Staying the course

People keep asking me, in sombre tones, how I think Hillary is going. Does she still have a chance?

Heavens, yes!

Take nothing for granted in politics - or football or horseracing or, for that matter, ice skating. Let us not forget the Aussie ice skater who won gold because of the fact that he was coming last. When the whole pack of racers fell over, our boy at the back was the only one left standing and he glided in triumphant.

My thoughts on Hillary are that so long as Hillary believes in Hillary, I believe in Hillary.

From the outset, I have had an absolute certainty that she is the best possible candidate for America's next president. This strong feeling has not left me.

But, of course, one has to watch the white-anting, the endless Clinton-bashing from Fox and the virulent right wing.
There would seem to be a school for Clinton-bashing and the demeaning of liberals in the USA, so well-honed and consistent is it. I have described it as a "culture" and I see it growing in a petrie dish of snipes and sneers.
Someone should do a PhD on it - since it is a phenomenon as fascinating as it is repulsive. I goes hand-in-hand with the dumbing down of the people, I suspect.

Certainly, there is no more popular target than intelligent people - which bring Clinton and Obama right into the sightlines.

So here we are, with Fox as the only constant news source from the USA - having to endure the sneers from a clone pile of awful anchors. What a wonderful weapon they are for McCain - who can just sit back and let them do the dirty work, and even choose his Vice Presidential candidate for him. If they can make it Huckabee, they will.

As for Hillary - she has the grit, the spine, the wisdom and the sense of history to know that persistence is an essential key to achievement. Women have had to fight long and hard to get where they are today - and to get further, well, it was never going to be easy.

Hillary has said she is in there for the long haul.
Hillary has the goods. Sooner or later the delegates in all their power, will notice that tenacity, power and knowledge are highly desirable qualities in a president.

Perchance the voters will, too.

I wait in positive spirit.

The Iowa washup

Can Obama do in New Hampshire what he just did in Iowa - bring out the young voters en masse? It is what Howard Dean failed to do four years ago. He seemed feted by the young and yet they simply dematerialised when the cold night of caucus turned up.

In Obama's case, they followed through in the cold night of caucus. They put their bodies where their rally cheers had been.

I continue to harbour reservations about Obama - especially since I noted a new cadence in his voice, one taken directly from the "I have a dream" delivery of Martin Luther King. Cunning marketing ploy. Congratulations to whichever smart strategist groomed him up on that.

I would like Obama to be president in a few years, when that awful, pushy and divisive wife of his has learned a few things. We place First Ladies in power, too, you know. Michelle Obama is dangerous.
And I would like Obama to find some substance - since he is mainly sophistry.

So, why did he poll so well in Iowa? Could it be the Oprah factor? I bet she thinks so - and maybe it is so. Ah, and what a lot that would say about media power.

Talking of which, that featured appearance on the Jay Leno show, the much-publicised first show since the writers' strike, did no harm to Mike Huckabee. It was the most valuable sales pitch in the world. It made me wonder about Jay. Here we have another media celebrity throwing his weight into the electoral process. On the eve of the caucus, he provides national exposure which can only be compared to endorsement.

Huckabee did very well on Leno. Leno cunningly had all the old footage of the fat Huckabee who is now a slim Huckabee. If there is one thing Americans admire, it is a successful weight-loser. Vast amounts of television time are devoted to diet and weight loss. And Leno leaned away from the extreme right views espoused by Huckabee - moderated him nicely for the broad, mainstream audience. Intelligent design was not mentioned at all. We just got that very, very personable man. Oh my, he is a good candidate. He has a fatherly, protective, reliable, good natured facade and a lovely sense of humour. He is disarmingly attractive package.

