Thoughts from Phoenix
PHOENIX, ARIZONA -- A couple of nights ago, I was at a party of highly motivated political women here in Phoenix. Arizona is the state which John McCain represents in the US Senate, so perhaps you'd expect these female Arizona politicos to be thrilled by his decision to appoint a woman, Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska, as his vice-presidential running mate.
In fact, not so. Because these women were Democrats, and as one of them told me: "It's not just about biology; it's also about ideology." To them, Sarah Palin is anathema, because she is pro-life, and they are pro-choice. (Or if you prefer, she is anti-abortion, and they believe in a woman's right to choose.)
These are strange days in the Presidential election campaign. There's been more talk this week about lipstick than about the economy or Iraq; more coverage of a vice-presidential candidate who has remained unavailable to reporters than to the other half of her party's ticket, the man who would be President.
(Just to put the record straight about what Barack Obama meant when he spoke of "putting lipstick on a pig": Sarah Palin is the lipstick, he insists, the pig is John McCain's policies. He didn't mean Mrs Palin is a pig.)
I've spent the past two weeks first in Missouri, then in Illinois, and now here in Arizona. And I have a few conclusions to report to you, admittedly wholly unscientific and totally impressionistic.
First, this election really is engaging people: everyone I've had contact with -- in shops, hotels, on the streets - has wanted to talk about it. (One exception: a young man here in Phoenix who within the last few months has lost his job, been left by his wife, and is now having his home repossessed by the bank ... he told me he had other things on his mind more important than the election.)
Second, the people who support John McCain cite his political experience and his military background as the main reasons: his specific policies seem to have made little impact. And those who prefer Barack Obama say it's because he inspires them as a new face and a new voice: they speak of him with the same reverence that McCain supporters adopt when they speak of their candidate.
Third, the Iraq war is just not an issue. Over the past week, I have had several hours of in- depth conversations with voters on both sides of the debate; not one of them has mentioned Iraq. (And if you heard our programme from Rolla, Missouri, last Friday, you may remember that no one in the audience there raised it either.)
Fear of terrorism is an issue, the economy is an issue, and for some, abortion is an issue. Both John McCain and Sarah Palin are vehemently anti-abortion (that's why the pregnancy of Mrs Palin's 17-year-old daughter made such an impact). Some women who desperately wanted a chance to vote for Hillary Clinton will never be able to vote for Sarah Palin - but the opinion polls suggest that many white working class women in particular are being won over.
A word of warning about those polls: many of them are showing relatively small shifts, often within the margin of error, and there is some evidence to suggest that the mood, when it is shifting, is being heavily influenced by daily media coverage.
So my advice is: don't jump to any conclusions just yet. Yes, John McCain is doing better in the polls than he was three months ago - but if you look at the state-by-state breakdown of how he and Senator Obama stand, it still looks extraordinarily tight.
The first of my documentaries for the BBC World Service - "My Senator, My Vote" - will be broadcast next Wednesday. The second will be on air the following week.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~31~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Robin,
I wonder if there is any earlier record of Sarah Palin using the expression comparing hockey-moms and pit bulls? My un-researched guess is 'No' and the line came from the McCain speech writing team.
I understand that McCain had previously used the expression comparing pigs and lipstick as had Obama and that the expression is in common usage in the American dialect of English.
Full marks to the McCain team, but this was an obvious trap that they set and unfortunately Obama fell in.
The more I hear of Palin the less attractive she becomes as a potential VP. I was particularly unimpressed by the implication that it is OK to deprive your enemies of human rights. This and her creationist fundamentalist and big oil beliefs and attachments are truly frightening. She appears to be a truly terrifying proposition as she is a heart beat away from being the president (if McCain wins) and he is a man with a weak heart!
You thought things were bad with Condi Rice having an oil tanker named after her, but with Sarah Palin you ain't seen nothing yet - that is my real fear. She would I think never even get past candidate selection for a Parish council here.
