem you quoted is a fairy tale. And there is no historic documentation for him ever chopping down the famous cherry tree in the first place, either.
Complain about this comment
#22 - The fact that Bush got 51% of the popular vote means he did better than Clinton both times. Clinton won the college vote twice but never managed the popular vote.
Peter, the fact that you keep repeating this doesn't make it true.
The popular vote is a distinct entity so far as it is separate from the electoral vote. The only time in recent history that the electoral vote put a candidate in office that did not also win the popular vote was in 2000, when Bush won the electoral vote, but the popular vote went to Gore. It got a lot of attention precisely BECAUSE the votes were different (I believe it's only happened 4 times in the history of the country). Clinton won both the popular and electoral votes both times.
I will not argue your points about Kerry, as I didn't like him myself (still don't), and voted for the evil I knew at the time. You are right in that Kerry's stated platform was not much different than Bush's in 2004.
Complain about this comment
#22 - What I object to is this hysteria on these blogs were its basically 'a vote for McCain is a vote for Satan and the apocalypse and only super-Obama can save the world..
I really haven't seen that on THESE blogs. Yes there are others where Obama seems to walk on water, but not here.
What I have noticed are many, many McCain supporters who believe a vote for Obama is a vote for Satan and the apocalypse and only voting Republican can save the world, although, again, on the BBC blogs people are less wild-eyed than elsewhere (Fox blogs are especially bad as regards this). I am even getting this attitude at work from McCain supporters.
Complain about this comment
#26 - If I could vote I would probably go with Obama, ironically before the campaign it would have been a much harder decision - but McCain's campaign would have put me off voting for him. Before the campaign I thought he was an honourable man who had the country's best interests at heart but now I get the impression that he is running for McCain and not the country and would do almost anything to win the election.
I liked both Obama and McCain (in fact, I voted for McCain in the 2000 primary). However, the republican campaign since the convention has made the decision between the two of them very easy to make. I'm not so sure McCain sold out so much as that he was hijacked by the Republicans and is being used as their tool. Some of the things he's done, such as correcting the hysterical woman onstage about Obama not being a bogeyman and admitting in an interview that Obama's policies are not socialism contribute to this belief. However, the fact that the RNC could so entirely steamroller him does not present a good example of leadership; in fact it does the opposite. McCain is not Bush's clone, no, but we don't need four more years of our president being nothing more than a puppet of the ultra-far-right. Obama is at least his own man and will be making his own decisions.
Complain about this comment
I have lived in Columbus for many years. I was one of the happy people supporting and celebrating Barak and what he represents.
The 2004 vote was stolen in Ohio. You can reference the writings of Robert F Kennedy, JR for the horrible details.
Bush just tried to get the Dept of Justice to investigate 200,000 new voters in Ohio. One of his last acts as president was trying to interfere in a state election. To me, Bush and co. represent a regime.
About that generational thing, I don't know. I am 61 and saw a lot of older people like me in the audience.
Complain about this comment
moderate_observer (#27), "the current electoral system was designed to be manipulated" is an immoderate observation, to say the least. Despite occasional counterexamples, we have fair and impartial elections almost everywhere in the United States.
I have voted in 11 presidential elections (counting this one), and 10 interim elections, and have never had a problem casting a ballot, and never had cause to question the integrity of the result in the jurisdictions where I have voted.
The fact that corruption exists in some jurisdictions from time to time is not an indication that the system itself is corrupt. For example, in Ohio, the voters responded to the election problems in 2004 by electing a new Secretary of State from the other party on a reform platform.
Individual people are sometimes corrupt, but not the electoral systems in the US generally.
Complain about this comment
Ref 28 hchristopher
In my estimation Sarah Palin was an unwise choice, but unlike Barack Obama hardly a person of low moral fibre. If you bothered to do some research you would, without difficulty, discover why I judge the man harshly. He has a history of lying and deception particularly over his shady associations, all of which is not difficult to uncover unless happy to wallow in ignorance. Whatever the case, it is a background that says volumes about a man of not particularly good character and no more suited than Sarah Palin to be president.
I don't think you are in North America or else wouldn't consider my remarks about Louis Farrakhan excessive. His own words and attitudes condemn him. Further, I haven't an ounce of time for the political correctness that now afflicts Britain and Canada like a pestilence, kills honesty and free speech, so I don't try to temper my words to avoid stating what is the truth. In British schools you cannot any longer teach about the holocaust because it might offend Muslims who don't believe in it. Tough luck to Muslims, it did, and they should be compelled to confront the truth. Likewise, if my comments about Farrakhan offends them, again too bad.
