Have Clark or Key expressed a view?

On the US Presidential elections?

It appears Gordon Brown has implicitly endorsed Barack Obama, according to the Daily Telegraph.

He has been quoted saying that the Democrats are "generating the ideas to help people through more difficult times". Doesn't bode the greatest if McCain wins now does it?

Remember Ralph Nader?

Once the left's pinup at every US Presidential election.

Aussie blogger Tim Blair reports on how bad it is going for him. The left seems more than happy to embrace the messiah Barack Obama.

Shame really. The Democrats once blamed Nader for why Al Gore lost in 2000. He wont be a reason for them to get angry this year if Obama can't do it for them. Nader is a serious nutcase, but at least he is principled - what I would like to know is by how much does Obama REALLY disagree with him?

John Key and Barack Obama

Yes in so many ways...

However I love Gman's comment "In what way is John Key like Barack Obama? Is it the lack of experience, the lack of policies or the lack of substance?"

McCain panders to the religious right

Yes well picking Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin may be wise, on the surface, by putting a woman as the vice presidential running mate. Not the first time of course, as Geraldine Ferraro had her own shrill leftwing tilt at it in 1984, with Walter Mondale - a ticket doomed to fail against Ronald Reagan.

However she IS a Christian Conservative. A wise move again for a Republican who many on the religious right see as not being one of their own, but it isn't a wise move for freedom.

The Republican Party is a broad church of social conservatives and small government liberals. McCain has a bit of both, but he is no Bush - he isn't from the religious right. However his platform sounds an awful lot like he is. Now the Vice President isn't important, at all. Let's face it, who was voting for Bush when they voted for Reagan, who was voting for Quayle when they were voting for Bush, who was voting for Gore when they were voting for Clinton. It is really a stand in position, and little more.

So it is time to shine a light upon John McCain's policies. Obama is an unabashed big government statist, who (until recently) would rather Iraq fall to Islamists than let the US support the democratically elected government that is now in power there. He's not fit to be President, but is McCain?

Why would the Democrats excite anyone?

I've long been perplexed as to what drives those who get excited and engaged with the two major US political parties. The Demopublicans and the Republicrats are different only in the areas they don't overlap. However both are predominantly concerned with power, power over businesses, individuals, to spend other people's money and take that money, to give other people's money to businesses they prefer, taking more from those they don't. It's an absolute abomination against reason, and is little short of braindead.

Barack Obama is a lightweight style focused rather leftwing vaccilating Presidential candidate who is riding substantially on his race and youth to differentiate himself, and present himself as an agent of "change". Yet his "change" is little more than more taxes, more spending couched in words of "support" and an ever changing approach to foreign policy. He has proven he is no friend of free trade, having voted to substantially increase agricultural subsidies, including subsidies to produce nothing at a time of high food prices. He has had substantial links with rather nasty men.

However the difference between Obama and John McCain is not huge. Hillary Clinton's bizarre statement that "Nothing less than the fate of our nation and the future of our children hang in the balance," is enormous hyperbole. I prefer McCain for reasons outlined before and I don't doubt McCain is better for New Zealand and indeed the world.

Yet stand back from it all and ask what is it really about? A man who talks of change, but with little substance riding on the back of image and his historic nomination from a racial point of view. A party painting the USA as being in despair, ignoring that it controls Congress and controlled both Houses far more often in post war history than the Republicans. It is truly the triumph of hyperbolic disinformation distributed with vapid alacrity.

Oh and don't believe I'll think the Republicans will be much better. However look for the hook, look for what the Democrats think they'll seriously change, and ask yourself why anyone would want to spend any time campaigning for this pablum - unless, of course, you expected to get some substantial benefit from more statism, which isn't what the USA was meant to be about.

Obama's non-supporters racist?

Tim Blair blogs on a quote that suggests that Obama isn't doing better because those not supporting him are racist. Gee, didn't see that one coming right? Journalist Ian Munro of the Age wrote this...

It’s the right question to ask: why doesn’t Obama have a much larger lead?” University of Maryland politics professor James Gimpel said yesterday. “I think the race thing is there. It has to be.”

Wrong.

Vexnews got to the heart of the matter. It appear that Age journalist Ian Munro got it badly wrong misquoting out of context what James Gimpel said. This is James Gimpel's response:

"This is a basic summary of what I said to the reporter in our phone conversation.