Complain about this comment
The selection of Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate seems to have been a politcally very astute choice. It has clearly rattled Obama and his supporters. It has revealed the truth the media covered up by asserting that the supporters of Clinton were unified in their support of the Democratic party nominee Obama. This theory has come completely unraveled. Sarah Palin may not have been many womens' idea of their ideal choice but it does offer them at least some choice, one many will probably opt for on election day..
John_from_Hendon
The more I see of Sarah Palin, the more I like her. Why? For the very same reasons you don't.
Complain about this comment
The abortion question though important from a religious and moralistic point of view goes deeper than that (relatively speaking) insofar as it impinges on the crucial quesiton of who (R or D) gets to choose the next vacancy(s) in the US Supreme Court. This will then determine more than just Roe v Wade because SCOTUS justices are appointed for life. It will clearly determine whether the drift into right wing ideology will continue strongly into this century or be mediated by a Court balanced between right and left decisions. Also any decision by SCOTUS to overturn Roe v Wade in favor of Sarah Palin's views that the government can even prohibit abortion in cases of incest or rape, will undermine the right to privacy which has been a hallmark of American jurisprudence of the 20th century.
Complain about this comment
#2 MarcusAureliusII
Sarah Palin quite directly stated that she did not see why her enemies should be granted equal Human Rights - on hearing those words my judgement of her was made. If you do not support the UN declaration on Human Rights and she has stated she does not, then how do you think you will ever make peace with you enemies?
All wars even wars engaged in by the USA end - it may not seem that way in Iraq and Afghanistan but the will end. At the end of a war you make peace with your enemies. If you do not grant humanity to your enemies you will be unable to return to a peaceful situation. I am well aware that continuous war has been a feature of USA foreign policy in recent times but in the end you will have to make peace.
You cannot continue to fight your own and surrogate wars for ever. Without the understanding that eventually you will need to grant human rights to your enemies you will just continue to destroy. Perhaps you are correct in wanting to destroy the World - I take it that you also believe in Sarah Palin's creationist and end-time fundamentalism, and that global warming is a plot to destroy big oil and the divine right of the USA to slaughter anyone it wants.
(I concede that you may not want to make peace, and believe in the permanent hegemony of the military industrial complex. You appear to support a position of having no regard, or respoect for the lives of the other 6 billion people on the globe so long as a very small clique within the USA is OK. I shall refrain from giving this position a name.)
Complain about this comment
I would think that Ms. Palin's proven talent for blowing innocent creatures to kingdom come is better used in Alaska than Washington where her license might be extended to cover innocent human beings.
By the way, does anybody have any theories about how it is immoral to kill unborn people but OK to slaughter them later?
Complain about this comment
John_from_Hendon
"How do you think you will ever make peace withy your enemies?"
In many cases you won't. How did Chamberlain make peace with Hitler? He didn't no matter what he thought he did. Even after he gave him everything he wanted and betrayed the people of another nation. Insofar as the USSR was concerned, we didn't, we defeated them. That's how we have to deal with Islamic terrorism, it must be defeated. Its demands are irreconcilable with our civilization... and just about everyone elses too.
The UN was supposed to bring collective security to the world. It was a naive effort and it failed. It is time to abandon it. Same with so called Geneve conventions. The absurd myth that if the US doesn't torture its captives for information its enemies won't torture them out of sadism is a proven lie. In a world of WMDs make it possible for a handful of people to kill millions without warning, torture must be considered as a viable option to thwart such plots. The Geneva conventions are obsolete.
You are wrong about a lot of things. One is about the inflicting cruel attacks on enemies. America blew Hiroshima and Nagasaki off the face of the world with atom bombs, did worse to Tokyo but the US and Japan are now friends. Britain fire bombed Dresden in one horrific atrocity according to some but Britain and Germany are now friends....sort of. The US will never be friendly to militant Islam. Its precepts are antithetical to the most basic tenets of the American ethos.
My own concerns are for myself and those closest to me. I don't wish harm to those who are not a threat to me, my family, friends, countrymen and do not harbor those who are. But the welfare of mankind as a whole is too abstract a concept for me to accept and the penalties others must pay so that I and my own are safe is all I really care about. Iran is a case in point. I don't care what happens to Iran as long as its threat is made to disappear by whatever means it takes.