So where was Hillary in all of this? She has the star of husband Bill shining at a discreet distance - and she looked and sounded wonderful. The pundits say she fared poorly because of her voting record in the Senate, because she was not against the war on Iraq, because she has never recanted that mistake... Gee, the negative market is tough. I don't know how many times she has to say "if she knew what she knows now she would never have voted as she did then". A zillion times is not enough. Perchance she is damned for ever on that cautionary stance which is seen and endlessly promoted by the Fox-driven anti-Clinton push as her buttering her political bread. If the Clinton campaign has made mistakes, not placing more emphasis on regaining this lost ground is at the top of the list. They have chosen to play ostrich. Wrong. They need to penetrate the dubious masses who have listened to Fox.

Hillary remains the candidate for the thinking voter, however. The thinking voter sees straight through Fox.

I was not at all unhappy to see John Edwards get some recognition in Iowa. One can only admire the utter dedication and determination of that man, the unswerving self-belief and the pure stamina in campaigning towards the presidency - again.
I like him.
I was sad Richardson fared poorly. I like him, too.
I was sorry that Biden and Dodd were presented with the writing on the wall and, wisely, stepped back. Good men, both. But there's simply not enough room for all these good men.

Romney is not a good man. I am enjoying watching this become evident. Romney and the mormon camp tried to look sweetie goody-twoshoes, happy families - until things started going against them. Then the facade came down and the dirty tricks and venom oozed out of the campaign like political pus. Romney must lose, for the sake of the USA and the world.

For all his sinister religious extremism, even Huckabee is a better choice.

Republicans' turn to debate

Once again, this time at the CNN Republican Debate in Manchester, New Hampsire, Ron Paul seemed to rise from the Republican ranks as the most balanced and sensible of them all.
I was not at this event, choosing to stay home on this wild and stormy night and watch comfortably on the TV. Wonderful CNN, however, kept the transcripts popping into my email. What a class act.

Ron Paul is a back-runner who comes to the front every time the Repubs get to open their collective mouths. He's not the popular modern model of the conservative, but an old-fashioned Libertarian - and a straight-talker. He's forceful and vehemently against unilateral aggression, and for general equality of human beings. He spoke up against the Republican obsession with God - saying that prayers in schools and the makings of laws about religion was not the business of Federal Government. Of course, Paul was perched at the very end of the lineup, again, the outsider. But here's my five-cent bet that the viewers and voters were really impressed with him yet again. Despite the fact that he was given so few opportunities to speak.

Rudy Giuliani has the presence and acquits himself most eloquently. But as the creationist Sam Brownback so ferociously stated, there is no way a pro-choicer is going to make it.


Mitt Romney believes in himself as much as in Mormonism. He played the cameras and the people - sidestepping direct questions, reiterating what we have already heard, practised and overly confident. He played the hawk.

John McCain has lifted his act and was really quite impressive, despite a tendency to keep addressing the audience as "my friends". The more debates he does, the more fluent and articulate he becomes, the more authoritative. He is making no secret of his contempt for the Bush administration's handling of the War of Iraq.


And as for the army wife who asked a question about EYErac - stubborn ignorance or cultural insult?


Of course these events are not really debates. They are question and answer sessions, television happenings. And, like almost everything in the American news media, they are always so rushed. The clock is constantly running out on everything. So the candidats are expected to express themselves in 15 second bursts, to speak really, really quickly. This, of course, ensures that everything is comfortably superficial.

The other candidates? I am not sure they are worth the time of day. Well, not my day, anyway. Mike Huckabee on Creationism? There is an unhealthy preoccupation with God and faith and creation. This is not politics. It is religion. It is frightening.

And wasn't it sweet to see Tom Tancredo and Rudy Giulinani wearing identical ties?
And, ooh, wasn't it spooky when lightning strikes zapped static into the sound system just when Giuliani was responding to criticisms by a Catholic bishop. It was a moment of much-needed levity, although the funniest moment was when Tom Thompson said that, in giving George W. Bush a job under his administration, "I would not send him to the UN". It did not raise a laugh among the Republicans - but some of us got the joke.