First of all, there is plain-and-simple partisanship. That is the foremost consideration and primary determinant of voting behavior. It is a filter through which most campaign events and activity are judged.

Second, there is race. People trust those who are like themselves. That isn’t necessarily racist in the conventional sense you mean below, it’s a matter of favoring what is familiar. How many African Americans will be choosing Obama because he is black? Probably a large share of them. But no one is likely to write a story about that.

There is a noteworthy generational resistance to Obama among older white voters — Democrats and Republicans. I don’t think they are virulently racist, but they aren’t particularly progressive in their diversity views either. Several of my own family members fit into this category, by the way.

Finally, I remarked that many people were undecided, and that these early polls should be taken lightly. Late deciders, often among the most poorly informed voters, commonly decide close elections in the U.S.

This is a bit of an irony, but it’s still true.

All best Jim G.

James G. Gimpel, Editor"

So what was Munro doing? Demonising the USA to look like half the country is virulently racist?

The truth is Obama is slightly ahead, but not much more because the country is 40% solidly Republican, Obama is perhaps the most leftwing Democratic candidate for a generation and he has significantly less experience than John McCain who is also the most socially liberal Republican candidate since Ronald Reagan.

If the Obama campaign is foolish enough to start implying those who aren't with him are racist, it could prove fatal.

What about Obama's other spiritual mentors?

Much was made a few months ago about Barack Obama's connections with the preacher Jeremiah Wright - who had once said that 9/11 was the US reaping what it had sowed and that HIV may have been a conspiracy created by the US government. After first saying he disagreed with him, but that disowning him would be like disowning his grandmother, he then disowned him. Yet this isn't the whole story.

More recently, Obama had been criticised by the lunatic religious right for asking which parts of the bible should people look to for morality, specifically quoting Leviticus. Of course this is a legitimate question to ask, and plays well to secularists and atheists. It shows Obama as being thoughtful. However, Obama is not without spiritual mentors even though he has passed on Jeremiah Wright.

Another controversial figure is Father Michael Pfleger, a Catholic, who said Hilary Clinton had faked crying and felt entitled to be President because she was white - Obama condemned those remarks, but he and Father Pfleger have been friends for 20 years. Pfleger has long had radical associations.

However, Illinois State Senator James Meeks has been a more disconcerting mentor for Obama. A Baptist Minister, he has been a State Senator since 2003. According to the Chicago Sun Times:

"Another person Obama says he seeks out for spiritual counsel is state Sen. James Meeks, who is also the pastor of Chicago's Salem Baptist Church. The day after Obama won the primary in March, he stopped by Salem for Wednesday-night Bible study. "

He allegedly said that Brokeback Mountain was brought to us by Hollywood Jews, (and that wasn't a good thing). Two pieces of bigotry for the price of one. According to GayWired:

"A spring 2007 newsletter from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) named Meeks one of the "10 leading black religious voices in the anti-gay movement". The newsletter cites him as both “a key member of Chicago's ‘Gatekeepers’ network, an interracial group of evangelical ministers who strive to erase the division between church and state” and “a stalwart anti-gay activist… [who]… has used his House of Hope mega-church to launch petition drives for the Illinois Family Institute (IFI), a major state-level ‘family values’ pressure group that lauded him last year for leading African Americans in ‘clearly understanding the threat of gay marriage.'” "

Furthermore:

"According to a 2006 Chicago Sun Times article, his church sponsored a "Halloween fright night" which "consigned to the flames of hell two mincing young men wearing body glitter who were supposed to be homosexuals." "

Charming. If it were John McCain with such links, you can be sure that the liberal left wouldn't leave him alone - but it is Obama. It remains odd that a man whose public statements are so liberal seeks guidance from bigots. The real question is, who is the real Barack Obama? Is he stupid and naive? Is he liberal, but gains something from a collection of bigots? Does he share the bigotry? Or is his strongly leftwing past (something many of his policies represent) simply shared by his spiritual friends (all of whom are strongly leftwing on the role of the state)?

Perhaps US voters should ask.

McCain it should be

For a libertarian the US election campaign is never a particularly easy choice. As a two party system, the two major parties both have a few qualities that, if you keep one eye closed, make them look somewhat acceptable. Sadly both also have many other traits that are abominable.