Threnodio
Mrs. Palins talent for blowing living things away will serve her well in Washington DC where many detestable two legged rodents infest the halls of government, mostly as uninvited guests, some as elected or appointed officials.
Complain about this comment
#6 MarcusAureliusII
... but we made peace with our enemies.
If you do not grant your enemies humanity you do not grant it to yourself. Human rights are not optional they are what makes us all human. You are denying your own humanity. How dare you reject the Geneva Convention.
Your mentioning of the atrocities of the World War 2 does not justify them and the act of talking about in the context and manner that you do is offensive to not only the millions that died, or were maimed, but I suspect to all of your fellow Americans and the Republican and Democrat Parties and the majority of NeoCons.
Your language and attitudes are abhorrent to all civilised peoples and you put yourself beyond the pale. You disgust me. The most rabid of extremists would blanch at saying the things that your say. Your diatribe is even more extreme than that found in terrorist suicide videos.
The attitudes you display are as evil as that of any 'evildoer', if not more so. You would be happy to randomly slaughter millions, and I pity you.
Complain about this comment
John_from_Hendon #7
Your outrage and self righteous indignation would thrill me if only I could believe they are genuine. It would please me no end to think I had so easily stirred your mental pot to the boil with my words.
Do I grant America's enemies their humanity? Of course I do. Savages are humans too. So are psychopaths. Some are far too dangerous and too numerous to be locked in cages. The rest of the world is better off without them. And as in any cancer surgery, some of what you do not intend to cut out gets lost too. It's the only way to be sure there are no vestiges of the cancer left to return one terrible day.
How dare I reject the Geneva Convention? Well for one thing, like all of the farces called international law, it is only trotted out when it is politically convenient to use it as a club. Other times it is put back in a drawer to be forgotten when it is politically inconvenient. Where is your indignation at the violations of those conventions by China, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Tibet, North Korea, Iran, Syria, The Taleban, al Qaeda, Egypt, Sudan, Pakistan, The Mafia, Russia, Drug empires, need I go on? The other thing is that it is intended to bring collective security. It doesn't, it has failed completely in its function. Since most of the world ignores it most of the time, we should all ignore it all of the time. Also it is obsolete.
My mentioning the atrocities the allies committed in WWII doesn't justify them, the right of the Allies to fight to survive did that. It is not necessary or even very smart to fight by the Marquis of Queensburry rules when you are at war. Any chess player knows that. The point is to win, it doesn't really matter how. Had the allies fought "fairly" and lost, there would have been no consolation points.
Do I disgust you? Good, that makes us even. It seems to me that humanitarians are the only species of animal that exists that does not have the will to fight to survive. That is because their lives are protected by those who do.
BTW, have you forgotten that from Britain's point of view, the American Revolutionaries were terrorists? They just didn't use that term. Why are you surprised we are still that way? After all, we are the progeny of the people the rest of humanity cast aside. We are its "bad seed." Our violence and ruthlessness have no limits. I'll prove it to you.
"You would be happy to randomly slaughter millions." Now for the proof. The only reason that Western Europe today is not a slave of the Soviet Empire was the readiness of the United States to fight a thermonuclear world war against the USSR and China which would have killed not millions but billions and in the end would have resulted in the death of every last human being on the surface of the earth. Humanity would have become extinct. As the great Amerian Patriot Barry Goldwater said: "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."
Complain about this comment
#8 MarcusAureliusII
I am sure that I will not be the first person to indicate to you that you really ought not to be allowed out.
Complain about this comment
John_from Hendon
Once Upon a time, Britain was a great lion. Today it is a mewling kitten. Don't expect the eagle to roll over and play dead just because others do. It still has the will and the weapons to protect itself and its brood. If that frightens you it ought to. Good reason not to anger it. Others should feel the same, especially Iran. Don't count on a "special relationship." Nations don't have friends, they have interests.
Complain about this comment
no10, Very scary. Literally quaking in my boots. I'm telling my mum on you.
Would this be the same great lion that you were criticising elsewhere for a history of invading other countries. Do you approve of empire building or not? I'm confused.