Re Marxism, my comment linking Obama to it was totally relevant. His associations and own words tell us of his sympathies. Unfortunately for your perspective I have a political science degree and focussed on Soviet studies, so many times have heard your view that Marxism never really eventuated in the Soviet Union. In that case it never eventuated anywhere, always degenerating into harsh and cruel systems managed by ugly-mannered individuals who looked after themselves while making life hellish for almost all others.
Yes, there are two candidates in this election, but Obama and the Democrats don't need further support, let alone your own. In a scandalous manner that has made a mockery of the democratic process, Obama has had the thoroughly unobjective support of almost every major t.v. network and newspaper in the U.S. Never before was an election so manipulated by the media. Never before has it loaded the odds in one candidate's favour, or kept the electorate so ignorant about a man whose credentials and words do not withstand careful scrutiny.
If McCain were to win this election it would be despite the media.
In my estimation electing Obama would be a thoroughly foolish decision that would have serious consequences not only for the U.S. , but world in general.
Complain about this comment
Robloop, we don't need to do research. His history is out there, his books, his backstory has been covered extensively by the mainstream media and picked apart thoroughly by Fox News. Fox will mention unfavourable rumours about Obama, but even it never stoops so low as to present unsubstantiated rumour as fact.
What research have you done? I know you haven't read Obama's website and it seems clear you haven't read his books, and you seem convinced that a lot of things are absolutely true that no-one else believes (even Fox). Have you been stalking Obama for the last 20 years taking notes? How else could you know the things you allege for certain?
Some examples:
Farrakhan is a political activist in Chicago with a significant constituency. Just because Obama wants the votes he can deliver doesn't mean he endorses his views. I'm certain they must have met and shared a platform, I'm equally certain from all that I have read about Obama that he does not preach hate or black supremacy (were you aware his mother was white?). McCain doesn't endorse racism and white supremacy but can still expect to get the support of those who do.
Jeremiah Wright is a Christian. He has harsh words to say about the sin of slavery, of which America was undoubtedly guilty. You, no doubt, have heard a three-word soundbite from one sermon, and you assume you know exactly what he has been preaching for the last 20 years. I could easily say John McCain has been singing "Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran" for 20 years, it would be just as ridiculous and just as untrue.
As for your allegation that Obama endorses the nationalisation of private industry and intends to put the means of production into the hands of the workers and turn America into a Marxist state, that is one of the worst case of verbal diarrhoea I have read on these comments pages.
You sir, have done no research. You sit in an ivory tower, you read your conservative blogs and listen to your conservative news stations, and repeat everything you hear like a parrot. You disregard everything that doesn't back up your beliefs because any source that would say such a thing must automatically in your eyes be biased. You assume that anything Obama says is a lie, and anything anyone says against him is true. You don't research, you have zero objectivity, you're just a conduit for bigotry, prejudice and hate.
We will have no more of it.
Complain about this comment
Obama's grandmother passed on today in Hawaii.
Complain about this comment
Change - Hope...Rah!Rah! It begins on Wednesday! Yeah whatever!
The USA is the world's largest exporter of arms, Bush maintained export volumes which Clinton increased over Reagan's. Will Obama (or McCain) cut down this lucrative source of income at a time of recession? No
Both parties, have their hands in Saudi cookie jar - will that change? No (hasn't since 1931) Gore-Clinton were no better at sucking-up to the oil lobby, Bush-Cheney only took it to the next level.
Will banking sector suddenly become prudent? No. Clinton drafted the existing banking structure regulation, Bush "regime" just idiotically applied it.
Will Nancy Pelosi posse & the legislative lot, whose popularity is worse than that of President Bush become "life changers overnight"? No.
Will our credit card bills be delayed? Pensions secured? Anxieties disappear? Racial tensions disappers? No
Fact of the matter is, its about bragging rights. So for the next 4-8 years, the blue half of America will gloat and the red half will moan of "stolen elections" and voter "fraud".
If you read the "Audacity of hope" please also read "The Case against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's favourite Candidate" By David Freddoso....reading both together will confuse you even more....!
Its all a farce, one of the world's great dramas - a vast exercise in mass democracy which ultimately ends up benefitting the man in the White House and gives floating voters a "temporary" sense of security and committed voters a "perceived sense of security" if their side wins... Until it begins all over again.....:-) The real winners are the corporate lobby groups on both sides!
We'll be back here, all of us on this BBC website after a four year gap, with Red half talking like the Blue half and the Blue half talking about Red half. In the interim there'll be one more presidential library.
