- Ms Kaye is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Mary Carlisle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Prem Gill is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nancy Flight is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Justin Everett is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- John Westover is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nora Etches is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Edward Henderson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Bharadwaj Chandramouli is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Dean Chatterson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Marius Scurtescu is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Robert Parkes is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- James Murton is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Susan Doyle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Vincent Strgar is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Helen Spiegelman is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Subir Guin is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Kimball Finigan is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joanne Manley is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- David Leach is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
Why Obama's Smiling
He had a good night, never mind Clinton's spin.
He's coming on fast, lining up well for July convention.
For those masochists among us who enjoy protracted electoral suspense and endless bloviating stump speeches, last night's indecisive primaries promise weeks of manna from heaven. (To defend that sentence I would argue that in politics only mixed metaphors approach the confusion of voter behaviour.)
Most generally put, the results in half the nation's states have led to a genuine horserace between Obama and Clinton among the Democrats, in my opinion with a lean to Obama, and a strong but not decisive victory for McCain among the Republicans. (See the brilliant interactive voting maps in the New York Times for further information.)
Clinton's backers are claiming to be ecstatic about her win -- and she did carry the big states of California and New York (where she is a popular senator), as well as Massachusetts, New Jersey, her home state of Arkansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Arizona. However, Obama actually carried more states, including his home of Illinois, Delaware, Connecticut, Georgia, Alabama, Colorado, Minnesota, North Dakota, Kansas, Idaho, Utah, Alaska, and probably Missouri and New Mexico, states in which he has small leads.
Who ever carried each state, the Democratic results are not based on winner take all but on a form of proportional representation, and here Clinton has won 166 delegates to Obama's 146 for the evening, with Clinton in an overall lead of 845 to 765 of the slightly more than 2000 total delegates.
Obama closing fast
No one has yet calculated the margin of the Clinton victory in actual votes cast but it was close, and here is where proclaimed Clintonian ecstasy should be seen as spin. Last night was supposed to be the moment of triumph for Clinton. As recently as 10 days ago she led Obama by 16 per cent, and last night he closed to around what I would estimate as 3 per cent. This is an enormous swing, and it will put great pressure on the Clinton camp.
Most pundits interpreting last night's Democratic returns focus on what political scientists call ethnoculural patterns among the voters. This is in large measure because on the issues the candidates resemble one another quite closely. Roughly speaking, Clinton drew well among white women, older voters, poorer voters, Hispanics and Asians. Obama's strengths came, of course, from African-Americans, but also among the young, more prosperous voters and, increasingly and perhaps surprisingly, white males. This last fact suggests Obama has done better among former Edwards voters than has Clinton. If there is an ideological tinge to this pattern, Clinton seems to be attracting a more conservative base and Obama the more liberal.
Some of the results are quite astonishing. For example, in addition to taking heavily African-American states like Georgia, which was to be expected, Obama swept states like Kansas, Minnesota and North Dakota, where scarcely any African-Americans live. After showing up in Idaho for a huge rally, a state Clinton ignored, Obama carried that state 80 per cent to 17 per cent.
I don't have a clue why Obama should have swept the white bread states. However, the size of the win in Idaho gives credence to the theory that when Obama has the time to show up and rally voters personally, he does extremely well. Clearly he has chemistry.
Pointing towards the convention
So now the great national dental office routine will continue, perhaps until the last primary in Kentucky on May 20, or even into the July convention.
For the near future, Obama has the advantage. He will have the time to campaign in each state over a longer period of time, and familiarity breeds votes for him. And the next few states should be his sort of turf. Louisiana is next this Saturday, followed next Tuesday by Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia, and the following week by Wisconsin and Washington. The upcoming four primaries are in states with very large African-American populations, while Wisconsin and Washington Democrats fit the profile of places like Minnesota, where Obama did so well. (I always pay lots of attention to my home state of Wisconsin, and there the most recent polls show Obama ahead by over 20 per cent).
By that point Obama might well have gathered an unstoppable head of steam. Clinton is counting on winning her sort of states, Texas and Ohio, on March 4, and these are delegate rich states. But can she regain strength if she loses every or almost every contest in the next four weeks? She is a formidable and resourceful politician, and voters are mysterious, but she is in trouble. If we don't have an answer on March 4, Pennsylvania may prove decisive on April 22. But maybe not even then will we know for certain.
McCain's friend, the evangelical candidate
Among Republicans, McCain won a qualified but not conclusive victory last night. In winner take all primaries, he carried the big states of New York, Illinois and New Jersey as well as the smaller states of Arizona, Connecticut, Connecticut, Delaware, Oklahoma and Missouri (still very close). He also won in California, which has a proportional representation system for delegates, like the Democrats. However, Mike Huckabee carried five states in the Deep South, while Mitt Romney carried seven states, including his home state of Massachusetts and the prairie states.
In the Republican race, the pundits stress not ethnocultural but ideological factors. Generally speaking, McCain carried the moderates, for example in the Northeast, while Romney and Huckabee split the conservatives. Because he opposes torture, once voted for a tax raise and used to be sympathetic to immigrants, the conservative punditry detest the freewheeling McCain, and so do the born-agains because McCain is not one of their number.
Therefore, McCain just loves Huckabee, who has prevented the conservative base of the Republican voters from gathering around one figure. McCain is winning a plurality of primary votes, not a majority, and much of his base dislikes him. So even if he wins the nomination as the three-way split continues, which seems likely, he will have trouble with his own party, not to mention the opposition.
In the future I will consider the way a general election might play out among these possible candidates. But for now, I am looking forward to the next four weeks of primaries. This great interest indicates, of course, that I like to suffer, but with the Canucks folding, you have to look for another game to rehash over beers.