Complain about this comment
The Empires Europeans built were entirely exploitive. They took the land, the resources in the land, the treasures of existing cultures, even the people themselves and used them as their own property. They imposed their own rule and ruthlessly crushed any and all opposition. This is why Europe never felt the need to reward or encourage individual initiative at home, it obtained the largest part of its wealth by what it simply stole from others.
BBC postulates an American Empire comparable to the Roman Empire in its series "America Age of Empire." But this is a very poor analogy. In some ways there are valid comparisons such as the widespread influence of American culture and the projection of both soft and hard power. But in a larger sense, the comparison falls apart completely. Despite about 600 or 700 American military bases around the world, the extraterritorial area occupied by Americans compared to its own territory or that of classical European empires is insignificant. Nor does it employ slave labor or impose direct or puppet governments in the sense the classical European empires did. It does however support friendly governments including with arms and money and during the cold war which decided the fate of human civilization, this included despotic tyrannies around the world such as Iran and Guatamala. This was out of practical necessity even though it went against the instinctive grain of American culture and history itself. Of course this served as a useful propaganda tool for America's enemies and detractors. It also encourages investments in those countries and buys their products, often at favorable rates but not usually through coercion. Foreign investment is now accepted as a way for a nation to acquire the means to generate its own wealth in a way not otherwise possible and is seen as desirable in most places. In prior times it had been viewed as exploitive.
America has imposed government and taken control temporarily, for a few decades at most, at times in places like Cuba and the Phillipines but these were lmited temporary measures. There was never any intention of continual control over them or of Iraq or Japan or Germany for example the way European empires controlled their colonies. There were also atrocities committed which went unredressed but on nothing like the scale of European empires.
It's hard to say whether BBC chose this thesis because it could not find a more appropriate paradigm to compare America to (one simply doesn't exist because America is a new and unique entity) or because of its inherent antipathy to America's civilization, a fact that can hardly be denied, or both. Either way the reaction of those few Americans who listened to it ranged from bemused amazement at its confusion, inaccuracy, and its lack of insight and understanding at a profound level (my own reaction) to anger at its irrationally accusitorial tone. It wasn't until BBC's interview of Sir Christopher Meyers that I realized just how truly ignorant of American civilization Europeans are even at the highest levels.
Complain about this comment
"It wasn't until BBC's interview of Sir Christopher Meyers that I realized just how truly ignorant of American civilization Europeans are even at the highest levels"
And vice-versa apparently.
I hope you have the standard text above saved somewhere, I'd hate to thing you write it afresh everytime.
Complain about this comment
Fresh every time fella.
I think most Americans learn considerably more about Europe than most Europeans learn about America. At least when it comes to history. Not only do all high school students take a year of world history which is mostly European history but there is much about Europe Americans have to learn when they study their own history as well. This goes right back to its origins 400 years ago including how America fit into the larger picture of the world.
Complain about this comment
"Fresh every time fella" : you can;t tell from reading it - seems to fit neatly into every topic area.
Of course your students spend more time on our history than we do on theirs - there's more of it, and a good chunk is common to both as you point out.
As for current affairs I really can't agree with you there. Whether we like it or not everywhere in the wolrd learns about the USA - either through direct news programs, documentaries, school lessons or less obviously through US tv shows (good and bad).
There's also a lot of 'you lot' about, so we meet a fair few of you personally, even before we visit your rather intersting country.
Complain about this comment
Without the perspective and context of American history, it is impossible to make any rational judgements about current affairs. This is a typical BBC ploy to steer the views of its audience, to omit background which gives insight, context, understanding. Taken on their own, many things that happen involving America will seem irrational and contradictory but there are reasons for all of them. This is one more reason why the judgement of non Americans about what America does both internationally and domestically cannot be taken seriously by Americans. They are not only not seen from the persepctive of American interests, they are uninformed opions as well. It was disappointing to see that even Sir Christopher Meyers whom I have no reason to suspect of anti-American bias was uninformed. His assertion that America is rich "because it was first" was so laughably inaccurate but it also revealed a flippant and superficial reaction based on remarkable ignorance.
Complain about this comment
The BBC is not the only source of information on USA that we have - I believe I mentioned a few of the others above (you chose to ignore again).