But here, just for the record, are some quotes from Ron Paul on Iraq:

"If we made the wrong diagnosis, we should change the treatment. So we're not making progress there and we should come home.

The weapons weren't there and we went in under U.N. resolutions. And our national security was not threatened. We're more threatened now by staying."

"...our foreign policy is designed to protect our oil interests.

The profits, that's not the problem. It's the problem that we succumb to the temptation to protect oil interests by literally going out and fighting wars over oil."

"...you can't enforce our goodness, like the necons preach, with an armed force. It doesn't work".

The quiet trail

Another frustrating hiatus. Apart from much playing of songs, everything seems quiet in the Hillary camp. Not even a word of protest about the recent claim from the Obama campaign that it created a precedent by going out canvassing in NH last weekend. Although we have not been called back to continue canvassing for Hillary, it is very much on the record that the first doorknocking was us on the May 12 "Hillary Day of Action".

There has been no word from the Union Leader on my application for tickets to the Democrat Debate - and, I note, the option to apply for tickets now has been removed from the paper's website.
I've not heard from Senator D'Alessandro following my email asking for access to his forthcoming house party for Joe Biden, either. So it is all very quiet.

Barack Obama was in NH as were Bill Clinton and George Bush Snr - but there was no chance to get along to those events since they college commencement speech engagements. Bill is doing a fundraiser appearance for Hillary in Boston, but at $100 a head. Not going to that.
Newt Gingrich is in Manchester signing his new book at Wal*Mart, of all places. That is of zero interest to me. John Edwards has been in the state, but concentrating his appearances in the north, which is far to drive. Rudy Giuliani is in Vermont. Yawn.

It was amusing to read in Nashua's Sunday Telegraph of what the presidential candidates had cited as "alternate career choices.

Hillary said she'd work for causes in a university or foundation.
Barack Obama said he'd be an architect.
Chris Dodd said he'd be a teacher.
John Edwards claimed he'd be a mill supervisor.
Dennis Kucinich said he'd be an astronaut.
Bill Richardson said he'd be a Yankees player.
Sam Brownback said he'd be a farmer.
Rudy Giuliani said he'd be a sports announcer.
Mike Huckabee said he'd be a rock'n'roll bass guitarist.
John McCain said he'd be in the foreign service.
and
Mitt Romney said he'd be an auto company chief executive.

Hmm. A few tongues-in-cheek and a few very telling disclosures.

Republican men in suits

The big surprise of the Fox network's Republican Debate in South Carolina was the confronting nature of the questions directed at the ten presidential candidates. Of course, there could be an agenda there. Clearly, at debate's end, very clearly, there was disappointment that the phone votes favourite had been Ron Paul and not Mitt Romney. The Fox anchor team made no secret of their preference for Romney and sniped that Paul's team must have been the quickest on the speed-dial to get those votes in. So saying, they made a mockery of their very own voting system. If it is a competition of candidates' teams phoning in, well, it is all pretty meaningless and there is really no point in the viewers thinking they are having a say. On the other hand, it could just be that the people out there preferred the old-school Libertarian Republican who has an uncompromising stance on almost everything. The veteran congressman from Texas is what his supporters call "the real maverick" of the Republicans - the right-wing version of Dennis Kucinich - and he really stirred up the debate.


Ron Paul stands alone against the war on Iraq, claiming that the Republican party has "lost its way". It had a long history as an anti-war party which once believed in making friends, talking, negotiatiating and trading with the world. He tried to explain that the 9/11 attack was not, as the Bush administrations keeps asserting, because Islam hates American values but, rather, because "we are over there" interfering in their countries, bombing and provoking hostility. He added "we're now building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican". Hmm. I didn't know that.

Giuliani, who has "owned" 9/11 as a political issue since handling the crisis as NY Mayor, leapt on Paul's statement, his face contorting as he sought to control his rage - mouth a thin line of fury, eyes slits of burning coal. He could not and would not hear Paul's rationale, interpreting it as a simple "we brought it on ourselves". He called it the most "absurd" explanation he had heard and asked for Paul to retract. Paul did not retract. He reiterated, explaining the concept of "blow-back", using history's examples and concluding "they do it because we are over there".