Related Tyee stories:
- Hillary, Obama Go at It!
It's a natural hit on YouTube, where hordes surf for outbursts. - Can Obama Keep Hope Alive?
Now the knives are really out. - What the World Wants in Leaders
Apparently, someone honest, normal and nice.
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
- BC snuffs out AirCare test program
- AFN national chief Shawn Atleo to launch re-election bid
- Citizens group releases video to fight undead Bill C-30
- Conservative MP says he might vote against budget, then 'clarifies' his position
- Genetically modified plants won't take root with councillors in Richmond, BC
- Hundreds at Vancouver rally to support Quebec students
- Could Fort Mac become an eco-tourist hotspot?
- Rick Hansen's Man in Motion anniversary tour concludes in Vancouver
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Who Mowed Down the Premier?
- Canada's Economy, Deconstructed (by a 12 year-old)
- Death in Remand: a Tyee Inquiry
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Bill C-38: the Environmental Destruction Act
- Death In Remand: 'A Gut Feeling'
- Bias in BC's Pesticide Decision? Follow the Bouncing Verbs
- The Ethics of Addiction Studies
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
- The Ethics of Addiction Studies
- Bill C-38: the Environmental Destruction Act
- Alberta Fills Pipes with Corrosive Denial
- Bias in BC's Pesticide Decision? Follow the Bouncing Verbs
- How Our Immune Systems Exaggerate Fear
- BC biotech company seeks approval for GM apple
- What's Behind BC's Doors?
- The Ethics of Addiction Studies
- What's Behind BC's Doors?
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Should You Run from that Medical Test?
- 'The Dictator'
- Death in Remand: Stacked Deck
- 'Moonrise Kingdom'
- From Financial Advisor to Occupier
- Seven Goals to Build the Conservative 'Dream'
- Double lung recipient dances on Ellen show
- ISS astronauts grab DragonX space capsule by the tail with Canada Arm
- Metro Vancouver gas prices peak at record levels
- Ottawa posts $9-billion deficit in March despite pledge to avoid spending spree
- BC phases out AirCare to focus on fighting bigger vehicle emissions
- Tsunami senors to be dropped into deep sea off of Vancouver Island
- Student groups file court challenge against Quebec protest law
- ...while on the streets, pirates and ninjas put aside mutual animosity to join student protests
62
Login or register to post comments
DPL
4 years ago
Another expert with a long
Another expert with a long article. My God last evening CNN were frothing at the mouth telling us how Obama was way ahead of Clinton. The delegate count shows otherwise. But as the column says it will be interesting.Wait untilvoting records start showing up . Ted K was a big fan of the other guy but Clinton won that state.so maybe Old Ted doesn't really count for that much nowadays. Folks say they young ones are backing Obama and I sure wouldn't consider Ted Kennedy a youg one,
Jack's
4 years ago
Another republican?
McCain scares hell out of me!
He's a politician for all people. To the question "what issues do you represent, Mr. McCain?" he would answer - "whatever concerns you most!"
He's a electoral candidate for all the red-necks and I'm afraid he can come close to winning against whomever he faces from the Democrat side.
Frank
4 years ago
Mr Fellman
Now that's a line one can set their watch by.
Am I the only one worried about a guy being elected on the basis of "chemistry" or "likeability"? Ronnie Reagan redux? May I say I would not want another Democrat like JFK. And until I hear what Obama actually will do different from Bush and Hillary I find it hard to get excited about his possible presidency.
Its too bad the decent candidates are gone from the primaries before most people even know their names.
Bandwagoner! Everyone knows the Canucks are at their best when out of the playoffs!
lynn
4 years ago
The Presidential Dating Game
Didn't GW get elected on the basis he was the guy a lot of people said they'd enjoy having a beer with?
I dunno, but shouldn't there be just a little more more depth behind our choices, considering the dire times in which we live?
I mean, Ted Bundy had chemistry....he was very, very charismatic, supposedly.
realisticman
4 years ago
Lynn
What do find lacking in Barack Obama's depth?
He comes from a family that broke up when he was two, lived in different countries, had parents from different races and overcame all that to graduate in honors from an academy where he was one of three black students. Worked in community programs in inner-city Chicago and then he went on to Harvard Law School. Became a lawyer, wrote an autobiography which won him a Grammy, became elected as a State Senator...etc.
Do you think he's a lightweight? What do you want?
Frank
4 years ago
Realisticman
He may very well be a lightweight, what we'd like to hear, besides saying he represents change, is saying what he would change. I'd like to hear him enunciate what he wants to do, using actual numbers. Otherwise, even Gordon Campbell talks a good game.
pedxing
4 years ago
Rumours that kill
To my eye, Obama is the one that best represents a new way of doing politics, which the U.S. is so desperately in need of if they want re-engage people in the democratic process. But I don't think he would be a good choice for the Democrats to nominate. Sound contradictory?
The question is, which can more easily be toppled by a dirty-tricks rumour campaign by the Republicans?
I was talking to someone from California on Super-Tuesday who said that they could not support Obama because of rumours that he had been a radical Muslim in his past. I was horrified, because this was an intelligent, reasonably well informed person. He apparently wasn't aware of the Snopes expose of that fraud: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
But if this reasonably smart guy could be fooled, what chance does the majority of America have to see through the lie?
It reminds me of the Lyndon Johnson story popularized by Hunter S. Thompson.
His campaign manager was shocked. "We can't say that, Lyndon," he supposedly said. "You know it's not true."
"Of course it's not true!" Johnson barked at him. "But let's make the bastard deny it!"
realisticman
4 years ago
Frank
Don't worry Frank there's still almost nine months to go before the vote. If he does become the candidate and the Republican candidate polls well then specifics will spill out.