I didn't say that things that happen involving America seem irrational and contradictory - you did.
However, of your oft-repeated words above, this does at least offer some new interest. It's almost like you're saying it may seem that the USA does some pretty stupid/illegal/backwards things, but it only seems that way because the rest of the world are too stupid/ignorant to understand.
Sort of the opposite to the pig/lipstick metaphor that everyone stateside is so fond of - in this case a pig with lipstick really is a beautiful woman.
Complain about this comment
It's not America's fault if the outside world chooses to remain ignorant of it. Mostly what non Americans know about the USA is from its pop culture and through the eyes of people who are ignorant of it themselves and have their own agendas. I didn't say the outside world is too stupid to understand America, just that it doesn't. Most don't even try. I've also come to the conclusion that it may not be entirely possible for the outside world to completely understand it because of the radical difference between the way they have been trained to see the world and the way Americans see it. Whatever they do learn about the reality of it will be filtered through that prism.
Complain about this comment
and remind me why that doesen't apply in reverse?
Complain about this comment
It doesn't apply in reverse because except where there is a foreign threat to America, Americans don't take much interest in who runs some other country's government or how. BBC has been covering the US presidential campaign with a microscope for the last year or more. Does anyone even remember who said what in those early debates BBC covered so closely? Look at Justin Webb's blog site. Just about all of the topics have over 500 or 1000 postings on them, many from foreigners. How many Americans do you see thinking about, taking about, posting about who will or should win the election in Canada next month. Or who their PM even is. How may cared or posted about Sarkozy vs Royal in France? How many know or care about who the Prime minister of the UK is? I'll bet of 1000 average Americans, fewer than ten could tell you his name. We know there are human rights violations in China and Chinese Americans may know and care about the details but the rest of us don't. We leave it to our government to worry about these things for us. That's their job. That's why we elect them. So if we choose not to worry about each individual country which to many Americans seem more or less part of the great amorphous beyond, well that's just how it is. As I said, until and unless they become a threat such as Iran and North Korea, we just don't care, it's their business not ours. We have our own problems and lives to deal with. And so we can and do remain largely ignorant of them. Except me. I like reading what lies foreigners tell about American and throwing up the truth about their own in their faces. They often don't like hearing it and are usually surprised at where it is coming from. Funny how they complain that Americans don't take notice of their country and then get angry when one of us does.
Complain about this comment
@ Marcus
It is blistering fools like you that have caused people the world over to hate Americans.
MAII-"We leave it to our government to worry about these things for us. That's their job. That's why we elect them."
-- "For the people, by the people."--
MAII-"Funny how they complain that Americans don't take notice of their country and then get angry when one of us does. "
You're not taking notice of your country. You're flapping your gums in a very ignorant manner. Are you actively involved to improve anything in America? That's taking notice.
MAII-"It doesn't apply in reverse because except where there is a foreign threat to America, Americans don't take much interest in who runs some other country's government or how. BBC has been covering the US presidential campaign with a microscope for the last year or more."
--We are the most influential country in the world in almost every possible respect, bar none. What kind of ignorant fools wouldn't be concerned with who's going to run the machine that is currently the heartbeat of the world? Our economy falters, it ripples around the world, our banks fail, billions of people in other countries hold their breath. Our president gets a brilliant idea ... and starts the second crusade in the name of "freedom and democracy"(aka business venture) and stirs a wasps nest of hatred.
MAII-"That's how we have to deal with Islamic terrorism, it must be defeated. Its demands are irreconcilable with our civilization... and just about everyone elses too."
You cannot defeat an idea or the people that hold belief in them buy shooting them, bombing them, or torturing them. You can however strengthen the fanatical fundamentalists into a frenzy in this manner, especially when innocents fall victim. If you could, America wouldn't be here, well, that and the help of the good ole french.
MMAII-"The more I see of Sarah Palin, the more I like her. Why? For the very same reasons you don't. "
She is not smart? She is not a forward movement in evolution- back woods? She holds tight to zealot-like ideals? She was picked based on political strategy not political ability?