Paul is a tough old cookie and his views, generally, belong to a bygone era of Republican sentiment. He is also an obstetrician, a pro-lifer and, while he is drawing a lot of attention or, as the Fox reporters put it, "ink", in the media, he is not a viable presidential contender because the mainstream Republicans just don't get him.

So who did come out on top of the Fox debate which, by the way, seemed fraught with some technical colour and definition shortcomings.

Well, it was not Duncan Hunter from who is still obsessed by the border fence but did get in a good rant about the 1.8 million US jobs lost to China saying "the arsenal of democracy is leaving these shores and we need to bring it back".

It was not Virginian Jim Gilmore who bragged "I've been a consistent conservative my entire life" and plugged his website and blog. Yawn.
When asked why it was the line-up of candidates was so like the membership of a country club, devoid of woman or minorities, he could only, again, brag about himself, citing his "reach out" to Hispanic and African-Americans.
Of course it was an excellent question. The candidates are all Christian white men in suits.


It was not Tom Tancredo from Colorado who claimed to have been getting "conversions" about immigration and gun control but "I'd trust them on the road to Damascus and not the road to Des Moines". He also claimed that there was still scientific doubt about global warming but "if it's true..." I find Tancredo just a bit creepy.

It was not Tommy Thompson. He is a particularly rigid man, barely moves more than his mouth when talking. His claim to fame was: "I'm the only candidate up here that has over 1,900 vetoes". A positive record of the negative?

It was not Sam Brownback from Kansas who, asked if abortion could be an option for a rape victim, replied: "I don't think so, and I think we can explain it when we look at it for what it is, a beautiful child of a loving God that we ought to protect in all circumstances." He should try being a rape victim some time.

It was not front-runner Rudy Giuliani who gave one a very scary insight into the Republican aggression by generating resounding applause when he said he would, in the case of another attack on the US, "tell them to use any method they could think of" to extract information from detainees.

This was in response to a hypothetical which had produced much endorsement of a thing called "enhanced interrogation".
It would seem to be euphemistic newspeak for "torture".

John McCain was the only one adamantly opposed to torture. He spoke eloquently about the way in which it diminishes a nation, the way in which it sets an example for treatment of one's own prisoners in enemy hands... He was statesmanlike in this context - but it was not what the audience wanted to hear. McCain is as much a dead man for not following the popular line as is Giuliani for his stand on a woman's right to choose. This time round, however, Giuliani expressed it thus: “You want to keep government out of people’s lives, or government out of people’s lives from the point of view of coercion, you have to respect that.”


"Flip-flop Mitt" did not acquit himself particularly well in this debate, I thought. He was back-footed on his abortion flip-flop, was all for "enhanced interrogation techniques" , had an illogical solution for the legalising of America's 12 million illegal immigrants and was just to bit too keen on sniping at other candidates. There was quite a lot of sniping in this debate.
Interestingly, in his post-debate interview, the Mormon made a very telling Freudian slip: "The missionary, er military..."


This, surprisingly, leaves Mike Huckabee, governor of Arkansas. He scored the one laugh of the night saying “we’ve had a Congress that’s spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop.”
He said a few sage things: "It takes more money to do it over than it does to do it right." We're now seeing that in the United States. We're doing a lot of things over. Maybe we should have just done it right."
He presented very well, calm, articulate and quite good looking. He is, however, a Baptist minister.

At debate's end, it was clear that, well, they're all fierce Republicans who want tax cuts. They were still white Christian men in suits, all of them wanting to be the most powerful man in the world. The back runners are due to fall by the wayside very soon, especially if rumour comes true and Newt Gingrich throws his hat into the ring.