For intellectuals the US elections have, in the past 50 years been about show and spectacle more than substance. Intellectuals don't go far unless they play the game. But nobody can say he lacks depth.
lynn
4 years ago
Is it meaningful?
Actually, I wasn't referring to Obama's depth - I was referring to the depth of analysis ( or what I see as the lack of it) about him....and indeed about all the candidates.
Charisma is a quality that really says absolutely nothing. Brad Pitt has charisma...and so did Hitler. Emily Bronte apparently not so much.
So ?.........
All it tells me is that Barack Obama may be a great dinner companion but the question is.... or should be: "Will he make a great president?" What are his policies? In detail, please. And most importantly does he walk the talk?
realisticman
4 years ago
Dinner or Lunch
You don't become a Harvard Law grad or a Senator just by giving good chat over lunch. He has more. Check some opinions and links all over the 'net. Some here:
http://www.ft.com/indepth/uselections2008
G West
4 years ago
Ummm!
Harvard University as a barometer of quality! ...you must be joking realisticman..It also happens to be Dubya's Alma Mater (although he went to business school).
What Harvard, Yale and all the rest don't realize, or maybe do but don't want to face the music, is that at some point the actual quality of the product has to keep up with the brand's snob appeal and the luxury price and it just isn't, period.
I like Obama and when I did that little political profile thingy that someone posted at Tyee a couple weeks ago I came out in the far left quadrant with Barack.
Now whether he just 'talks' a good show is a fair question, but if he's as left wing as that profile and list of his policy points indicates...then he'll be a breath of fresh air - if only for the moment until the Congress, the lobby fraternity and the military industrial complex flatten him.
Anyway, R/man, he says he's going to do something about the effects of rampant globalization and job losses...and that can't be a bad thing, now can it?
realisticman
4 years ago
GWest
Yeah, I guess a Magna Cum Laude from Harvard ain't worth a nickel. After all it's only ranked number two in the US.
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/law/brief/lawrank_brief.php
As for globalization and job losses; well if you think closing trade opportunities with the country you live in is a good thing for the workers of this this country then I guess we'll have to wait and see. Perhaps you relish a poorer Canada. Won't get you your utopia though.
G West
4 years ago
I relish a more egalitarian Canada
Moreover, I think that means cutting off the upper crust from the gold-plated life support they're on now - simple, easy, and fair - as this country used to be. Like the country created by the generation who helped save England's ass when no one else stood with them - not even their current envy-buddies the Americans.
A man's alma mater is never an indication of his talent or his character - any more than his country of birth is.
You really, really need to learn to read a lot more carefully...you're the one who suggested a Harvard degree isn't worth a nickel, not me - I just suggested it's no measure of a man and only facile thinkers still believe it is.
I'll repeat it for you one more time: the school a man or a woman attends or the way he holds his pinky has bugger all to do with the kind of person they are.
Anyway, if Barack is as left-wing as I think he is, as I said above, he won't last long.
He'll either knuckle under to special interests; lead a revolution you and the evil 10% won't like very much; or, he'll come a cropper because America is so corrupt it's past saving.
I just hope there's still enough decency and common sense left in this country to build a real future for our kids. Baby boomers with attitudes like yours make me wonder if there's any hope.
At least Obama has "potential". God I wish we had one Canadian leader with some of that.
Frank
4 years ago
Realisictman
Perhaps. But as there's just the two parties why would Mr. Obama risk saying the wrong thing to swing voters in order to placate his base? Wouldn't make any sense politically would it unless he wasn't sure about that base. Follow me? The friction point is the voters that happen to lie between the two parties. Those are the voters Mr. McCain and Mr Obama will be going after. So being a Lefty, I doubt I'll hear anything from Mr Obama of interest since I would expect him to be talking only to the voters at the friction point.
Unfortunately most elections lack substance. People have to be elected before we find out what would have been nice to know before entering the voting booth.
Frank
4 years ago
G West
I was under the impression that was a Mr Kucinich test. The one James Burns posted, right?
I could see Mr Kucinich being in the far left quadrant but I doubt that's where Mr Obama is.
G West
4 years ago
Frank -
There was another one posted - a few days later - I suspect after Kucinich had lef the race - I'll see if I can find the link for you.
I'm pretty sure it was a different site than the one JB posted.
G West
4 years ago
Can't find it
Someone posted the link as part of a comment on one of the Monte Paulsen stories in 'Views' - I went back there to check and the comments are gone - probably a technical glitch...
Whatever hope I have for the guy is based on stuff like this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/us/politics/02obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
But I have no hesitation saying that I'm highly skeptical that the Yankee system can deliver the fundamental change he's talking about.
Still, if their economy, and ours, continues to tank....there's always a chance.
realisticman
4 years ago
Frank
I do follow you Frank. Many commentators have, like you, questioned the substance of Barack and if The Republican candidate is doing well this will nag Obama,(if he's the candidate) he'll have to start giving specifics to quell this suspicion that they're not much there.
James Burns
4 years ago
The test
The test I linked to wasn't created by the Kucinich team, it was created by an ex-US marine who initially didn't know much more about Kucinich other than that he has a hot wife.
Here is the test:
http://www.dehp.net/candidate/
Here are stats on the results:
http://www.dehp.net/candidate/stats.php
Here is the guy's explanation of what he did:
http://www.mattwaterman.net/index.php?entry=entry070724-013624
I matched up with Kucinich 100% on everything. We had no points of disagreement. That's the first time I've ever agreed with a politician on so many issues, although I'm sure I could find something Kucinich and I disagree on.
What is interesting, is that the vast majority of people taking the test agreed with Kucinich. Although it's easy to argue that that the takers may not be a representative sample. Probably a good number of non-Americans took the test too. But the test was taken over 200,000 times as of Dec. 21st.