Your man said this in primary season to indicate that Romeny and Guiliani were unqualified for presidential office because they were mayors/governors fora short period of time.
-John McCain-
"I have had a strong and a long relationship on national security, I've been involved in every national crisis that this nation has faced since Beirut, I understand the issues, I understand and appreciate the enormity of the challenge we face from radical Islamic extremism," the Senator declared. "I am prepared. I am prepared. I need no on-the-job training. I wasn't a mayor for a short period of time. I wasn't a governor for a short period of time."
He has voted with Bush 90% of the time. He has been in Washington FOREVER. He hasn't changed anything yet, why would that change if he becomes president?
What is making me sick? John McCain.
He is now suddenly an advocate for change when in earlier in this election, and cannot seem to say it enough. Obama was attacked for saying change over and over again. Change, that is a whimsical idea, but you cannot change anything because you do not have the experience to. McCain, now, will single handedly change everything ... because of his experience in Viet Nam apparently. I'm tired of hearing about Hannoy and how he spent time in a box, and the idea that somehow that validates his ability to function as the president. A man's patriotism is not the most important part in his ability to lead, nor should it be overlooked, but it should not constitute the largest part of his message.
“I was in Viet Nam, it was bad, I was sad, I love America, and you should for vote me!” That sounds utterly ridiculous. Now, I realize at face value, that's not what he's saying ... but when one strips down all the fluff and facade, that is all that seem apparent to me. I do not get a sense for a real message nor a real purpose for him becoming president other than, because I can, I will, and I want. Obama's message is not what he can do, it's what WE can do.
I watched both acceptance speeches. I think it's utterly important now matter whom one's candidate may be, one needs to watch both. It is important to know what's being said, pushed, and or pedaled. When he talks about the energy situation, he stammers over what he's saying when it not, “DRILL HERE DRILL NOW!” His speech, on the Friday following the convention, was the same speech recycled from the convention. And when he got to the energy pitch, he didn't even know what he was saying. He had to look down and read other sources of energy other than oil and nuclear, but he is the advocate for change? HA, what a sham. Obama, while talking at a town meeting in a warehouse was addressed in his views on this, and it was clear he knows about alternative sources, and what's being done, and what could be done. He did not have any notes to look down on. He did stammer a bit, but that was to recall specific detail oriented items, not a broad topic which should be in ever single politician's vocabulary.
*John McCain acceptance speech RNC 2008*
“I’m going to fight for my cause every day as your President. I’m going to fight to make sure every American has every reason to thank God, as I thank Him: that I’m an American, a proud citizen of the greatest country on earth, and with hard work, strong faith and a little courage, great things are always within our reach. Fight with me. Fight with me.”
*Barrack Obama acceptance speech DNC 2008*
“We need your service, right now, at this moment - our moment - in history. I'm not going to tell you what your role should be; that's for you to discover. But I am going to ask you to play your part; ask you to stand up; ask you to put your foot firmly into the current of history. I am asking you to change history's course. And if I have the fortune to be your President, decades from now - when the memory of this or that policy has faded, and when the words that we will speak in the next few years are long forgotten - I hope you remember this as a moment when your own story and the American story came together, and - in the words of Dr. King - the arch of history bent once more towards justice.”
Now, when I compare these 2 portions of closing remarks, where a person's purpose should be clear, I get 2 very different pictures.
Complain about this comment
I'd really like to stress the first sentence in McCains closing ...
"I'm going to fight for ---my cause-- every day as your President."
We, the people need to change if we want anything to change. I believe Obama to be a catalyst of inspiration for that to happen.
Complain about this comment
Pharbin77
You are really quite agitated now that the Republicans have more than a fighting chance of winning. McCain had a winning strategy in Iraq and he has one now in the election campaign. What are you going to do when your man Oama loses?
I don't care if people around the world hate America. They've hated it since the day it was born. They don't count. Besides, it doesn't keep them from coming here, not just in small numbers but in floods. Legally, illegally, at the risk of losing their lives. Seems a lot of that hatred is born of jealousy. Some have conceded to it and figured if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
"You cannot defeat an idea or the people that hold belief in them buy shooting them, bombing them, or torturing them."