The Republican Party tends to be more sceptical about government, tends to support tax cuts and tends to be supportive of strong national defence, but it is also attracts evangelists and other conservatives, some fanatical enough to want to significantly erode the separation of church and state. It tends to lack those willing to support individual freedom against moves to protect national security, or "the family" through censorship endeavours. It is more fiscally conservative and nationalistic. The more libertarian and secular wing of the Republican Party pulls against the statist, religious conservative wing. However it has centrists that would be as comfortable with parts of the Democrats.

The Democratic Party pulls in different directions. It believes in government to fix economic problems, to fix social problems, it is interventionist. It is closer to environmentalism, and rhetoric that questions whether "the rich" are "paying their share". However, it tends to more staunchly defend the secular state, and be liberal on some social matters.

What a choice. Oh the Libertarian Party? After all I support Libertarianz in New Zealand, why not a legitimate vote for a party that is, on the face of it, similar. Well, I did use to think that. This year though the Libertarian Party chose Bob Barr as its Presidential candidate - in short, a man whose libertarian credential seem rather "new", whereas his conservative past seems very solid. He supported the "war on drugs" until very recently, he opposed same sex marriage until very recently. In short, he seems like a convenient high profile figure to put the name "libertarian" on. I simply don't buy it.

So McCain or Obama? I've been highly critical of Obama. The momentum behind him has been like that of a rock star, except he doesn't play music, he uses intonation, expression and words well to sound credible, passionate and trustworthy, but it is vapid. Change to what? Well it's pretty clear it's higher taxes and more government. His manifesto is almost entirely about government programmes and interventions to make things better - not about stopping doing things, not about ending programmes that distort. Of course he wants to put up taxes during a recession. If you think it's about rhetoric then check out that Obama voted to increase US agricultural subsidies, McCain opposed this. He's willing to further contribute to screwing around with world food prices with more subsidies for no production, and subsidies for further over production. Great. So he's on the left of the Democratic Party, nothing special there. Nothing exciting, and it isn't so much "change" as turning the clock back to the 60s and 70s. For those of us seeking change in world trade to open up markets, he isn't offering much.

However, on foreign policy he is all over the place. He did not support the US overthrowing Saddam Hussein, but furthermore wants to withdraw. Withdrawal at a time when violence in Iraq is at a low, when the Islamist insurgency that wants to turn Iraq into an Islamist theocracy, would be disastrous. Obama would rather play into the hands of isolationists than recognise what the situation on the ground is. More widely he wants to talk to everyone, which some sees as being groundbreaking and encouraging - assuming you can have something in common with the regime that sponsors Islamist terrorism and wants an ally destroyed. Kim Jong Il would no doubt think it were a coup if President Obama flew to Pyongyang to talk about things - you know like withdrawing troops from South Korea, chilling out about nuclear weapons and providing aid. The Castro clan will enjoy that too, as will Burma's junta and even Robert Mugabe - nothing so good for propaganda as the US President being willing to meet you.

Now it probably wont be like that, but Obama is clearly offering a major change in foreign policy. Naively he says "if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda" How many Islamist insurgents does he want? He assumes that Islamists that aren't al Qaeda aren't a threat - that's just plain stupid. He doesn't think diplomacy is exhausted on Iran, but then isn't saying what happens if it doesn't work other than economic isolation. So Iran can continue as it is going and face, talks.

However, his policies go further. He wants nuclear disarmament. Not unilateral disarmament, except he wants to cease development of new nuclear weapons and negotiate reductions with Russia - as if that authoritarian kleptocracy is at all trustworthy. Naive is the best word for it, the USA stands still while Russia, China and others continue to develop nuclear weaponry. Not exactly change I want to believe in.

Now he says he wants to increase the military, maintain policy on Israel and be pro-active on Darfur - all steps I agree with, but overall he proposes three major changes - withdraw from Iraq, be willing to negotiate with anyone and not develop new nuclear weapons. In a world where there IS evil, and is resides in regimes from Pyongyang to Tehran, from Rangoon to Harare, it seems odd Obama is willing to step into Sudan and Congo, but not support peace in Iraq or isolation of evil.