Frank
4 years ago
GWest
Interesting article, thanks. Nice to see he has some moderate lefty policies on his agenda and that there is a bit of light showing between him and Mrs Clinton.
However, I didn't care for his health policies as outlines by Paul Krugman in the Times.
Some of what he says sends the right signals though, I just hope there's more than rhetoric there.
James Burns
4 years ago
Souper
Given the demographic breakdown of support for the candidates on Super Tuesday, I'm even more convinced, if it ends up being against McCain for the presidency, Clinton will lose if she gets the nomination.
Against McCain, Clinton will not get the same turnout of the white male vote. Many Young voters and progressive voters will not turn out to vote for Clinton, because of her belligerent stances, and because she has run on a "back to Bill" platform. Those groups will simply take a pass on voting at all. She will lose a sizable portion of the black vote who will also simply not turn out to vote, because of the guardedly racist tactics the Billary crew used after Iowa.
Against Clinton, McCain will be able to solidify the fractured Republican party. The ultra-conservative Republican base will support McCain in large numbers to stop Billary.
Obama simply has far broader appeal, and he doesn't generate the sort of hatred in conservatives that Billary does. He will get the Democratic base easily, and he will also get the swing vote by a considerable margin. Sure the Republicans will come up with some truly horrendous lies about Obama, but I suspect this time around they will back fire. The two likeliest smears will be claiming he's a radical muslim, and just racist innuendo. As long as his campaign (not necessarily Obama himself) engages strong counter attack, pointing out the sleazy deception, they shouldn't have too much problem. But they have to really go at the Republicans and their independent PACs if they do start up with lies and smears, billing that behavior as just more of the same kind of lies that got the country into the Iraq war in the first place.
If Billary wins the nomination what we'll have is yet another example of the Democrats voting yet again to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Billary appeals to the same Democrat crew who went for "safe" Kerry in 2004. Oh, and of course a certain type of female Democrat who really only cares about the fact that Hillary is a woman, but bizarrely ignore her record and her behavior.
As for actual substance, sure all the remaining candidates are somewhat vague in their speeches, but rally speeches are all about evoking positive emotion in supporters. Talking about policy details during a rally speech will put people to sleep. It just won't go over well. What's more, I'm repeatedly surprised by people who say they don't know the candidates' policy stances. Why not look them up? They're very easy to find. Sure much of mainstream cable news does a terrible job providing proper analysis, but there is a wealth of information on the net. And it's very easy to find out what candidates' policy positions are if you take only a little time to look.
G West
4 years ago
Thanks James
There was another test posted (I'm pretty sure it was that Fellman story) a few days after yours - on which btw I was a Kucinich lookalike too.
The other one was on a website the orignated in Europe - Germany I think.
The distaff vote for Hillary is strange. I wonder if it's not just some kind of reaction to the fact that many Democrats already see the future is with Obama and youth...kind of a last-hurrah syndrome.
I understand Obama polled very strongly in Idaho too - funny.
On health care, the GOP stand is so toxic to good sense that almost anything on the other side seems bizarre - Edwards clearly had the strongest policy platform (of the top 3 contenders) and it's hard to say how much of that will get picked up by Obama.
I think, a lot. And I think Obama will pick Edwards as his running mate if he wins the nomination.
Hillary should just pick Bill because he's going to be in on everything anyway.
Geoff
4 years ago
FYI: We're looking into the technical glitch
Just to let you know, we're looking into this.
lynn
4 years ago
The world ahead
Policy, in the end, is behavior. It is ultimately, not what is said, not what is written down in oh-so-official point form but what is acted on.... or not acted on. Behavior.
Just as the New Era policy points of the BC Liberals are completely laughable now.... in comparison to what they actually did. Behavior is most revealing and tells the tale.
Consequently, in the following piece - re: Obama's ties to Excelon....is the behavior indicative of change or not? (And why is Obama immune to scrutiny in this regard?) This is where superficial attributes like race and gender become politically correct obstacles that only serve to distract from the core issue of real change. To put it bluntly, with the dire predictions of what lies ahead for us on this planet real and meaningful change is not possible as long as political candidates' ties are to corporations rather than to the people they have been elected to represent.)
“Senator Obama’s staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, and we could see it weakening with each successive draft,” said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater. “The teeth were just taken out of it.”
[… Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.
Another Obama donor, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon, is also chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry’s lobbying group, based in Washington. Exelon’s support for Mr. Obama far exceeds its support for any other presidential candidate.
In addition, Mr. Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon.
realisticman
4 years ago
Radioactive
Questions. Is it better to reduce global warming by building more nuclear plants?
Oil is coming down in price too. Will nuclear be too expensive?
lynn
4 years ago
Nuclear power is not the answer
http://www.news.com/Nuke-power-not-so-clean-or-green/2008-11392_3-6189817.html
James Burns
4 years ago
who's best
Well what the test I linked to clearly indicates is that the vast majority who took it agree with Kucinich the most. If it is at all representative then it shows that people, or at least the ones with internet access and an interest in politics, are far more progressive than the people they get to vote for. So not the most representative sample, but one I believe, once people are able to actually understand the issues, rather than the frames of the propagandists, that reflects just how progressive the majority of Americans (and people in general) are.
Corporations and the wealthy elite, particularly in the US, have convinced those who vote to vote against their interests. The elite own most media outlets, so they get to frame issues in a manner that suits their elite interests best. The best presidential candidate by a huge margin, for the average middle class American would be Kucinich. Of course he would likely be stymied by the congress, but none the less, he would be the one to affect the most positive and progressive change.
As for Obama, he owes a huge debt to corporations. That will undoubtedly influence his decisions. But lynn the quote you provided is out of context, please give a link to the original article if possible.