I don't know about that. Isn't that how we defeated the Germans and the Japanese? After we were done with them they never bothered us again. In fact they are so terrified of what happened to them, they won't even pick up arms except defensively. I wouln't mind it if radical moslems felt the same way. I think we need to find a way to do that. It will be brutal though, they won't be convinced easily but then neither were the Germans and Japanese.
Speeches are not what makes a president. Being a community organizer which I think in Obama's case was just being a rabble rouser is not a qualification for being President the way I see it. At least he won't get my vote. His record in the Senate is very thin and what there is of it is far too liberal for my tastes. Other than talk and become editor of a law journal, I don't know that he's done anything of note. At least Palin was a governor. I'll bet she could shoot a moose right between the eyes from a dog sled moving at a pretty good clip...and field dress him. She can do the same with crooked lawmakers too and she proved that in her own party.
Well I know Obama said he's for change. That's why he picked Joe Biden for his VP candidate, a guy who's been around forever. Out of the frying pan, into the fire is change. I heard Biden talk about a year ago and he said he was for partitioning Iraq into three parts. I don't know a surer way to start a civil war there which would lead to a regional war. This is Obama's foreign policy expert and tutor.
You man looks like he is going to lose. An east coast elite liberal lawyer who put down average Americans, hung out with some detestable characters including an anti-American minister and some shady business people in Chicago, he's going up against not just a war hero with decades in the Senate but a PTA Hockey Mom with one daughter being pregnant out of wedlock and another child with Downs Syndrome. Now that is something a lot of Amerians can relate to directly. The women are waving their lipsticks in the air at rallies in support of Palin. I think She and McCain just might win. Just think, we could be in for sixteen years of Republican rule out of this.
Complain about this comment
How logically flawed and outrageously arrogant can one person get?
At 4.36am: "It's not America's fault if the outside world chooses to remain ignorant of it....I didn't say the outside world is too stupid to understand America, just that it doesn't. Most don't even try."
then at 1.41pm he's telling us that we take far too much interest in the USA, spend too much time trying to understand it.
So what we seem to be saying is that:
1. Outside world is not interested in USA.
2. Outside world takes too much interest in USA.
3. Outside world can never understand USA
4. USA takes no interest in outside world (and this is a better approach)
5. Single shining exeption = MAII who is capable of understanding outside world.
At least we finally got an answer on why he posts here, it seems to be to educate we Europeans and spy on us to check what lies we're telling. Only two problems there Sparky, you've said many times you don't care about us, or what we think, so why bother to help us? And we Euros clearly offer no competition to the USA, so no real need to monitor either, one might think.
Complain about this comment
I weap.
Complain about this comment
Do this for me, since you're so smart.
in a post
1) give the worth of McCain and Obama
here's a source for you.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/17/candidates.wealth/index.html
2) Compare who has a private jet to use at their leisure for campaigning ... for which the laws regarding private jets and campaigning ... recently changed in their favor .. and who doesn't.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/us/politics/27plane.html
3) Compare family background - wealth
4) Compare Academic achievements of
both, whom is smarter.
5) define elite and or elitist.
Complain about this comment
pharbin77
In American culture, being rich by having made a lot of money is to be admired. We like self made people especially. It's what we all aspire to be although for some of us it is not a high priority. It certainly isn't negative.
Academic credentials are not necessarily considered an asset. We are more interested in what people accomplish in life than what they learned out of textbooks, how many exams they passed, and what piece of paper some school conferred on them. Some of our most successful, famous, and admired people had little or no formal education at all. I think these point out major differences between American and European values.
Complain about this comment
Regarding your 'Thoughts from Phoenix' article.
It's strange that Iraq was not an issue, But the economy is.
Wow! Don't voters see the connection? $3000 billion on the American Credit Card for the War on Terror. It will have pushed the national debt up to $10,000 billion by the time Bush leaves office. I'm not an economist, but that must have unbalanced the economy.
Complain about this comment
Continuing to avoid the topic with bold sweeping generalizations.
"Some of our most successful, famous, and admired people had little or no formal education at all."