So nothing to be happy about that. Obama has a more serious problem though - credibility. Nothing has been more damaging to this than the church and pastor he has attended for years, which as part of the ludicrous US attachment to religion, may or may not reflect a genuine religious belief. After all, he wouldn't be the nominee if he declared himself to be an atheist. I'm not distracted by nonsense about claims about him being a Muslim, which are banal and unsubstantiated.

You see Jeremiah Wright, along with Obama's long affiliation with the hard-left of US politics speaks volumes to me. He attended Trinity Union Church of Christ Chicago for years, whilst Jeremiah Wright preached. Oprah Winfrey attended for two years in the 1980s before leaving because of the "incendiary sermons" Obama waited until May this year. Wright's preaching included saying the US brought 9/11 upon itself, damning the nuclear attacks upon Japan in WW2. So Obama went through phases of condemnation:
- First he rejected what Wright said (March 2008), remember he had been going to the church for the years since Wright said them;
- He denied he had heard controversial comments in church, before admitting that he actually did but didn't think it was a problem because Wright was going to retire. You have to wonder why you keep going to a church which says things you disagree with;
- He then did his famous "A More Perfect Union" speech where he couldn't disown Wright as it would be like disowning his white grandmother. He related a blood relative to a pastor.
- Finally he leaves the church, condemns Wright and turns his back on what he is meant to believe in.

Convenience? Perhaps, but it shows that when those in Obama's radical past emerge, he is embarrassed, not quick to condemn and move only when opinion seems to be swinging against him. That speaks a lot about character.

So what about McCain? He's definitely on the moderate wing of the Republican party, he's no religious evangelist which is an enormous relief. He is an advocate of tax cuts and has one policy that overwhelmingly appeals over Obama in domestic matters - opposition to pork-barrelling. Pork barrelling or earmarking is the corrupt practice whereby congress members attach special funding to any bills to fund pet projects in their state. It means that a consistent national policy on say education, agriculture or transport becomes dotted with "earmarks" for certain places to get projects that wouldn't be justified typically. Ending pork barrelled budgets would be an enormous step forward for the USA - it is widely acknowledged as being an issue, but far too many politicians in the US have careers based on the selective pilfering of the federal budget for their supporters. Quite simply if McCain does nothing else domestically than banish this practice, his Presidency will have been worthwhile.

On foreign policy it will be steady as she goes in Iraq, and maintaining much of the status quo on promoting free trade and being tough on Iran (unlike Obama he explicitly says all options are on the table) and North Korea. He doesn't support torture of terror subjects - much like Obama. So a step forward there. He has said Russia should be expelled from the G8, citing its authoritarian tendencies.

However beyond that McCain seems like a safe pair of hands. On foreign policy it would be business at usual, without torture. On domestic policy it may be less government, less pork barrel politics and more importantly less evangelism. Enough for a cautious endorsement? Yes.

An Obama Presidency risks more government, a lack of interest in reforming world trade and a rather haphazard attitude to Iraq, Iran and foreign policy generally. Obama changes his position according to what he sees as being popular and has been swept up in a hype partly due to race, partly due to his ability at public speaking that has not held him accountable for very much. McCain on the other hand promises to not be risky on foreign policy, and to make clear efforts to promote free trade and get rid of the infestation of pork barrel politics.

For that McCain gets my endorsement. He's no libertarian, but neither is the Libertarian Party candidate. There are good reasons to vote McCain to stop Obama from implementing his grow government agenda, and to not trust him on how radical he really is. Obama is clearly further to the left than any Democratic Party Presidential nominee for years. McCain is certainly to the left of the Republicans, but he is not on the things that matter - defence, tax cuts and trade. He also does not embrace the evangelical Christian conservative wing of the party, he is more distant from it than the two Bushs.

Now both candidate will choose a Vice-Presidential candidate to hold receptions and to share with the workload, but this wont make a fundamental difference to both of these men. At this time when US and Western success in the Middle East against Islamism in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran is critical, when the global economy needs a US federal government that isn't taxing and spending, but shrinking, and with a US attitude to free trade that advances global prosperity, not hiding its farmers and producers behind subsidies and quotas, John McCain does offer a positive reason to vote. Not an overwhelming one, not unreserved, but also not just because Obama gives many reasons to vote against him.