But still, given the choice of all the "evils" available, I'd still chose Obama over Clinton, or McCain in a heartbeat. That is based firmly on the collective trend of his behavior in government, which has been cautious, and slightly progressive. Unlike Clinton and McCain, Obama seems to actually have foundational values that are not only based on a desire for power. That desire certainly is there, but it doesn't appear to be the thing that defines him, or at least not to the extent that it does the others.
lynn
4 years ago
Selling democratic liberalism for corporate fun and profit
James Burns, here's the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html
I wouldn't choose Clinton, Obama or McCain. There are no real choices for change in the above group because all three of them are beholden to corporations.
It's the liberal face of things now being used as advertising for the benefit of corporations. The same way Carole Taylor was marketed to hide the devastating financial policies of the Gordon Campbell government, the same way the First Nations Treaty process was used, not for the ultimate benefit of First Nations, but for a land grab by developers, a progresssive guise behind which they could hide their real agenda...to access previously inaccessible land from the ALR , from communities etc..... the same way the selling of our rivers and our water rights are now being portrayed as a progressive green move....and in the US, the same way, corporations will continue their ruthless rule under the progressive guise of a presidential first for race or gender.
It's all just advertising - the art of the sell - the look of progressive politics rather than the real thing.
And that's where John Pilger is right on when he remarks that the real threat to democracy and to our future is that under the guise of democratic liberalism corporate dictatorships will blossom and bloom.
We need to stop pretending that candidates that have one foot in with corporations and one foot out are going to change a damn thing. They are just allowing the present democratic charade, the vile malignancy of it, to spread ever further.
G West
4 years ago
Good points Lynn
And an excellent segue to Campbell and what he's up to in sequestering important decisions to either his credenza or to some quasi-corporate entity that answers to him alone so that all input from individuals and municipalities is either diluted or simply not sought.
The only problem I have with applying the unrestrained critical boots to Obama is that, among possible candidates, he still seems the most independent and untied to outside interests.
Hillary Clinton and others - who began as allies of his in the campaign for nuclear oversight - all dropped by the wayside - leaving Obama carrying all the freight. That doesn’t leave him blameless or negate the truth of what you’ve said about the American (and sadly our own) system.
I suppose this is just another way of saying I think he's the best of a bad lot.
DO you think Nader will run again?
lynn
4 years ago
G West
It looks like he is considering it.
But no predictions from moi, I'm really hopeless in that regard.
Thanks also for sending the interesting piece on Bolivia along.
I did find this quote which says "more succinctly" ;-) what I was trying to say above about candidates with "one foot in with corporations and one foot out":
James Burns
4 years ago
old ground
As I've stated before, there is substantive difference amongst candidates. As I've stated before, the difference between a Bush presidency and a Gore presidency would have been HUGE, particularly in terms of loss of life of the Iraqi people.
Difference of that type are not inconsequential, and people here who cannot see that have a very serious problem with prioritizing their own personal ideological ends over the on-the-ground reality for people around the world that are far more affected by our policies than we are. That frankly, is unacceptable to me. I cannot countenance armchair liberals willing to dismiss everyone as unacceptable when a choice has to be made. In fact, I find that attitude reprehensible.
Yes, we have to stand up and actively agitate for real positive change, but the world turns with or without us. We can choose to fantasize, or we can work with what's real, and push as best we can in a positive direction. To do nothing, to support no one: that is a choice, and in my mind a damning one.
realisticman
4 years ago
James
Well said.
You might want to select and copy that one. Marbles are frequently gathered and taken home and you may well wish to re-run it.
lynn
4 years ago
A kind of hush all over the world
I think we just fundamentally disagree on this, James.... which is alright.....everyone is not always going to agree.
Where you see this:
I see the reverse as true: that what has been a very long process of co-option of the left and growing accomodation by the left, what has become the "lesser-evil" politics of the left, in itself is contributing and facilitating the "on-the-ground reality for people around the world that are far more affected by our policies than we are."
We are going to have to be more brave and more true.
The Empire building of the US must become an open political question, it must be brought out into the light, and questioned for corporate imperialism to finally end. That is not possible in a world of candidates with one foot in corporations, and one foot out. That is why "questions of Empire" are non-existent in those candidates' political platforms.
The same kind of growing co-option and accomodation exists here, in BC and in Canada, where there is virtual silence on the selling of Canada, the selling of our resources and our human rights as Canadians. It is mostly all quiet on all fronts. Not a word uttered out loud.
Meanwhile, midst all this cowardly reticence/diplomacy/lesser of evils politics that now holds sway, the world is veering into an environmental/humanity catastrophe (caused by the ravages of corporatism) with little time for real action on our side.
Anyway, I think I've said enough on this.
Frank
4 years ago
James
From Canada the conditions in the US under George Bush look pretty much the same to me as they did under Bill Clinton and Al Gore.
Sure, Mr Clinton killed less foreigners than Mr Bush did but if I was an American I don't think I would get excited about choosing which of two candidates would keep everything the same but kill less foreigners.
I understand you're hopeful about Mr Obama and that's great.
If Mr Obama declared tomorrow that he was going to make real changes like making shareholders accountable for what their corporations do, or defining the success of his presidency on whether he eliminates poverty in the US, then sure, I'll get excited.
But instead it'll be at best 2 steps back and 2.5 steps forward.
I think Lynn and I are simply saying that we've seen this movie before and until we see the actual changes being made we're going to hold back on our level of enthusiasm.
James Burns
4 years ago
changes
I'm not hopeful about Obama, beyond the possibility that he seems far more likely to be focus on diplomatic rather than military solutions.