Make a list of the 100 "most successful" and reference their education, if that is within your capability, or will you find something else to stance dance on?
In American culture ---
Where exactly do you think I from?
I was born in Warren Michigan. I have lived in, Marietta Georgia, Oxford Alabama, and currently my stead is in Waco Texas.
I served in Afghanistan and when my mission was done there, I went straight away to Iraq ... please don't make the assumption that I need some broad commentary on American culture. I've seen near poverty, and I have stayed in Tony Snow's home when I was younger. Being that I am only 30, I understand I don't know everything. However, I can assure I have gained small bits of wisdom.
So again, can you answer any of the bullets in my previous post, or are you just going to carry on with this frivolous game of cat and mouse?
Complain about this comment
Elite
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
e·lite /?'lit, e?'lit/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-leet, ey-leet] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. (often used with a plural verb) the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons.
2. (used with a plural verb) persons of the highest class: Only the elite were there.
3. a group of persons exercising the major share of authority or influence within a larger group: the power elite of a major political party.
---------
Complain about this comment
Marcus
William H. Gates III
Warren E. Buffett
Sheldon Adelson
Lawrence J. Ellison
Paul G. Allen
Jim C Walton
Christy Walton
S. Robson Walton
Michael Dell
Alice L. Walton
That would be the top ten on Forbes, but I suppose if we made a list to suit what you say about us Americans it would look more like ...
Paris Hilton
Brittney Spears
Kobe Bryant
Tiger ------ sorry, he went to Stanford. scratch him
Hmm, I don't know what to say really. I suppose I shall give up, on the hope, that you could actually participate in a conversation/debate with data relevant to the topics you force, then back away from.
Complain about this comment
pharbin 77
You sounded like an elitist. European like. Someone impressed by credential...or blood lines. This is why Obama cannot challenge Palin. His statement about guns and religion will yet come back to haunt him again. He is not really "of the peope." I think we've had our fill of Ivy League law school graduates. Time for some real people for a change.
Complain about this comment
Yet still, off topic.
Complain about this comment
He doesn't have to challenge Palin, SnL did a fine job.
Complain about this comment
Pharbin77, he never does answer a direct question. He just makes some random statement with no evidence.
It was fun for a while, but he's obviously not up to the standards that most people require for an interesting debate.
I'll continue to look forward to his random show-horning of certain references into posts though.
Complain about this comment
Pharbin 77
SnL is Obama's political campaign against Palin? Yes and it has the words loser written all over it, in; "Lipstick on Your Collar."
Complain about this comment
point made
Complain about this comment
Paul,
giggles, he( and people like him) is the reason when I'm in another country ... people give me "the look."
Marcus,
Barack Obama doesn't have to do anything
about Sarah Palin, all he has to do is keep pointing out the facts about John McCain.
And all you have to do, is ignore the facts, change topic and ignore the debate. When the time comes around for presidential debates ... it will be unfair really, McCain wont have notes well enough to save him from Obama.
I imagine McCain's strategy will be much like your own, avoid the topic and direct answers, and make sweeping generalizations. So, if you wish to hold a conversation, with me, you're going to have to come out of your dream world.
Show that you have more than reading retention and vocabulary, but also have reading comprehension.
I care no longer to talk with someone who can't address a question.
Complain about this comment
Pharbin 77
Hmmm, what was the queston again? It's been so long ago I can't remember. Hahaha. Are you posting on a blog or writing a book?
Complain about this comment
With Sarah Palin, the Republicans have found their Michael Foot - the embarassing summation of a political party's core meaning.
Complain about this comment
8. At 9:13pm on 13 Sep 2008, MarcusAureliusII
That's a great post, Marcus, especially this bit:
It seems to me that humanitarians are the only species of animal that exists that does not have the will to fight to survive. That is because their lives are protected by those who do.
It pretty much sums up all that is wrong with the "liberal" far left.
Complain about this comment
TrueToo: complete b....cks. Our 'will to fight to survive' is franchised out to politicians and the military - it doesn't mean we've lost it. Why do the Stupid blame everything on an imagined liberal conspiracy? It's exactly what the Nazis did.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS