English is a fool but hardly a warrior

So the tape of what Bill English said about Obama is Labour's latest ploy.

English was concerned Obama might reduce the role of the US and be unwilling to take decisive military action when needed. A fair point, although I think Obama will be less unwilling than many would have thought, given his more recent statements on Afghanistan and Pakistan.

So what does Phil Goff say? "The reality is that underneath it all National leaders are the same unreconstructed Cold War warriors they have always been"

Hold on, what does that mean? That National leaders have always been willing to fight on the side of the free world against Soviet (now Russian) tyranny? Heaven forbid - how awful! What Cold War?

Does it mean Labour has always been more ambivalent about the Cold War, after all Russia - USA - both the same right?

Clark said "If there's a war going, they want to be a part of it".

Unlike Labour's "independent foreign policy" which in the 1980s was a great big finger in the face of Western allies, which took New Zealand out of the Western alliance and made it "neutral" - a vile unforgivable position against the tyranny of the USSR and its satellites. Clark quite happily distanced NZ from ANZUS and the Western alliance.

National isn't abandoning the irrational anti-nuclear policy, National didn't argue that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was moral and correct, National has virtually no foreign policy difference from Labour. Bill English was foolish to talk indiscreetly about his views on Barack Obama, but he is no warrior - the National Party will make no substantive change in foreign policy. It didn't in 1990 and wont in 2008.

US election blogging

I'm about to take a break in the next 12 hours from the NZ campaign (unless something major happens), to blog about the US elections.

The apparently record turnout suggests Obama will do remarkably well, the rockstar has inspired this, it is likely to be a short painful night for the Republicans.

UK press mostly cheering for Obama

The lead in the Times says the campaign has been dignified "This is a contest that could so easily have featured distasteful hints about race or nasty gibes about age. It could have centred on the outlandish remarks of Obama's pastor the Rev Wright or his occasional meeting with the terrorist William Ayers. Instead Senator McCain has shown admirable restraint, Senator Obama admirable dignity."

The Times also notes the worst endorsements the candidates ever got. McCain's must be the KKK, whereas Obama's would be Hamas.

Mick Brown in the Daily Telegraph talks of how Obama won so many over.

Simon Heffer in the Daily Telegraph warns that McCain is the safer option regarding foreign policy. "Mr Obama is a confection; he is an image, a brand, a lifestyle. He has the talents of the thespian, less obviously those of the executive." "Mr McCain, who understands well how foreign powers and military operations work, would have a much more informed discussion with his advisers. Mr Obama would be starting from a position of near total ignorance, and on a matter of life and death."

The lead in the Daily Telegraph is concerned about Obama "What we do know of his policies is not encouraging - higher taxes, protectionism, a bigger role for the state, particularly in health-care. For those who believe that the United States' greatest strength - from which the whole world benefits - is the can-do individualism that fuels its boisterous free market economy, Mr Obama presents a worrying prospect." and McCain has blundered badly "this time round he has allowed himself to be diverted into a negative game-plan that combines ugly ad hominem attacks on Mr Obama with the specious claim that only the Republicans represent "real America". So on balance prefers McCain "His ill-considered choice of running mate appeared not only wilful but also defeatist because it seemed designed simply to shore up the Republican base, rather than reach out to a wider electorate. Yet on the big issues, Mr McCain is by far the sounder candidate. He is a tax cutter, a believer in small government, a zealot for free trade. He may have made something of a fool of himself with his grandstanding during the banking crisis, but he was not alone in that (though Mr Obama wisely kept his counsel)."

Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian has been seduced by the star "If voters reject McCain today they will also be rejecting that McCarthyite brand of politics, embracing Obama's insistence that, at a time when the problems facing America are so big, it makes no sense that its politics are so small"

Clintonite Sydney Blumenthal in the Guardian talks about the end of the Republican era, though says next to nothing about Obama, and talks utter nonsense about the US economy.

Johann Hari in the Independent says this is about transformation. Transcendence of race (true), the end of passive government (it never existed), the end of the culture war of the conservatives vs everyone else (perhaps), the end of US unilateralism (probably not). Again another Obama fan.

The lead in the Independent fawns over Obama. "Indisputably, he has also had a gentler ride from the media than Mr McCain. But gifted politicians make their own success. Over the past two gruelling years, we have learnt a great deal about Mr Obama. He is formidably intelligent."

The Daily Mail bemoans the BBC sending 175 people to the USA to cover the election, although I wonder how much coverage the BBC is onselling at a profit.

What the Presidential candidates DIDN'T talk about

- China
- Somalia
- Food
- Illegal immigration
- Drug gang violence in Mexico

So says Foreign Policy and it is concerned that there has been so little on these.
In terms of where the candidates stand:

Virtually no difference on China - both will engage, both concerned about debt owed to China, both concerned about human rights.

Virtually no policy on Somalia - concerning, since it is a failed state, a haven for Islamists, a hell for its residents (you can't be a citizen of a non-existent state), and a location of US intervention disaster from the 1990s, which happened under the Clinton Administration. Yes I know you'd forgotten that. Obama did too.

Big difference on food. Obama supports subsidies for biofuels, McCain opposes them. They are a significant contributor to the increase in food prices. Obama also supports higher agricultural protectionism, McCain opposes it.

Virtually no difference on illegal immigration - Obama wants immigrants to be legal, McCain wants a secure border. Most voters get heated up about this issue, which frankly isn't where McCain is at personally.

Virtually no difference on the war on drugs - Both praised the Mexican government's crackdown on the drugs trade, despite 4,000 lives being lost and the violence growing. As noted in the article, the US government subsidies the Mexican government's war on drugs, and US citizens buy the drugs, and sell the firearms used in the war - on both sides. This policy failure is not something either side will touch - because regardless of the blood spilt, being soft on drugs doesn't win votes.

Iran hoping for US withdrawal

The Tehran Times is not picking a winner of the US election (although the headline is "Waiting for Obama", but is calling for the US to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, and is calling for a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital (notably not calling for the destruction of Israel).

Imagine if Iran would stop its interference in the affairs of its neighbours.