Republican debate good for Dems

Who won the Republican debate?
There were ten men in uniform dark suits. Four wore red ties. Three wore red-striped ties. The anti-cloning brigade were ironically clone-like.

At debate's end, nothing much changed. The three leaders remain the leaders and, if any of them shone more brightly in the artifice of debate context, it was Mitt Romney who was as smooth as a bowl of homogenised cream.

The shock of the debate was the revelation that three men who believe themselves equipped to be President of the United States are men who do not believe in science.
Senator Brownback, Mr. Huckabee and Representative Tancredo raised their hands when asked if anyone in the debate lineup rejected evolution. Creationists! Can one imagine putting people of this regressive mindset out there on the world stage?
Fortunately, these men don't have a chance in hell and should save themselves and everyone else a lot of time and money by pulling out of the race now.

In fact, so should most of them.

Not one of the seven outside runners stimulated any interest or excitement.

Ron Paul was expected to stand out - and in a way he did. He stood up against regulation of the Internet. He urged against going to war against Iraq. He defended "free society" by objecting to a national ID card. Paul is a libertarian, old school. He'd get rid of all taxes. He's also an obstetrician who is against abortion. Fie upon you, Doctor. Fie.

Mike Huckabee said something I liked: "The most important thing a president needs to do is to make it clear that we’re not going to continue to see jobs shipped overseas, jobs that are lost by American workers, many in their 50s who for 20 and 30 years have worked to make a company rich, and then watch as a CEO takes a hundred-million-dollar bonus to jettison those American jobs somewhere else. And the worker not only loses his job, but he loses his pension.

That’s criminal. It’s wrong. And if Republicans don’t stop it, we don’t deserve to win in 2008."
However, he also refused to grade the Bush administration's handling of the War on Iraq, saying:
"I think it’s too early to give them the grade. You don’t give a student a grade in the middle of the exam. We’re still in the middle of the exam. Let’s wait and see how it turns out, then we can give the president a grade." Huh? That war is only half over?

Tom Thompson made a complete idiot of himself by saying that 3,000 US lives had been lost in Iraq and "several thousand injured". He was only 356 out in the deaths - but in the injured, I'd never have described over 24,000 as "several". He should have known better. Disgraceful.

Brownback did not impress - until he said: "Life is one of the most important issues of our day". Gee. There was a day when it wasn't?

Hunter recognised global warming and the need to find alternative energy sources was a reat opportunity and challenge for the USA. Now, where have I heard that before? Oh, Rudi!

Gilmore barely made a blip on the radar and Tom Tancredo was obsessed with keeping Mexicans in Mexico. A one issue man.

John McCain came over fairly well. He clearly had learned his lines and he gave a potted version of his stump speech looking directly into the camera. He was still making very aggressive noises re Iran.

Mitt Romney spent a lot of time trying to convince everyone that his religion did not matter and that no one cared which church one went to so long as one went to church and so long as a man of "faith" was in the White House, because America is a country of "faith". Of course he threw in mentions of his uber-happy family. And, significantly, he promised that Osama bin Laden "is going to pay, and he will die". Romney also managed to crack a few jokes, which made him the only one who reminded one of Reagan at all. For some reason, all the candidates seemed to think Reagan had been the greatest President of all time - perhaps because they were debating in the Reagan Library in the shadow of a bloody great indoor aeroplane.


If I was a Republican voter, I'd give the White House to Rudy Giuliani, I think.
He is able to define the differences betwee Shi'ites and Sunnis. He is not a Bible-thumper. He has the integrity to be the one and only pro-choice voice, dissenting among a mob of pro-life God-botherers.
He keeps reminding us how he turned around New York City and, indeed, he did, even if we're sick of hearing him say so. But he also said that the reason for his success in NYC was the excellence of the bi-partisan team he chose - 6 Republicans and 45 Democrats.
Doesn't that speak the great volume? Wouldn't it make sense just to elect the Democrats?