The US is slowly losing its empire (although rather rapidly by historical empire standards). That won't change under Obama either. What I'd simply like to see is less bloodshed on the part of Americans until they realize they need to make serious progressive change. To be honest, I don't see it happening any time soon. What seem like small political differences can have a huge impact. I think it's very important to take those small differences into account when making decisions, and not simply throw the baby out with the bath water.
Frank
4 years ago
James
Well I hope you and GWest are right about Mr Obama in regards to gentler foreign and domestic policies. I agree even baby steps are good if they're in a progressive direction. I'm not optimistic but I wouldn't bother with these discussions at all if I didn't retain an element of hope for the future.
ME2
4 years ago
Party politics
James Burns very aptly summarised why our interest in political candidates is not wasted, when even minor differences between them are not readily apparent:
"As I've stated before, there is substantive difference amongst candidates. As I've stated before, the difference between a Bush presidency and a Gore presidency would have been HUGE, particularly in terms of loss of life of the Iraqi people."(not to mention likely staving off the impending recession)
But Lynn then summarised the root of the problem very well:
"I see the reverse as true: that what has been a very long process of co-option of the left and growing accomodation by the left, what has become the "lesser-evil" politics of the left, in itself is contributing and facilitating the "on-the-ground reality for people around the world that are far more affected by our policies than we are."
"We are going to have to be more brave and more true."
The problem lies with ill-defined Party platforms, designed to attract as many ill-informed voters as possible. Such platforms attract similar candidates who have only to memorise/mouth the Party Line to get elected.
If Obama is elected, and turns out to be as "radical" as we hope, he will face an uphill battle in trying to align many wishy-washy Democrats - worried about their campaign funders - to support his "radicalism".
OTOH, Billary, as "machine" politicians would have little trouble mobilising the troops, though it is a faint hope they would be "radically" innovative.
Those problems can only be countered if a party develops a strong, well-defined platform, so nobody will be surprised when it is enacted.
Which gives me opportunity to once again clamber aboard my favourite hobby-horse, the wishy-washy-ness of our NDP. Is it a Socialist Party? If so it is long past time it began to trumpet that it is. The issues to be fought over have never been more clear or prominent, particularly the Neocon failure in Forest issues, the sell-out of natural resources, in transportation (BC Rail), Hydro - all fresh in the public's mind and easily demonstrated.
And given that the neocon failure in the US is sure to be prominent in the media for some years to come, as the US tries to wiggle out of it, what better time for a full-out public debate on political directions?
James Burns
4 years ago
I don't think Obama will be
I don't think Obama will be radical, at least not from my point of view. But given the likelihood of economic crisis hitting the US, I think it would be better to have Obama than McCain or Clinton.
9/11 showed how what seem to be small variations in political ideology can make a huge difference.
realisticman
4 years ago
lynn
New Brunswick seems to like it particularly for sending a good buzz over to Maine.
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Business/2008/02/08/reactor_proposal_moves_forward_in_canada/8892/
http://ellsworthmaine.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12679&Itemid=31
lynn
4 years ago
Nukestruck
What am I going to do with you, r/man? I guess you didn't read that piece from, Dr. Helen Caldicott, Nobel Peace Prize nominee?
Speaking of "The Nobel" that's just about as good as going to Haahhhhvard isn't it? ;-)
In the immortal words of the very non-Harvardian but still delightful Cher, in Moonstruck: "Snap outta it", r/man.
Here's some facts from our american neighbours:
"Leaving the nation's nuclear waste in temporary locations near communities like ours is not an acceptable answer nor is it good leadership," said Johnson. "This is a critical issue that the country's next president must deal with - we can't bury our heads in the sand, we need leadership."
"U.S. utility hasn't built a new nuclear power plant in decades due to high construction costs and public opposition. People grew wary of nuclear in the wake of the accidents at Three Mile Island, near Harrisburg, Pa., and Chernobyl in the Ukraine. No one was harmed when the core of the Three Mile Island reactor melted down in 1979, but hundreds died in 1986 after the Chernobyl plant exploded. The disaster spewed radiation throughout Europe and forced the resettlement of 400,000 people who lived nearby."
"Today, a nuclear reactor still operates on Three Mile Island; it's the sibling to the one that malfunctioned three decades ago. It is run by Chicago-based Exelon, the leading U.S. producer of nuclear power."
....So, BIG problems in the US with nuclear reactors but yet it's quite alright to build nuclear reactors here that will benefit the US, to clog our rivers with IPP's for the future benefit of the US, and to put an LNG plant on Texada Island for the benefit of the US, despite widespread public opposition and despite the fact that no US state on the US coast wants an LNG plant built on their coastal shores.
realisticman
4 years ago
lynn
Just 'cause I mention it does not necessarily mean I endorse it, Lynn. After your link to Caldicott's piece from last summer I thought it interesting that that same day the Globe reported that the New Brunswick utility was about to proceed with a new nuclear plant.
By the way, regarding your statement re: US Staes and US coasts and LNG:
Currently, there are more than 100 production, transport and storage facilities across the country. When LNG is returned to its gaseous state, it is used across the residential, commercial and industrial sectors for purposes as divergent as cooking, fueling vehicles, generating electricity and manufacturing paper, metal and glass.
Today, there are only five U.S. facilities (and one facility in Puerto Rico) capable of importing LNG – not nearly enough to handle the amount of LNG needed.