All hail the "New" Chief!
Complain about this comment
Ref 38 StephenDerry
Pray, tell us exactly, item by item, what it is in what I've written that is
"unsubstantiated rumour" presented "as fact"? You believe what you choose and distort what you want, which is what you've done in your foolishly and fruitless endeavour to insult.
No man of high principle and truly noble goals associates with the type of individuals Obama has and still does. It speaks volumes about the man's instincts and character. In effect, when you lie down with dogs you get fleas. Meanwhile you rationalize what you want to your heart's content; no doubt we will soon see Obama's true colours if elected president and then, possibly, if the light goes on where presently nobody's home, it might give you cause to reflect on the consequences of gullibility and poor judgment.
You claim that Jeremiah Wright is a Christian. Swallow that too if you choose, but naivety is not in my script and further, to your comment I will simply respond that those with sound judgment recognize an individual by the fruit they bare. Preaching racial hatred as Wright has done hardly measures up to the 'good fruit' of Christian conduct.
Regarding the support of racists, it is evident that both candidates will get their share, Obama not least those of blacks who vote for him solely because they consider him black.
Among other deficiencies, you evidently don't read or comprehend well, or else wouldn't have indulged in that foolish outburst about nationalization. I made absolutely no mention of Obama planning to nationalize private industry. So go swallow you own "verbal diarrhoea" and then go and do some proper research that does not incorporate the superficiality and one-sidedness of CNN and 'rags' like the Los Angeles Times.
I will simply point out that without an ounce of knowledge about my character, circumstances or whereabouts, but highly indignant that I raised what the Democrats and bulk of the media have concealed throughout this election, you've indulged in the most pitiful of efforts to accuse, insult and discredit. The pot calling the kettle black, but par for the course in this U.S. election! Meanwhile I deal in substance, not your own, the Democrat's, and Obama's empty sound-bites that are fodder for foolish minds.
Your last paragraph amounted to pure piffle, foolish and ignorant rantings, which is no more than I've come to expect of Obama supporters.
Complain about this comment
#40 "The USA is the world's largest exporter of arms, Bush maintained export volumes which Clinton increased over Reagan's. Will Obama (or McCain) cut down this lucrative source of income at a time of recession? No"
The US is the worlds largest exporter of arms based on revenue. The simple fact is that one 10 million dollar F16 going to Holland = 500,000 Chinese copies of AK47's going to Congo.
If you want to improve the world stop the flow of small arms, ammo, landmines and even machetes going from Russia & China to the third world. They get used to create misery daily. Most US kit never sees any action at all.
Complain about this comment
Insightful post and debate - oddly enough, it says a lot about UK support for Obama. He's very like a UK politician.
The UK's political class is much more distant from the people than is the case in the USA.
UK politicians aren't local. The classic pattern is for bright young things from our elite universities to shop around for a safe seat, then rely on the party machine to get them into parliament. Many of them couldn't have found their constituencies on the map before they became candidates.
What's this got to do with Obama? Well, to be frank, that's how he comes across: as a political careerist with no local roots, but with strong connections to the party machine, an air of metropolitan sophistication, and plenty of gloss. He doesn't say much, but he says it with a flourish and a smile. And he says what voters want to hear. Sometimes the mask slips (as with the God and guns quote, and his wife's bizarre remark revealing that the only time she felt proud of her coutry was once she thought it might choose her husband as president). But mostly, Obama is on message. So is his team.
He could easily be a minister in the current UK government. (And, no, that's NOT meant as a compliment.)
Complain about this comment
geomapgirl wrote:
#22 - The fact that Bush got 51% of the popular vote means he did better than Clinton both times. Clinton won the college vote twice but never managed the popular vote.
Peter, the fact that you keep repeating this doesn't make it true.
The popular vote is a distinct entity so far as it is separate from the electoral vote. The only time in recent history that the electoral vote put a candidate in office that did not also win the popular vote was in 2000, when Bush won the electoral vote, but the popular vote went to Gore. It got a lot of attention precisely BECAUSE the votes were different (I believe it's only happened 4 times in the history of the country). Clinton won both the popular and electoral votes both times.
It depends on what you mean by winning the popular vote. If you mean that Clinton got more then the republican candidate then you are correct. However, if you mean that more people voted for Clinton then voted against him then you are incorrect.
Clinton beat the Republican candidate in both the popular and electoral vote but he never got higher then 50% of the popular vote (I think both times Ross Perot took a large chunk of the vote).
Complain about this comment
God Bless and Heal America. Return to righteousness America!!!!!
