Palin is an experience

I'm not sure if it is better when the Republicans keep Sarah Palin out of the public spotlight for fear of having her embarrass them yet further with her ignorance or when they release her into it with mouthfuls of memorised gibberish.
She is obviously a quick swat - and seemed pretty adept with her cue cards. She had learned Ahmadinejad's name and said it over and over and over just to show us.
And she sure out-winked her hapless opponent, doggone it.

Reading and watching the fallout, I was surprised at how few commentators were prepared to give her the benefit of the low expectations. Only Fox, really. And Fox has made itself a farcical institution of flared nostril right wing excitement. Truly, it gets embarrassing watching the raw arousal of the anchors and commentators as they get on their Republican high horses. Move over Equus!

Elsewhere, however, there are responses of high anxiety at the cynical placement of Palin in this pivotal position. This good looking "down home" mom taps right into the comfort zone of the lowbrows. She ain't gonna answer nasty old questions from debate moderators. She's gonna talk right to the American people in her own special way.

I loved the way Fox defended her lack of experience by saying that she had had experiences. Sure. She has had experiences - shooting things, giving birth, entering beauty quests...

What a mockery this all makes of the very serious, nay dire, state of the world.
One can only be profoundly disappointed that America, once a loved and respected superpower, is taking its common denominators so very dangerously low.

Worth reading is Michelle Goldberg of the Guardian. The photo illustration - the Palin wink - is really telling.

Hooray for Hills

Pennsylvania! Oh, blessed relief.
The 10 per cent margin between Hillary and Barack keeps Hillary in the race and allows America the time it needs to clue up.

Not that Michael Moore has clued up.
What a shock to receive his newsletter urging his fans to vote against Hillary Clinton.
But Moore, while a brave agitator and man of causes, is no political Einstein. He is a big on the naive side, I think. And in this case, he is holding a grudge against Hillary's error of judgement in voting for Iraq. He is joining the Fox-revved mindless mob who refuse to hear Hillary's oft-reiterated words "if I knew then what I know now".
Moore has never failed in prescience?
Guess what?
He is lacking prescience right now!

The man is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. So fie upon him.

Of course, Barack Obama is a fine candidate. The Democratic Party threw up a lineup of stunning candidates - Richardson, Biden, Edwards et al. Each of these men had outstanding merit. Obama does, too, although I am not so sure about his wife.

Hillary has an edge on all of the other candidates - and she has proved, with this long campaign, that she has guts and stamina on an Olympian scale.
One watches the relentlessness of the campaign and just boggles at how long and hard it is - a marathon to end all marathons. She has impressive self-discipine - which is the hard edge that the Right Wing pundits forever decry. Pity they don't have a bit more of it. Self-discipline involves self-sacrifice.

I continue to believe in Hillary Clinton and am delighted at this strong win.
I think the Democratic race needs to claw its way on simply so that the American public can overcome the Right Wing mantras about Clintons - and see this strong, courageous, well-informed and experienced woman is what the country really needs.

Fingers and toes crossed as the game moves on.

Good onto Hills!

Hillary had more faith in Hillary than the rest of us. Fie upon us.
Look at these uplifting wins in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island today. Let's hope Pennsylvania is on its way.
This will make it pretty even as it goes off to the convention. A cliffhanger to the end.

I am so happy about Hillary's wins today.

Annoyingly, I have to watch coverage of it on Fox news. The Fox election coverage has been nauseating me for some time. Well, ever since I have had to watch it.
It is a disservice that Rupert Murdoch does to the USA, allowing Australia only to see 24-hour US news from Fox. CNN is shown on cable but it is a special Pacific version which is tediously dominated by business and finance. Sky is dominated by sport.
So, if one is interested in general US news, Fox is it.

Hence, we have those ugly, smug Fox anchors unctuously faking objectivity in Democratic coverage.

Beggars can't be choosers. So I watch avidly deep into the Australian night.
It is stressful.


But at least there are signs that not all of the USA is brainwashed by Fox.
The people are recognising that Hillary has the goods that the country really needs.

Did we say racist?

Once the racism can is opened, everything gets nasty.
None nastier than Bill O'Reilly from Fox. "O'Racist" Bob Cesca has called him in the Huffington Post.

Cesca has written on O'Reilly's reaction to that self-same Michelle Obama quote - how, for the first time, she feels reason to be proud of her country. He thinks O'Reilly should apologise and resign.
Fat chance.

But Cesca is on the ball in pinning O'Reilly on the White Supremacist line.

O'Reilly said:

And I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down.

Cesca comments:

Lynching? Party? Unless there's evidence? So we're to understand from Bill O'Reilly that if someone might be relating a certain level of dissatisfaction with America's present status and chief executive, that they deserve to be tracked down by Bill O'Reilly's Lynch Mob?

It doesn't even matter what Michelle Obama said. We do know that FOX News repeatedly misquoted Mrs. Obama's statement and regardless of what she said, nothing -- no words, intentions or deeds justify the unhinged spike in Bill O'Reilly's bigoted, splotchy blood pressure to the point of wanting to "track it down" with his "lynching party." She could've said something like, "Bill O'Reilly is a splotchy dillweed who enjoys savory, soapy shower falafels," and it still wouldn't justify this flagrantly racist "lynching" analogy.

Indeed, this is where racism sinks to its worst depths. And where we cringe and, hand-in-hand with Michelle Obama, feel ashamed that the USA gives such broad approval to this terrible man and his vociferous ilk.

Put a sock in it, Barack

Now back in Australia, there is passionate frustration at being distanced from the campaign developments - which is absolutely ironic since the Internet age keeps me right up to date with every hop and hiccup. I am "virtually" there.
And, at the moment, railing with fury at Barack Obama for taking his negative campaigning.
At first, I was rather interested in Obama - the bright, young, black candidate. I watched carefully as he established a campaign. I went out and bought his books and read him - and I was even more impressed. He is very good with the written word.
Then I went along to see and hear him in person.
And I felt hollow.
All the positive feelings just melted...dripped into little puddles of disappointment.
There was now "there" there.
Something about Barack Obama was thin and insubstantial. Something about Barack Obama was not right. I could not put my finger on it. I just accepted the old gut feeling - and it was with relief.
He was absolutely no threat to Hillary Clinton as the best Democratic candidate.
He is not ready, not right, does not have the goods...

But he has stayed in there with a loud and enthusiastic youthful supporter base.
For all those who are new to politics, he is a dream candidate.

It is a marked sign of his unreadiness, his amateurism, his unworthiness that he has now turned his campaign not policies and the priorities of the nation but to attacking Hillary.

His idea of winning the race is not to be better but to cannibalise his own kind.
He should be gunning for the very dangerous Mitt Romney, that famous Mormon. Or the rising creationist Mike Huckabee.

Hillary has responded philosophically.
She does not need to rear up and make a fuss. She has suggested that he replace the old negativity with a bit of hope. And she is just getting on with it.

Which is one reason that she shines on as the primary primary candidate.

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.