Obama on the rise and rise and rise

Hillary already has been begging the country just to remember that the important thing for November is to vote Democratic. There must be change of Government. She is a wise woman and, I fear, she can see the writing on the wall.
It is not looking too good for her. She will have to pull a rabbit out of the hat - as the media keeps gnawing at her image, carrying on about botox, making ugly kerfuffles over Chelsea, sniping about Bill... making up whatever it can get away with.
It's rough.

Of course, many of the Obama simpletons who are bouncing around, high as kites on the novelty of a political experience, think that "change" is something Obama has invented.

They think that "change" is a policy!

I am very sad watching the latest Caucus figures emerging, still boggling at how utterly stupid the very essence of caucuses are. Only 2 per cent of the registered Republicans turned up at their Washington caucuses? The weather was bad? They did not bother with their political responsibility. I just hope those Republicans stay indoors again in November when the big election is on. Their political apathy will be useful then.

Meanwhile, Obama is going from strength to strength in these evolving primaries - and I see Teddy Kennedy rubbing his hands together because he will have control. I see Oprah priming up to dub herself a president-maker responsible, with her new best buddy Michelle Obama, for a bright new black agenda.
I see a lot of people around Obama, pulling strings - but I do not see a man with great depth of potential in his own right.

I never did - not from that first encounter in NH, when I went to the Seniors Centre to get up close and personal with him, to listen to him and see what he was all about. That was when my hopes melted away in a puddle of Obama rhetoric. He is a sophist. He is a sophist. There was no "there" there.
I left feeling a bit empty and disappointed.

It made the deciding factor for this old political animal. I had been to see and hear Hillary and I needed to know how Obama matched up. And there was a man with no real policy. Just fluent sophistry. That was the point at which I phoned the Hillary Campaign and offered my services.

So, of course, I think my choice is the right choice.
I think Hillary Clinton is absolutely exceptional - a very able woman with an informed grasp on almost every aspect of most ever domestic and international political issue. That is pretty rare and I'd challenge any other candidate to match her erudition.

Sadly, the common voter neither knows nor cares. Many have some media-induced idea of a Clinton agenda. They have believed what the media has told them - that she is cold and ambitious, which are taken to be evils in a woman, albeit strengths in a man.
The media wins.

The media has marketed Obama as a favoured Dem. It suits the precious youth demographic which is all the media wants to know about. His is quite a marketable commodity, of course.

Obama is really very nice in myriad ways. He is superbly fluent, like an elegant preacher. His books are fantastic. I rather fell in love with him when I read him.
He is tall and handsome.

But the very "change" business that the media has marketed and the young have embraced with such enthusiasm, is still turning me off.

Give us a break!
Elections are all about change. They are for change

What actual change is Obama promising? Just change.
His policies are more philosophic than political nitty gritty. He promises hope. Nice things. He promises to bring the cost of living down with tax breaks and to raise the minimum wage. He does not want anyone to be poor. He wants college to be affordable..so long as students work for the peace corps in return. This is their pleasant payback for tuition. Of course this is very appealing to the young.
Obama is very appealing.
The young are rapt.

Now, in the grand scheme of potential presidents, he is a pretty classy possibility. There is no doubt about that.
The Democratic candidates made a lineup of exceptional individuals. Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, John Edwards...and, of course, the brilliant Hillary Clinton.
Each one had fine potential as a president. America can be proud that it can, in fact, line up such an array of pure class.

Bill Richardson's six-day plan

First things first. The increasingly controversial date for the New Hampshire Primary was the subject of Bill Richardson's introductory remarks. He'd just heard that it was going to be on January 8 - in response to the impertinent move forward of Florida from March to the last Tuesday in January.
"You should be the first Primary," declared Richardson, adding that this sudden scrunch of Primary dates put great pressure on the campaigners.
New Hampshire house parties are very informal and interactive - and immediately someone pointed out that NH is first "by law". Assorted very early dates were jovially suggested.

Then the New Mexico Governor launched into his address, prefacing it with some of the ways in which he believed he was the most outstandingly qualified of all candidates for the presidency. These were not only his administrative experience as a state governor, but his extensive CV as a Congressman and the country's Secretary of Energy - not to mention his time as a UN diplomat wherein he had liaised with leaders in world trouble spots such as Iraq, North Korea, Cuba and Sudan.

From these experiences he had learned the essence of making peace with enemies and turning them into friends and, indeed, the most pressing thing he'd do as new President would be to bring people together in a bi-partisan thrust to terminate the "nightmare" of the Iraq War.

As a succinct format, he cited his policies in the form of "six issues and what I would do with my first six days in the White House".
Day 1 would be Iraq. He would not only withdraw the forces but he would install diplomacy and an all-Muslim peacekeeping force and apply some of the $400 billion war into "the domestic needs" of Iraq.


Day 2, Richardson would dedicate to Energy Independence, liberating the country from the 60 per cent oil import statistic and the "stranglehold" that "unfriendly" countries have over the USA. He would call on private and public investment in a blitz of auto greening with all cars at 50mpg. "I don't care what Detroit says," he challenged. He added a list of energy alteratives including green buildings, solar roofs on schools...
"You gotta sacrifice. It's a sense of community because energy efficiency is for the common good. We generate 25 per cent of the world's pollution," he said.
Interestingly, his state, New Mexico, is the only US state which abides by the Kyoto Protocol. This man has a track record.
He gave fulsome credit to Al Gore for his service in informing the country about the urgency of environmental reform, adding: "Al, stay out of the running."


Day 3, said Richardson, would be for education. Here he absolutely soared in recognition of what the US really needs to bring itself back to the future - science and math! India and Korea have left the US, and the rest of the world, behind in these vital subjects. Australia needs to pick up its socks, too. Richardson is on the ball in knowing that this is the foundation of a knowledge economy. He also spoke of languages and, particularly, the arts - to engage "and stimulate the mind". Yes!

Day 4 he allocated to his National Health Care plan to which he gave scant outline, since, he explained, the complexities and funding thereof requires lengthy extrapolation.


Day 5 was for his job-generation plan. "The Democrats would be the party of economic growth and science and math," he underlined. "The Democrats have been the party of the poor, which I endorse, but do you what what? We have forgotten the middle class."
He went on to speak of tax incentives for new technology and employment iniatives with an emphasis on renewable energy, technology and aviation. "The future is renewable energy," he reiterated.
When someone interjected a question about nuclear power, he acknowledged that it was non-pollutant but still worried about disposal of its by-products. It was not an energy option of his choice.

Day 6 would be devoted to "restating our commitment to civil rights". Richardson strongly supported "a woman's right to choose". "If you have different sexual orientation, I'll be on your side," he added. He sought "fair immigration laws and not that wall - that's not American".
"We're a nation of immigrants," he emphasised, suggesting that immigration regulations should incorporate speaking English and passing background checks.

The American voting system was also a target. Only 48 per cent of Americans voted in the last election. "One of the problems is that we don't trust the ballot," he said. "I want a shift back to paper."
The New Hampshirites interjected that they had a paper trail here, despite an electronic ballot.

Richardson finished by saying that he knew he was an "underdog" in the Democratic Presidential candidate polls "but I've got nine months to go - and a lot of house parties".

And, just to add levity to his list of credentials, he confided that "I'm holder of the world handshaking record - 13,000 hands in 8 hours. That record used to belong to Teddy Roosevelt".

The party guests were keen to question the New Mexico Governor - and threw some tough ones at him, particularly about tax, Iraq, mental health and health funding. He fielded them all with amiable ease, at home on all issues, it seemed.



And he added some interesting snippets - insight about North Korea which he has visited no less than six times and which he still finds very different in thinking.
He told of talking to President Bush about negotiations with North Korea and the way in which using China as an intermediary was a mistake since the North Koreans hate China.
Bush replied: "Bill, I don't talk to countries that exhibit bad behaviour."
Richardson retorted: "Pretty soon you're only going to be talking to the Vatican."
He half-expected an angry response from the President, he said. But no. George Bush thought it was funny.

The Richardson campaign aides were keen to get him moving along - next stop an interview with CNN. Richardson, however, was reluctant to short-change these voters and his lingering to answer personal questions, shake hands and sign his book was clearly agitating his clock-watching aides, as we slipped quietly out the door ahead of him.

A good man, I'd say, who came across poorly in the Democrats' television debate. Gun supporter or not, he shone as an example of the extremely high quality of candidate being fielded by the American Democrats. If only politics was dominated by such people. If only.

Giuliani's America

There was no grandstanding from those introducing Rudy Giuliani to the business voters of Nashua. Simply these succinct declarations:
"New Hampshire is the time-tested proving ground where presidential candidates test their messages with experienced voters to prepare for the long national campaign."
And:
"Grassroots civic engagement is taken very seriously in New Hampshire."

Rudy echoed this:
"There is no better place to do it than New Hampshire where it is traditional. Tradition is important in politics. The idea that NH is the first in the national primary is one that I endorsed a long time ago and now I am running for president, I endorse it more!"

This gained a satisfied titter from the business crowd.

Like most speakers, the former NY Mayor opened with some frivolity - an indulgence in jubilation about the recent historic four home runs hit by the New York Yankees baseball team.
"My wife says the Yankees affect my moods," he admitted, perhaps unwisely, since I, for one, immediately started envisaging a president with the international grumpies because his team had lost.
Rudy went on to recall that he had suggested to Hillary Clinton when they were competing for the NY senator spot that, instead of a conventional senatorial campaign debate which bored viewers, there should be a Yankees trivia debate. Hmm.

"Baseball statistics are endlessly fascinating - and so are economic statistics," he said, in a very nice segue into campaign patter and his "four policies for growth".

"These are not ideas, they are things I've done, things I've brought about," he bragged. "Don't just listen to what I say but listen to what I've done."

Lowering tax came first - to allow private enterprise to grow and hence, allow the national economy to compete with the rest of the world.
"The Democrats blur that line," he said.
Rudy said he had done it in NYC and "if you can do it in New York, you can do it in Washington, DC".
He went on to expand on how, by lowering hotel occupancy tax in NYC, tax revenue had increased.
"Democrats don't understand. Liberal columnists don't understand but if you lower tax, you collect more because more people are using and therefore there is more revenue."
Hotels consequently employed more people and the assorted services grew accordingly, he explained, adding that his term as Mayor had been described as "the most conservative term of office in America in the last 50 years".
Jobs had grown by 30 per cent and fiscal deficit had turned to a multi-billion dollar surplus.
"The Democrats are working out which taxes to raise and I'm working out which to lower," he said.
He cited Capital Gains tax, lowered to encourage more people to invest, and Death Tax (known among Democrats as Estate Tax) whihc he said was an unfair tax which hurt families.

Next Giuliani wanted to reduce the size of the government and reduce government spending, as he did in his Mayoral role.
"Spending restraint and economic growth has to come from the Mayor or President. Executives have to understand this. It has to be part of your DNA."

He went on to criticise over-regulation which is "the same as taxes", and to call for sound monetary policy.
"You have to run government in an effective way, like it is a business. You have to pretend that it is a business," he declared.
This meant constant measuring of performance levels for which he recommended to ComStat Program (which turns out to be an accountability measuing program which he used on reforming the police in NY).
"Measure every week. Are you achieving this?" he reiterated.
This struck me as a form of performance-based management so ferocious that it would leave its staff in a constant state of neurotic stress. Clearly Rudy Giuliani is a tough boss.

He spoke also of US Ambassadors and the State Department with its "overriding purpose to expose America to the world and, secondly to expose the rest of the world to America."

He concluded by saying that people had said it was impossible to reduce crime in New York and that he had done it.
"I'm good at doing impossible things. I like to do impossible things," he triumphed.

The breakfast business crowd, the mass of men in dark suits and ties, might have been devoted Republicans - but they also were New Hampshirites. They had questions and their questions were confronting.

Dependence on foreign oil came first.
Rudy did the old political sidestep by saying "let me give you a slightly different perspective" - and then tackled the issue by suggesting that as Chinese and Indian populations emerged from poverty to middle class, the idea was to sell them things - such as potential energy technology, an American "growth industry". Of course, one needed "to put the emphasis on the private sector" with incentives from the Federal Government to develop this. But this was a "tremendous opportuniy" for the USA.
"I'm a glass half full person," he declared.
He was also in favour of more nuclear power for the US. There has not been a new nuclear power station in 30 years "because some special interests are frightened".
"Nobody has died as a result of nuclear power," he said, adding that wind, solar and carbon sequestration were also worthy of attention. And that OPEC was something of an obstacle as "a cartel that fixes prices". "If it operateed in the US, it would be illegal," he snarled.

Asked about Federal Government entitlement and pharmaceutical subsidies, he returned to the free market theme - "competitive and profit-driven"
"If the goverment takes over, the costs go up," he said.
He envisaged tax incentives for people to buy health insurance, to make a market of individual consumers, suggesting a $15,000 deduction would encourage people to choose $9,000 insurance policies and pocket the rest of the money. My eyebrows shot up.
He mentioned health vouchers, too, and different health products.
"Let's create a vast consumer market," he trumpeted.
"We'll have socialised medicine if we do what the Democrats want."

A black Marine Corps veteran asked about what was to be done for disabled and fallen comrades.
Rudy was passionate about the obligation to give them more support, telling of how he would always visit injuired NY police or firemen in hospital "not only out of respect but to ensure they got high quality care". And they did.
"Whenever the Mayor showed up, the head of the hospital turned up," he laughed.
"What I wanted of these men was that they take heroic risks, so what I owed them was to take care of them. We owe this to veterans, too. We must fulfil our basic humanitarian obligation - which will encourage people to serve. We're going to be a volunteer country."

One last question - and it was Iraq.
The former Mayor saw Iraq as part of the War on Terror and was strongly against the Democrat move to put a date on withdrawal of troops, believing that this simply informed the enemy. He saw an almost limitless terrorist threat from within Iraq and from Iran and Syria and Afghanistan. He thought it was time to get Bin Laden, to ensure Iran did not have nuclear power, and to pursue terrorists "on offence, not defence".
He defended the Patriot Act's incursions into privacy and as "uncomfortable but essential" as yet more of the "offensive against terrorism".
"We are not a warlike country. We are at war because they want to come here and kill us," he concluded.
At which one could only hear, loud a clear, a perpetuation of Bush Administration policy. The only difference was that Giuliani had not mentioned God.

Obama style and substance

The hype surrounding Barak Obama's run for Democrat presidential nomination has worried me a bit. It is highly youth-driven and youth-oriented in a way that reminds of the Howard Dean campaign wherein, when the voting crunch came, those droves of youthful enthusiasts had dissolved into the woodwork and did not seem to be reflected in the ballot numbers.
But Barak is young. He is new. He is fresh and vivid. He is sensationally bright. He is unsullied by the shadows of a long political history and, what's more, he is an open book with a fierce sense of ethics. Hence, he is what one might dare to pun "a Barak-away" candidate.
He told us: "I'm not just interested in winning an election. I'm interested in transforming the country".
He said he sought "a commonsense, practical, non-ideological agenda for change."
He cites his background as a community organiser as a unique qualification for the rallying of people.
"What I have is a really good talent for bringing people together to solve problems," he declared.

I had heard that he was less interested in listening to the sound of his own voice than in that of others - and it proved to be so in Nashua. His preamble speech was relatively brief. After commenting on the public loss of confidence in the political process, he explained his belief in the way "we are connected as a people".
"If a child in Nashua cannot read, we must care, even if it is not our child. If there is someone foraging in a dumpster, it diminishes us as a nation."
While hearing such sentiments of social justice from a politician pleases me no end, it was not what the Nashua people wanted to know.
They revved up when he noted that an economy that was good for Wall Street still left the real people living from paycheck to paycheck.
But when he said that the country was involved in "a war that should never have been authorised", they erupted into a storm of applause.
The Iraq War has become profoundly unpopular among these people.
I have noted that where, only a year ago, cars en masse were smothered with "Support the War", "Support Our Troops" stickers, they are now few and far between.