I expect the coming months to see a campaign whereby the Obamaniacs will be confronted with questions about their star. I also expect plenty of nonsense to say that McCain is in bed with "big oil" to get more drilling for oil, but Obama wont say how he'd practically address oil prices except by taxing everyone to try to pick winners to replace it. Also expect plenty to say that McCain and Bush are one and the same, when credibly they are not - they ran AGAINST each other in the 2000 primaries. I expect "Demogogues" to play the final card - that if you are not voting for Obama it's because you're racist. Whereby maybe they should be reminded that it wasn't his opponents that stopped Muslim women wearing the hijab from appearing behind him when he speaks on podiums. Oh yes, the tolerance of the identity politics driven left ebbs away when power is the all important motive - isn't that right Michael Moore?

Obama plays the obvious card

"If you oppose me it's because of my race"

To which the response of many who doubt him might be "oh so we're racist now if we don't want you as President?".

According to the Daily Telegraph he's now painting the Republican campaign as one that focuses on his age, inexperience, name and race.

Yes of course, because your policies are so in depth, so amazingly well thought out, and beyond criticism. I mean how can you challenge a campaign that just says "Change" and is largely about the government spending more of other people's money, and pulling out of Iraq. The brilliance and innovations overwhelms me so much that I'd only support McCain because I wouldn't want a black man in the White House. I mean not liking tax increases, more agricultural subsidies, withdrawing from Iraq regardless of the consequences and largely empty talk about change couldn't be REAL reasons to oppose him could they?

Some on the left like to play the emotional blackmail game. It isn't about the Martin Luther King dream of judging someone on character, but saying if you don't like that, you're probably lying - it's probably race. Even worse it is the implication that getting a Black President is soooo important, that you should sweep aside concern about policies. However don't worry, Hillary would have done the same "it's because I'm a woman". Geraldine Ferraro has said as much about why she didn't get the nomination.

Well Mr Obama, the truth is the Democrats are going to raise issues around McCain's age, but most who oppose you do so because your campaign is vapid. Painting them as probably being racist just gives them another reasons to doubt how much depth there is to your campaign. Indeed while you deserve kudos for rejecting public funding of the campaign (because you've raised far more money than John McCain), if it had been the other way around can you honestly say you wouldn't have pulled out the perennial leftwing envy card "look he's got a lot of money behind him, he wont look after "ordinary people" like I will".

So the skindeep campaign of Obama is partly about skin colour - by his own call. However, it may backfire - it is one thing to simply say that some people will oppose him on racial grounds (which is true), some will support him pretty much purely on those grounds (which is no more intelligent), but another to imply that opposing him probably is racist in itself. That insults the intelligence of all those who are judging Obama the man and his policies, and says more about the man.

Maori Party worships at the Obama altar

Tariana Turia has said:

"Obama’s message for change is the same message that the Maori Party carries, and his hope for a brighter future is a message we embrace as well"

Except:

1. He doesn't lead the "African-American Party" but a non-ethnically defined party;
2. He is not a Senator of an ethnically defined constituency (which is not to deny that seriously gerrymandered constituencies exist in the USA, as they do);
3. He hasn't, as far as I know, sought to change the US Federal Government to set aside Congress seats on the basis of ethnicity.

Pita Sharples does say "His success is an inspiration to the Maori Party, and to all people of colour seeking to change the way politics is conducted all over the world".

Change what and how, into what? Robert Mugabe changed the way politics was done in Zimbabwe, from whites only racist democracy to non-racist tyranny. Bokassa changed politics in the Central African Republic by declaring it an Empire, spending 40% of the country's GDP on his coronation where he dressed like Napoleon, and ended up shooting at schoolchildren who protested because they couldn't afford the compulsory French style school uniforms he specified.

"People of colour" are hardly the only bearers of tyranny, but they are not necessarily torchbearers of freedom and prosperity. Besides, who doesn't have colour? I know the Maori Party is leftwing, but it is quite something to endorse Obama. I presume it is not just because of his skin colour, although the implication of the press release is predominantly that.

You can't beat the sick inducing fawning of Hone Harawira though "He’s African-American, he has the appeal of Martin Luther King, the backing of the Kennedy clan, the rapturous support of millions of Black Americans". Yes we know he is African-American, but he is a minnow compared to Martin Luther King and having the backing of the untouchable super wealthy family that raised money to fund terrorism in Northern Ireland is hardly a virtue.