They are located in:
* Everett, Massachusetts
* Cove Point, Maryland
* Elba Island, Georgia
* Lake Charles, Louisiana
* Gulf Gateway Energy Bridge, Gulf of Mexico
Approved Terminals:
Long Beach, CA
LI Sound, NY
Bradwood, OR
Pleasant Point, ME
Robbinston, ME
Baltimore, MD
Coos Bay, OR
Astoria, OR
Offshore California
Gulf of Mexico
Offshore Florida
Offshore California
Offshore Florida
Offshore New York
Hackberry, LA
Bahamas
Bahamas (Calypso Pipeline)
Freeport, TX
Sabine, LA
Corpus Christi, TX
Corpus Christi, TX (Vista Del Sol –4Gas)
Fall River, MA
Sabine, TX
Corpus Christi, TX (Ingleside Energy -Occidental Energy Ventures)
Logan Township, NJ
Port Arthur, TX
Cove Point, MD
Cameron, LA
Sabine, LA (Sabine Pass Cheniere LNG -Expansion)
Freeport, TX
Hackberry, LA
Pascagoula, MS
Pascagoula, MS (Bayou CasotteEnergy LLC-ChevronTexaco)
Port Lavaca, TX
Elba Island, GA
APPROVED BY MARAD/COAST GUARD.
Port Pelican
Offshore Louisiana
Offshore Boston
Offshore Boston (Northeast Gateway -ExcelerateEnergy)
Again, not to say I endorse LNG, just mentioning it.
lynn
4 years ago
From The Tyee: On LNG
http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/10/08/TexadaGas/
lynn
4 years ago
No LNG plant in our name
It's funny, r/man, I just looked up one of those "approved" LNG Plants on your list, what you call "approved" this article of January 8, 2008 is calling only "proposed" and here is the response from the public on the proposal at Coos Bay (and they are not happy campers):
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/22/18474133.php
realisticman
4 years ago
More than hot air
Seems that Coos Bay goes to the wire next week. Energy is a conundrum. Alternatives take time and conservation does too. I guess that's why many of the terminals will be off-shore. Great opportunity for BC to gear-up and sell gas from up north and use the royalties to fund R&D of viable alternate sources.
Frank
4 years ago
Barack Obama
A report (from an internet post) on a rally for Mr Obama in Omaha...
He talked about:
Jobs
Keeping jobs in the US by taking away all tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, and giving tax breaks to companies who keep jobs here.
Taxes
Reducing the tax burden on everyone making under $75,000.00 and letting the Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy expire.
Education
Making college affordable by giving a $4,000 USD tax credit to anyone going to college. In return the college student gives one year of service back to the nation by joining the Peace Corps, military etc. Doing away with NCLB. Give rural and poor school districts the resources to educate their students.
Environment
Increase emissions controls on autos. Increase renewable energy resource use.
Lobbyists and Congress
Reduce the influence of lobbyists and money in politics.
Military
Restore the military to its position as the strongest military in the world. Treat the wounded and disabled Iraq Vets and all vets with the respect they are due with benefits and treatment for the physical and mental injuries.
Health Care,
Make health care affordable for all Americans with the same benefits he gets from his health care plan.
Iraq:
End the war and bring the troops home
Foreign Policy
Restore America's place in standing as a leader in the world. "Never negotiate from fear but never fear to negotiate" (His quote from JFK)
Terrorism
Go to where the terrorists are IE Pakistan.
Taxes
Reducing the tax burden on everyone making under $75,000.00 and letting the Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy expire.
ME2
4 years ago
Re Obama platform.
Good post Frank. If you come across informed comment re how well all this sits with the Democrat hierarchy, let us know, since it could prove VERY interesting.
It's certainly in the realm of the volte face David Frum predicted.
lynn
4 years ago
Thanks for that list, Frank
Some good points on Obama's list, but I have real questions around his military and foreign policy - a firmly entrenched, imperialist, and untrue view of the US's as a savior and "leader" of world democracy. It will take a lot to overcome in an insular US that only sees itself as America the Good. ...and that same old narcissistic view is bound to spill over and affect so many of his other policy points. That said, I thought his point re: making education affordable was imaginative and a good one.
I have questions as I've said before over his ties to nuclear, and he has said nothing to dispel that. Most of all I am concerned about his position on Iran.
For him to act on most of the above his corporate ties would have to be cut. Notice what he says though:
"Reduce the influence of lobbyists and money in politics" - he doesn't say "end the influence".
But Obama is no radical, for in order to be a proponent of radical and real meaningful change I think he must talk "ending the influence" of lobbyists and money/corporations in politics... and most importantly he must walk it, 365 days of the year.
US foreign policy, the whole military-industrial complex is tied to the wants and needs of corporations....a policy of power and greed that has caused much suffering throughout the world. He only becomes a great president invoking real change when he ends that.
G West
4 years ago
Dunno Lynn
You may be expecting too much. The American ship of state is a big sucker...it's going to take more than one man, however principled, to turn it around.
Best hope, in my view, is for a real down and dirty recession come depression...under those circumstances, Obama may rise to the occasion like FDR did.
Plus, he comes from the wrong side of the tracks - that in itself is a huge positive.
G West
4 years ago
Interestingly enough
I begin to think pee wee Rambo is desperately hoping for an election this spring here in Canada - he knows, if the US votes Democratic and Obama is a bit of a fresh and radical new broom, that his days in Ottawa will be numbered if he can't get a majority now.
Anyone have any thoughts on that score?
ME2
4 years ago
Could be a problem for Pee Wee
I would guess, Garth, that would depend upon how well the other parties capitalise on the expectation for "change" that is sweeping the US, and challenge Harper with it, since my feeling is that we Canadians hope for the same.
ME2
4 years ago
Re Obama's "militarism"
Americans have had a huge standing Army for well over a Century now, and virtually every US family has a tradition of membership in the Armed Forces, in which they take great pride.
An appeal to these sentiments will cut across all constituencies, which Obama will need to attract the landslide he can now hope for.
He needs this to counteract the resistance to withdrawing from Iraq, which many will interpret as a defeat, as with Vietnam.
He also will have a problem if he downsizes the Armed Forces in an economic climate in which jobs are becoming increasingly scarce.