Obama, of course, has been an opponent of the Iraq War from the outset. One of the few to have dared to speak out when the country had been methodically post 9/11 brainwashed. He has articulated a precise policy for bringing the combat troops home by March 31, 2008 - which, he says, gives Iraq plenty of time to get internally re-adjusted.
Since Obama's style is to listen to and interact with the people, he gave over most of the meeting time to questions wherein people could articulate their concerns.
Naturally, Iraq came up again, a woman saying: "I've just learned that my nephew is being sent to Iraq and I can't breathe. When can I breathe again?"
Obama expressed his sorrow for her and said that everywhere he went he was encountering agonised people who had offspring either going to, in, home wounded or dead from the War in Iraq. He had already expressed fury at President Bush's intention to veto the Bill calling for troop withdrawal. Bush was "obstinate", he said, lamenting the senators who would not allow Congress to override the veto. Two NH senators are among those who stand in the way.

Of course there were questions about health insurance, one man saying that, diagnosed with prostate cancer, his uninsured brother-in-law faced only two options - "bankrupt the family or die". Obama expounded on his principles for universal health care, the two trillion dollars spent in the USA on health "more than any other country in the world" which, absurdly yielded such inequity and suggested that the USA needed to "adopt a system similar to other countries".
An Obama administration would have the government negotiate for the best prices for prescription drugs, too, and not allow the pharmaceutical companies to keep making 17 per cent profit margins, he promised.
Questions from veterans opened the can of worms of the tragedy of Iraq, of the mass of undiagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder in the returned troops, many of whom ended up homeless and on the streets. There was a question about redundancies to which he said that new bankruptcy laws were needed to prevent companies from going under to save paying out staff pension obligations and then reforming as another company. There were questions about pensions and, extraordinarily, one about gun control.
This is the question the politicians are avoiding post the Virginia Tech massacre.
Obama trod lightly.
He wondered if there was anything that may have guaranteed that violence would not be seen that day at Virginia Tech, or could have lessened it. The issues he saw were that "they are still selling handguns to crazy people".
"There is supposed to be a system to screen backgrounds. The system failed,'' he said.
Citing the use of a semi-automatic weapon with a clip allowing 19 shots, he said:
"I don't hunt. I respect hunters and sportsmen. No one is infringing on their rights. But I don't know any self-respecting hunter who needs 19 rounds. No one shoots 19 rounds at a deer." Ignoring or not hearing interjections that no one hunts deer with handguns, he concluded that there was a need for "sensible laws in place".
That is as good as one is going to get on the election trail. No one, except perhaps fearless minority leftist Dennis Kucinich, would stick out their necks as targets of the gun lobby.

Obama returned to safer ground with other questions, responding on issues such as disease prevention, closing tax breaks for companies who moved their operations offshore to elude tax and more on the Iraq war.
"We have dug ourselves such a deep hole. Ending Iraq is 100 billion dollars saved but we haven't paid for it. We borrowed it," he exclaimed.

When he reached time for the last question, there were hands waving all over the hall. Oddly, Obama chose to give the question to the one and only child present - "a chance for the next generation".
"I don't know much," said the little boy. "I just want to know what do you have that Hillary Clinton and John Edwards don't have?"
The crowd dissolved into laughter. Obama with it. "Are you sure he's not a midget?" he asked. "Is he a plant?"
When mirth abated, he tackled the question.
"I try not to compare the other candidates," he said. "We are on the same team. Hillary Clinton gets things done and does great work. John Edwards has great ideas. I like them both and I think they'd make great presidents...but we are on the same team. We're all trying out for quarterback."