Harawira continues:

"and his oratory continues to soar above the cynical point-scoring of candidates whose rhetoric has exhausted and alienated Americans. In a country torn by division, and wearied by an unwanted war, Barack Obama is fresh, enthusiastic, optimistic, and positive. He has already broken barriers and challenged conventions. He has excited people wherever he has gone, and engaged millions in politics for the first time in their lives. I only wish i could meet the man and say "I love you Mr Obama"" OK I added the last bit. His rhetoric is exhausting, and Pamela Anderson has excited people wherever she has gone.

Come on Hone, go over and campaign for him, loudly and actively - the end result will benefit New Zealand, the USA and the world. Especially since Obama's policy on trade in agriculture is contrary to New Zealand's (except Sue Kedgley's).

Obama has it, now can we look past his colour?

Yes it is historic that an African-American has a major party nomination, particularly given that it was only in his lifetime that African-Americans were subject to racist state oppression. That was a blemish against the USA that has since been well and truly cleaned up. This IS important, but that is all.

However, while international media coverage shows saturation interest in that (partly of course because the US Presidency is so important globally), it is time to start the real debate - which is what does Barack Obama stand for?

I have blogged before about this. Once people get over Obamamania, once the "yes he's black isn't that great" hype has slipped into the background, the substance behind the hype needs to be looked at.

I believe he may be the most leftwing major party nominee since George McGovern.

Americans will have a stark choice, not that John McCain is faultless, but Obama needs real scrutiny. I'm afraid the word "change" without more of the "what and how and for what ends" isn't going to wash. He is already is a supporter of billions of dollars of agricultural subsidy pork that McCain opposed. He is already a supporter of "cut and run" from Iraq, leaving it to murdering Islamists. Let's have a real debate, and look past his groupies.

Castro endorses Obama

There's Florida gone to McCain.

Given Castro at one time was cajoling Khrushchev to launch a nuclear strike against the USA, this can't give Obama comfort. Whilst you can't control who supports you, you might ask why someone who has operated a dictatorship, who locks away and executes political opponents, and wanted to wage war against your country, thinks you're the best man for the Presidency.

(Full article at the Daily Telegraph)

Meanwhile, Castro's brother is implementing modest economic reforms that seem to have made a positive difference. Now if only Cubans were free to express what they really think...

Obama mania needs to be looked past

Gerard Baker in The Times this morning writes about how Barack Obama is getting idol status from much of the media.

.

"Mr Obama is portrayed throughout as an immanently benevolent figure. Not human really, more a comforting presence, a light source. He is always eager to listen to all aides of an argument, always instilling confidence in the weak-willed, resolutely sticking to his high principles and tirelessly spurning the low road of electoral politics. I stopped reading after a while but I'm sure by the end he was healing the sick, comforting the dying, restoring sight to the blind and setting prisoners free. "

.

Indeed, I've long thought he was getting a free pass from journalists who should know better, who didn't look past his "change" message to ask "what into", his charisma impressing on man and woman alike in a way that no politician should ever seduce. Baker continues...

.

"Some cable TV channels prostrate themselves nightly before him. Most newspapers worship at the altar. They have already set up a neat narrative for the election between Senator Obama and John McCain in November - the Second Coming versus Old Grouchy, The Little Flower of Illinois up against the Scaremongering Axeman from Arizona."

.

This is even though John McCain has long been the acceptable face of the Republican Party to many, he took on George Bush, so a new tactic will now be taken.

.

"now that he's up against Oh! Bama! he will have to be recast in the more familiar Republican mould of villain and scaremonger-in-chief."

.

So it is time, after some of us have been saying it for months, to put Obama under the spotlight. He has far less experience than either "damn those Commies" McCain or "born to rule" Hillary. However as Baker says...

.

"He is a smart and eloquent man with a personal history that is startlingly shallow set against the scale of the office he seeks to hold. It is not only legitimate, but necessary, to scrutinise his past and infer what it might tell us about his beliefs, in the absence of the normal record of achievement expected in a presidential nominee. If the past 40 years have taught us anything they have surely taught that premature canonisation is an almost certain guarantee of subsequent deep disappointment. "

.

He may make good television, but he may well be the most leftwing major party nominee for the Presidency since George McGovern. It's about time this was made clear.

Endorsement of Edwards boosts Obama

After Hillary's winning of West Virginia, John Edwards's endorsement of Barack Obama should be decisive in confirming Obama's candidacy for the Democratic Party.