Rewarding those employers who create jobs locally, and dissuading those who export jobs will then become politically palatable.
G West
4 years ago
Yep ME2
I agree.
But I sense pee wee realizes his 'time' is running out. QED he wants an election 'now' before the effect of numerous and vociferous calls for 'change' in the excited states....and those calls are coming, Obama won 4 more states this weekend.
Pee Wee sees the writing on the wall - because the exact same problems of a stagnant middle class, a moribund health care system and a ridiculous tax regime are as true of Canada and our economy as they are in the States.
I think the opposition is nuts to go to the polls now though...better to jolly Harper along for a few more months and take advantage of the whip-saw effect that’s coming from down south.
G West
4 years ago
Billary is in trouble
The switch occurred at a time when Mrs. Clinton has found her campaign in a slump, coming off a split victory in a multistate round of nominating contests on Feb. 5 and losing badly in a string of state caucuses that relied on a high level of on-the-ground organizational skills at which the Obama campaign excelled.
At the same time, she suffered a setback over money, although in recent days the campaign has boasted of a $10 million month and many new donors.
Catherine Seelye - NYTimes Feb 11 2008
Frank
4 years ago
Canadian election
I think that Stephen Harper wants an election in the spring because the opportunities for electoral growth aren't that great. There is simply no growth happening in Conservative support already and the economy, in spite of its recent performance, is not expected to continue to do well in the face of the US recession. If the Conservatives have to start running deficits or making "hard choices" their hopes for electoral victory will certainly be dashed.
As for the US election, I don't think that Mr Harper would be too concerned with Barack Obama being elected in the US as I don't think there's any chance of an Obama-led USA being more progressive than a Harper-led Canada.
As James has said above, the best we could hope for from an Obama-led USA is some baby steps and a less toxic atmosphere.
Frank
4 years ago
Lynn
Agreed. I got that post from a left-wing guy who attended the rally in Omaha. He's been very supportive of Mr Obama in previous posts so I didn't expect him to offer anything negative.
The "strongest military" thing surprised me too but perhaps he's just playing it safe and not giving ammunition to the other side to use against him.
On the other hand, perhaps he means what he says and we can expect no cuts to Pentagon budgets.
Either way, judging by the turnout at his rallies, which look like the Beatles invasion, he's gonna be the next president.
ME2
4 years ago
Spring election for sure
Although I do not favour a Spring election, I think we're due for one anyway.
The voting pattern for dissolution is already set.
There being few ideological differences between the Liberals and the Conervatives, it's unlikely Dion would be any more comfortable with a later capitalising on Obama's call for "change" than would Harper.
There's also too much unwashed dirty laundry still lying around and too much risk of alienating campaign donors.
And how could Layton extricate himself from his pronouncements re Afganistan?
G West
4 years ago
Rock star stuff
The Obama rock star bandwagon is troubling...no question. Although I wouldn't likely feel that way if I were 19 years old!
But I'm never disappointed by the capacity of the average Canuck not to appreciate the differences between the US and Canada. I think an Obama election - and even moderate change in the US will spark a lot of change up here too...but then, I've spent a lot of time reading about what the Liberals and Kennedy did to the Diefenbaker Government.
I don't think things have changed all that much - and that's the problem.
I'd much rather see no election this spring - because of the shakeup in Quebec there is still a chance Harper will squeak out a small majority.
Dion and Layton should find a way to let pee wee stay in the hot seat a little longer...but they probably won't.
Frank
4 years ago
GWest
I think they should too. Having an election on the Afghan issue is the best Stephen Harper can hope for given the coming circumstances. Its reminiscent of the "free trade election" where he can be the sole champion of one side of the debate and the other side will be divided. (Sort of, like everyone else I have no real clue as to what the Liberals believe on that issue)
Right now, Mr Harper is not the world's biggest threat as he runs a minority government. Its perfect, people get tired of him without him having full dictatorial powers. The objective should be that he doesn't get a majority, and to do that we shouldn't fight on ground of his choosing.
lynn
4 years ago
Great expectations
G West
.
Ya think so? ;-) No, I plead guilty to that - you're probably right but my big concern (and I understand that baby steps may be better than doing nothing at all) is that we are dealing with a critical issue of time here. Will our baby steps be able to out-run the corporate Jolly Greenwashed Giant's gigantic and annihilistic ones? A giant too greedy and stupid to realize he's goin' down with the rest of us.
I think you may be quite right that the
"best hope, .... is for a real down and dirty recession come depression...under those circumstances, Obama may rise to the occasion like FDR did."... where change is forced upon both the public and the leader...and there is no way out but to deal with it.
lynn
4 years ago
The long and winding road
.
I think you're right, Frank. And despite all my real concerns over what I see as a smooth and calculated screen test that probably won't in the end deliver the performace promised, I like him, and wish him well and may the gods be with him.
My concern again ("concern" must be my word of the day ;-)) is for this country, Canada, if real change does not happen in the US.
It shouldn't be that way - we should have Canadian leaders protecting us in that regard. It seems a simple thing but instead we have betrayal after betrayal....and I know I'm not telling you anything new here....but we need real change here as well.
As you said on another thread, Frank - it is as simple as changing the system. I agree.
lynn
4 years ago
Obama
I want to qualify my "I like him " - I mean that in a purely personal sense. He is, politically, echoeing his own words to Hillary, "likeable enough"..... but not to me. ;-)
dr evil
4 years ago
obamarama
I like Obama: because
1) he`s black
2) he reminds me of Malcolm X
3) he has a quick wit and is obviously intelligent
4) He has a sense of humour and is quick to genuinely laugh or smile.
With what the world has put up with the last eight years from the chimp and his gang..that`ll be good enough for me...for now.