Complain about this comment
#44 "Clinton beat the Republican candidate in both the popular and electoral vote but he never got higher then 50% of the popular vote (I think both times Ross Perot took a large chunk of the vote)."
Thats exactly what I meant. Thank you.
Complain about this comment
#43 "Sometimes the mask slips (as with the God and guns quote, and his wife's bizarre remark revealing that the only time she felt proud of her country was once she thought it might choose her husband as president). But mostly, Obama is on message. So is his team.
Why is that a bizarre remark? She has plenty of reasons to be ashamed of where the USA is today. I know I would be if I was an American, in the same way I often despair of my own country at the same time as loving it. Obama would have my vote, if I was eligible, not least because anything is better than what you have now. I would vote for him simply because he clearly is intelligent and I couldn't countenance the thought that someone like that disturbing maniac Sarah Palin could conceivably end up in the White House. Fo me race, doesn't come into it. If I were black, I'd vote for the same man if he happened to be white. In fact, one may say that he is just as white as he is black.
Complain about this comment
#47 "Why is that a bizarre remark? She has plenty of reasons to be ashamed of where the USA is today. I know I would be if I was an American"
If she'd said that it wouldn't have caused nearly as much offence. What she actually stated was that in 40 years (not just 'today' ) she has never felt proud about any aspect of US life. If thats true its rather sad and makes me wonder why she didn't move abroad.
What is unquestionable is that in such a patriotic country as the US (where flying the flag & standing for the national anthem is perfectly normal behaviour- unlike here where its considered 1 step away from reading mein kampf) she shot her husband in the foot with that comment.
Complain about this comment
XXX
Complain about this comment
To Peter Sym, whatever at 42. Oh so most US arms exports so no action do they?
Complain about this comment
How come U.S. stinger missile launchers, unloaded to hit Russians by the CIA are still used to fire at U.S troops. Read NATO's assessment record of the ground situation there old sport before you blab. Hezbollah used US-made night vision glasses in the last conflict with the Israelis. To ship arms all you need is an end-user certificate "satisfactory to the Treasury"?
Complain about this comment
FOR THE PAST HALF AN HOUR I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO POST A COMMENT - ITS KEEPS BOUNCING WITH A MESSAGE "data at root level is invalid on line 1 - you comment contains some HTML that has been mistyped" At least on election night you guys can get it right?????
Complain about this comment
To "Peter Sym" whatever at 42 - oh so most US arms exports see no action at all do they? How come U.S. stinger missile launchers, unloaded to hit Russians by the CIA are still used to fire at U.S troops. Read NATO's assessment record of the ground situation there old sport before you blab.
Complain about this comment
Hezbollah used US-made night vision glasses in the last conflict with the Israelis. To ship arms all you need is an end-user certificate "satisfactory to the Treasury". The US issues most of those of any country - like a little man buying from US for a contact in the Cayman islands, passed on to Monaco for a man in Tahiti who'll put it on a ship to Ethiopia; the AK-47 and Uzi aside, most popular small arms are of a US or German. Get your facts right old sport, the world's biggest arms exporter is the President of USA.
Complain about this comment
41/robloop
"Pray, tell us exactly, item by item, what it is in what I've written that is "unsubstantiated rumour" presented "as fact"? "
It appears whatever you wrote in post 11 was considered defamatory (ie untrue) by the mods. In addition, here are your unsubstantiated allegations from post 37 presented as fact.
1. "He has a history of lying and deception"
2. "In British schools you cannot any longer teach about the holocaust"
3. "Re Marxism, my comment linking Obama to it was totally relevant. His associations and own words tell us of his sympathies."
4. "Obama has had the thoroughly unobjective support of almost every major t.v. network and newspaper in the U.S."
5. "Never before was an election so manipulated by the media."
6. "Never before has it loaded the odds in one candidate's favour, or kept the electorate so ignorant about a man whose credentials and words do not withstand careful scrutiny."
And in post 41:
1. "No man of high principle and truly noble goals associates with the type of individuals Obama has and still does."
2. "You claim that Jeremiah Wright is a Christian... Preaching racial hatred as Wright has done..."
3. "I made absolutely no mention of Obama planning to nationalize private industry." (you have accused him of Marxism)
Your own statements betray your ignorance, prejudice, lack of research, and lack of objectivity - I don't need to know more about you than what you have stated and the way you present it. It appears you are incapable of recognising anything positive about Senator Obama, his campaign, his values, or his associates (you never mention Buffet, Eisenhower, Biden, Gore, the Clintons etc) yet this man is about to become your President. If there is a bad light, you view him in it. If there isn't, you create something (or borrow it from your fellow right-wing fruitloops). John McCain is fortunate he did not agree to switch to the Democrats and win their nomination otherwise you would be heaping the same abuse on him. Or maybe you're more forgiving to white Democrats, I don't know...