.

John Edwards was an earlier candidate in the Democratic Primary race, but pulled out on 30 January. He had won 19 delegates in the early primaries in January and was considered very much the third place runner. He was Vice Presidential running mate for John Kerry in 2004.

.

If Obama can shore up those who support Edwards, who is from South Carolina, he may have every reason to weaken Clinton's professed claim on the "white working class". A claim that is implicitly racist (white working class voters wont vote for a black man).

.

Hillary wont back down though will she? It will drag on, and I am far from unhappy about the contest between two statist believers in big pork-barrel government continuing.

Is it real?

OK, whilst Hillary Clinton has won, as expected, in West Virginia (country roads, take me home, to the place, I belong) large parts of which are the "hicksville" that Obama so deftly insulted. Hillary is claiming that working class white voters are what counts (and with a poll saying 35% of her supporters would vote McCain rather than Obama she might be right, although it may be exactly the same with Obama I suspect).

However, to digress look at this photo. Hillary constantly does this faux "grin of recognition and point" action when on a podium. I know it's petty, but the lying power hungry shrew does it EVERYWHERE, as if she has friends in every state and every town. Is it fake? Or is she laughing at the poor dress sense of her supporters, or their messianic banality to want this compulsive liar run their lives?

As Hillary has her last stand

It is worth reminding you all the eloquent words of Christopher Hitchens on Hillary Rodham Clinton. My favourite snippets are below:

"For Sen. Clinton, something is true if it validates the myth of her striving and her "greatness" (her overweening ambition in other words) and only ceases to be true when it no longer serves that limitless purpose. And we are all supposed to applaud the skill and the bare-faced bravado with which this is done."
.
"It's often said, by people trying to show how grown-up and unshocked they are, that all (Bill) Clinton did to get himself impeached was lie about sex. That's not really true. What he actually lied about, in the perjury that also got him disbarred, was the women. And what this involved was a steady campaign of defamation, backed up by private dicks (you should excuse the expression) and salaried government employees, against women who I believe were telling the truth. In my opinion, Gennifer Flowers was telling the truth; so was Monica Lewinsky, and so was Kathleen Willey, and so, lest we forget, was Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who says she was raped by Bill Clinton...Yet one constantly reads that both Clintons, including the female who helped intensify the slanders against her mistreated sisters, are excellent on women's "issues.""

.

"During the Senate debate on the intervention in Iraq, Sen. Clinton made considerable use of her background and "experience" to argue that, yes, Saddam Hussein was indeed a threat.... What does matter is that she has since altered her position and attempted, with her husband's help, to make people forget that she ever held it. And this, on a grave matter of national honor and security, merely to influence her short-term standing in the Iowa caucuses. Surely that on its own should be sufficient to disqualify her from consideration? Indifferent to truth, willing to use police-state tactics and vulgar libels against inconvenient witnesses, hopeless on health care, and flippant and fast and loose with national security: The case against Hillary Clinton for president is open-and-shut. Of course, against all these considerations you might prefer the newly fashionable and more media-weighty notion that if you don't show her enough appreciation, and after all she's done for us, she may cry."

It's time to bury the attempted Clinton dynasty once and for all.

Hillary wins but for what?

Hillary Clinton's win in Pennsylvania is seen by her as showing there is life in her campaign - she won by just enough to remain credible. Perfect from the point of view of someone who doesn't want her OR Obama to win. The left leaning New York Times has widely been reported as describing her campaign as "even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it..... It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election."

Ouch. The New York Times endorsed her before too.

It hits out at Obama as well "Mr. Obama is not blameless when it comes to the negative and vapid nature of this campaign....When she criticized his comments about “bitter” voters, Mr. Obama mocked her as an Annie Oakley wannabe. All that does is remind Americans who are on the fence about his relative youth and inexperience."

Indeed.

However Hillary has worked her life for this. She is so hungry for power that she wont give in. It is fundamentally disturbing how hungry for power she is. She lies, she evades and pretends to be who she is not. She is strong on foreign policy, but weaker on trade and advocates a grand programme of growing the federal government, with tax increases. She is an electoral liability to the Democrats, which is why so many Republicans can't wait to have her as the candidate. Nothing will get the Christian right, who do not see McCain as their great ally, out to vote like keeping Hillary out of power. If the Democrats are stupid enough to let her win the candidacy then may they reap what the sow.

Hillary Clinton's odious campaign

Camille Paglia, celebrated post-feminist, has written in the Sunday Telegraph as to why women should not support Hillary Clinton. Some of the best quotes are:

.

"Whatever her official feminist credo, Hillary's public career has glaringly been a subset to her husband's success. Despite her reputation for brilliance, she failed the Washington, DC bar exam. Thus her migration to Little Rock was not simply a selfless drama for love; she was fleeing the capital where she had hoped to make her mark."

.

"In Little Rock, every role that Hillary played was obtained via her husband's influence - from her position at the Rose Law Firm to her seat on the board of Wal-Mart to her advocacy for public education reform. In a pattern that would continue after Bill became president, Hillary would draw attention by expressing public "concern" for a problem, without ever being able to organise a programme for reform."

.

"The argument, therefore, that Hillary's candidacy marks the zenith of modern feminism is specious. Feminism is not well served by her surrogates' constant tactic of attributing all opposition to her as a function of entrenched sexism. Well into her second term as a US Senator, Hillary lacks a single example of major legislative achievement. Her career has consisted of fundraising, meet-and-greets and speeches around the world expressing support for women's rights"

.

having said that, she will lose and the blame that will attributed is that the USA is sexist, it will be so much noise that the truth will be somewhat lost:

.

"If Hillary loses, batten the hatches against a mass resurrection of paranoid, paleo-feminist martyrs, counting their wounds and wailing at the blood-red moon."

.

Add that to Christopher Hitchin's damning indictment of her in Slate, and you really do wonder, why do the Democrats tolerate this continuing?

.

She is a vile, calculating, power hungry fake. She would rather Obama lose against McCain than win, and the idea anyone can trust or believe this shell of a human being is beyond me. Why would ANYONE cheer her on - except, of course, Republicans?

Clinton-Obama isn't going to be

Barack Obama has decided he wont be vice president to Hillary Clinton according to the Daily Telegraph.

.

He said "You won't see me as a vice presidential candidate. I'm running for president. We have won twice as many states as Senator Clinton, and have a higher popular vote, and I think we can maintain our delegate count"

.

Clearly Obama feels he can sniff victory, and Hillary's desperation. She wont be deputy when she's spent a good period of her life being second fiddle to Bill.

.

Bleh, a curse on them all - all uninterested in the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and all hungry for power.

Obama the protectionist or the opportunist?

Barack Obama has, disturbingly, made a lot of noise about NAFTA – the North American Free Trade Agreement – which opened up free trade in most goods and services between the USA, Canada and Mexico. Obama, seeking votes from protectionist oriented businesses and trade unions, has called for NAFTA to be renegotiated, essentially to force US environmental and labour regulatory standards upon Mexico. Apparently that sort of imperialism is ok by the left.

However, CNN reports a memo by a Canadian consul official in Chicago, about a meeting with Obama’s economic advisor – Austan Goolsbee – suggests differently. According to the Daily Telegraph , it says “the primary campaign has been necessarily domestically focused, particularly in the Midwest, and that much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political manoeuvring than policy”

Which is positive of course for those of us who aren’t Marxists or nationalists, but doesn’t paint Mr Obama all that well from an integrity point of view.

According to the Daily Telegraph, Mr Goolsbee denies it of course “This thing about 'it's more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy', that's this guy's language. He's not quoting me." The Canadian Embassy, to be fair, is embarrassed that a document from one of its officials is being used for political purposes saying "There was no intention to convey, in any way, that Sen. Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA." Though I am sure the Canadians will be relieved if he will!

Hillary Clinton is making hay of it of course. NAFTA has been highly positive both for US consumers (as it has reduced costs for goods and services) and US producers (sourcing cheaper inputs and the rapidly growing market of Mexico) as well as Mexico. A stable growing Mexico will not only reduce poverty there (which apparently Mr Obama doesn't give a damn about), but also provide a wealthier market for US made goods AND reduce incidents of illegal emigration to the US - because there are jobs in Mexico.

.

US leftwing imperialism to disallow Mexico from competing on the basis of what it largely can offer - lower cost unskilled and semi skilled labour - would impoverish both Mexico and the US. Mexicans without jobs can hardly fight for higher wages and working conditions can they now?