Obama has served with dignity in the state senate, the US senate, and has mounted a very measured campaign where he has stated his positions and stuck to them. He has shown no indications of being influenced on policy by Marxists, terrorists, or Chicago criminals. He is his own man, he has his own ideas, and these are not very dissimilar to the ideas of most Democratic candidates. The most significant difference between Obama and most Democratic candidates is, he's whupping your guy.
We know what you are doing, you are engaging in hyperbole to try and leave the faintest of suspicious fears in the mind of wavering voters. But you are aiming at the wrong audience and even the right audience is more sophisticated and wise to the methodology of the smear these days. Your tactics are outdated, and while you are entitled to your own political views, no-one should be entitled to lie about their enemy.
Complain about this comment
For those who don?t know why the US invaded Iraq (SaneYouth #16), please explain to all what you do with a leader of a country who:
1) Came to power through a military coup (illegally overthrowing his government)
2) Murdered all opposition party members
3) Brutally suppressed his people through mass murders, assassinations and torture (including amputation and branding)
4) Had blatant disregard for international law and ignored international borders
5) Started wars with its neighbors (invaded Iran, Kuwait and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia)
6) Fired scud missiles into civilian areas in Saudi Arabia
7) Caused almost one million deaths because of ward he started
8) Used chemical weapons (Sarin, mustard gas and nerve agents - classified as weapons of mass destruction) against Iran
9) Used chemical weapons to murder thousands of civilians ? over 5,000 in Halabja alone
10) Arbitrarily imprisoned tens of thousands of women, children and elderly
11) Displaced at least one million Kurds by destroying nearly two thousand villages ? including schools, mosques/churches and farms
12) Tried to commit genocide ? he killed over 150 thousand civilians, mostly women and children, during the al-Anfal campaign against the Kurds (this was only a prelude to his ?final solution? to the Kurd problem)
13) Killed between 60-130 thousand civilians in his campaign against Shiite?s (Dujail Massacre, etc)
14) Killed thousands of civilians in his campaign against the Iraqi March Arabs
15) Fanned hatred of America in the Arab world and praised terrorists
16) Continually violated terms of the Gulf War?s cease fire and UN-imposed no-fly zones
17) Allowed his sons to carry out a private reign of terror ? raping hundreds of woman and murdering anyone they did not like
18) Did not cooperate with the UN weapons inspection teams
19) Tried to bluff that he had WMDs
20) Planned to assassinate George Bush Sr. (Clinton launched 23 Tomahawk missiles at Iraq in response to the plot on the former president. Clinton, in his June 27, 1993 TV address, recognized Saddam for the terrorist he was when, after the Tomahawk missile attack, said ?We will combat terrorism, We will deter aggression. We will protect our people.?)
I don?t have the time to list all of Saddam?s atrocities, but I think you get the point ? he needed to go.
Also, some people criticizing the US for the Iraq invasion are calling for action against Sudan for the war in Darfur and criticize the West for not doing enough in Rwanda back in 1994. Saddam killed more civilians and committed more atrocities than the leaders of these two countries. Doesn?t that sound a little hypocritical?
Complain about this comment
#53. The US provided about 200 Stingers to the Mujahadeen nearly 30 years ago, most of which are utterly useless because the coolant needed to chill the seaker head is long gone.
Compare that to the billions of dollars of US hardware sold each year to NATO and countries like Saudi Arabia. When was the last time Holland or Saudi used its tanks or air defence fighters in anger? Never.
I stand by my claim that most US arms are never used in anger.
I also suggest you look at Africa where Chinese and Russian small arms daily kill hundreds and suggest you vent your anti-US bile where it may make a difference.
#54 "the AK-47 and Uzi aside, most popular small arms are of a US or German."
I perhaps the stupidest comment I have ever read. 'the most widely produced weapon in history of which there is 1 for every 40 people on earth aside most popular small arms are US or German' is what you have said.
Complain about this comment
Peter_Sym - Oh so first the US kit wasn't used at all not you've edited it to "not used in anger"
Your ranting like a confused puppy does not disguise what are published facts. Your friends the Saudis to whom you supply hardware also supplied you back with 15 of the 9/11 hijackers and are often a transit point your "kit"
Just a typical American who cant see whats in front of him. No wonder Bob Baer titled his book "See no evil". Go read it.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS