After thorough investigation, this is what we know about Sarah Palin, 44, John's running mate.
She is from Alaska, which is very close to Russia, so that makes her an expert in dealing with the Russian invasion of Georgia (A Fox News commentator seriously argued that her being the Governor of Alaska makes her competent in foreign affairs).
"She is typically seen walking the Capital halls in black or red power suits while reading text messages on BlackBerry screens in each hand. She often reads and dexterously types responses without upsetting her stride, but she'll stop to greet tourists." (The Oklahoman, August 30, 2008)
Oh, that's great then, because it shows that... er... she can... you know, when she's Vice President... that'll give her the guts to... er... send a nasty email to Ahmadinejad while saying hello to the Saudi tourists visiting the White House? I guess...
After two years in office, she's one of the most popular governor, with an 80 percent approval rating in her state of Alaska (polar bears -- whom she wants to take off the list of endangered species -- not included).
Sarah, in fact, does have more experience than Barack, because she has occupied an executive branch position. So, in fact, she also has more experience than Joe Biden and John McCain himself.
She is pro-gun.
She is a hunter, but that has nothing to do with the fact that she wants to take polar bears off the list of endangered species, I'm sure.
She was a beauty-pageant queen, so I guess that makes her an expert at relations with Europe because she can talk to France's First Lady.
Sarah is an evangelical Christian.
"She'll be the only person on the ticket from either party that knows what it is like to be a mom" (Cheryl Williams, a GOP delegate).
Oh, so that's cool, because when she is at the White House, she'll be able to... er... well... I guess, she'll know how to change the President's diapers. I mean, he's very old, and I don't see any other reason why being a mom qualifies her to be Vice-President. Sorry, I'm trying to understand.
Sarah once had broken fingers, fishing with her husband (The Oklahoman, August 30, 2008).
Well, that's good because... ??????... er... well... okay, let my staff get back to you later, okay...
Sarah's last child has Down syndrome.
Sarah is "pro-life" (it really means that she does not want to allow woman to choose whether they keep their fetus or not).
Sarah opposes gay marriage, of course.
Sarah says that global warming is not man-made.
Sarah, finally, is a woman. So John thinks all American women are going to vote for her. She thinks so too. She praised Hillary for "leaving 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass-ceiling," the one blocking women to reach the higher levels of society -- a reference to the 18 million voters Hillary inspired -- and she declared "It turns out that the women in America aren't finished yet, and we can shatter the glass ceiling."
So, I guess, that's why she's on the ticket.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
John and Sarah
John picked his running mate.
Her name is Sarah Palin.
You don't know her? That's okay, nobody does.
She was elected governor of Alaska two years ago. Before that, she was the mayor of an Alaskan town. Can't be big.
That's her resume.
If John dies in office -- well, he is very old, it could happen -- the two-year governor of Alaska will be president of the most powerful country of the planet.
Let me see, what else?
Oh yeah, she is very conservative, she is a woman, she has five kids and she is hot.
Is that sexist? Yes, of course, it is sexist to pick a running mate because she is a woman and because she is hot. But hey, you've got to do what you've got to do if you want the women who supported Hillary to vote for you.
That's not the reason why he picked her? Oh yeah, why then? Because of her experience as commander-in-chief of the polar bears?
Oh, did I mention she went back to work two days after she gave birth? It's true, they said so on the telly. If they said so, it must be very important to be Vice-President. It means she works hard. And it also means her baby is also very hard-working and independent. Coping alone with the hard Alaska life at two days old!
It's sad. This election was on its way to be very interesting. But when one of the candidates takes his voters for morons so early in the campaign, it is kind of anticlimactic.
John wants to make history as much as his opponent. If he wins, Sarah will be the first woman Vice President. Something Barack refused to do by picking Hillary. All this is implied by this VP choice. Nothing else -- apart from her strong conservative ideology -- can justify it. But her ideology is not enough. He could have picked someone else with the same ideology. Mike Huckabee for example.
John's pick is not only insulting to Sarah, it is also insulting to all women and to all Republican voters.
Her name is Sarah Palin.
You don't know her? That's okay, nobody does.
She was elected governor of Alaska two years ago. Before that, she was the mayor of an Alaskan town. Can't be big.
That's her resume.
If John dies in office -- well, he is very old, it could happen -- the two-year governor of Alaska will be president of the most powerful country of the planet.
Let me see, what else?
Oh yeah, she is very conservative, she is a woman, she has five kids and she is hot.
Is that sexist? Yes, of course, it is sexist to pick a running mate because she is a woman and because she is hot. But hey, you've got to do what you've got to do if you want the women who supported Hillary to vote for you.
That's not the reason why he picked her? Oh yeah, why then? Because of her experience as commander-in-chief of the polar bears?
Oh, did I mention she went back to work two days after she gave birth? It's true, they said so on the telly. If they said so, it must be very important to be Vice-President. It means she works hard. And it also means her baby is also very hard-working and independent. Coping alone with the hard Alaska life at two days old!
It's sad. This election was on its way to be very interesting. But when one of the candidates takes his voters for morons so early in the campaign, it is kind of anticlimactic.
John wants to make history as much as his opponent. If he wins, Sarah will be the first woman Vice President. Something Barack refused to do by picking Hillary. All this is implied by this VP choice. Nothing else -- apart from her strong conservative ideology -- can justify it. But her ideology is not enough. He could have picked someone else with the same ideology. Mike Huckabee for example.
John's pick is not only insulting to Sarah, it is also insulting to all women and to all Republican voters.
Al, Barack and intelligent politics
Yesterday was the last day of the Democratic National Convention. It was taking place in a football stadium in Denver. It was the big night, the night of Barack's acceptance speech.
Before he accepted the nomination, though, in front of about 80,000 people, Al Gore, former Vice-President under Bill Clinton and loser/winner of the 2000 election, gave the best political speech of the Convention, which was full of good speeches, and probably one of the best speeches I have ever heard.
Al gave in to family-history-sentimentalism rhetoric for one minute only towards the end of his speech. The rest was real politics, intelligent, clear, progressive, honest, thoroughly addressing the issues that need to be addressed. Clearly, Al Gore does not intend to run for anything.
Yet, he should be president. Not only because he would have been if the American electoral system was not screwed up, but above all because he is an intelligent man, seems to know what he is talking about, and, yes, I give in to the fashionable word, he is inspiring. And I haven't even seen An Inconvenient Truth.
At some point, there was even a bizarre moment of Back-to-the-Future realization of everything that could/should have happened during the last eight years when he said what the country would have done instead of what it has done had he been the President. You know, in Back To The Future II, Marty's present is the 1980s. At the beginning of the movie, he goes to 2025 or something. Then he finds an almanach with all the sports results of the last half century. His bully -- I forget the name -- finds it and finds the time machine and goes back to the 1980s. When Marty finally returns to the 80s, his world has been completely transformed into an post-apocalyptic Springfield because the bully became super-rich thanks to the almanach and reigns over the town.
Well, I might be weird but that's what came to my mind yesterday when Al talked about what could have happened if his victory had not been stolen in 2000. I wanted to put him in a time machine, go with him, kill Florida, and see what happens!
The inconvenient truth is that Al is too smart to be elected. As LeAnn said, he gave a speech that Bush could not understand. And neither half of the voters. If Al had been running for President, that speeech would have been too smart, too high-brow, too "elitist," the Republicans would have said.
The man who recovered from a post-defeat-although-he-won-really depression by making a show of global warming and touring the world with it, was not in for the show last night. He was there for the indictment of the usurper of his position and to focus on the change they are all talking about.
Change, change, change!
For a long time during this campaign -- which officially only starts now for Barack by the way -- that is only what we could hear. Change! "Yes we can." Well, maybe for the first time as clearly, Barack Obama explained yesterday what change meant to him.
"I accept your nomination for the presidency of the United Sates," he started. And then, for the first time really, he explained why John would be a bad president, for the first ime really he indicted George W. Bush.
For the first time, he said to John: Cut the crap! Referring to the negative ads that his opponent keeps running, he made clear that yes he loves his country, yes he has enough experience, yes he can be commander-in-chief, yes this campaign deserves better than calling each other celebrities. John McCain, if you want to debate about what this election should be about, I'm ready!
And he said what he would do. Of course, it was an electoral speech, and he won't probably be able to do eveything he says he wants to do. But he gave specifics, and at least theoretically, it seems to be coherent and ideologically progressive.
I highly recomment the listening of these two speeches on the net. Go ahead, they are not boring.
Before he accepted the nomination, though, in front of about 80,000 people, Al Gore, former Vice-President under Bill Clinton and loser/winner of the 2000 election, gave the best political speech of the Convention, which was full of good speeches, and probably one of the best speeches I have ever heard.
Al gave in to family-history-sentimentalism rhetoric for one minute only towards the end of his speech. The rest was real politics, intelligent, clear, progressive, honest, thoroughly addressing the issues that need to be addressed. Clearly, Al Gore does not intend to run for anything.
Yet, he should be president. Not only because he would have been if the American electoral system was not screwed up, but above all because he is an intelligent man, seems to know what he is talking about, and, yes, I give in to the fashionable word, he is inspiring. And I haven't even seen An Inconvenient Truth.
At some point, there was even a bizarre moment of Back-to-the-Future realization of everything that could/should have happened during the last eight years when he said what the country would have done instead of what it has done had he been the President. You know, in Back To The Future II, Marty's present is the 1980s. At the beginning of the movie, he goes to 2025 or something. Then he finds an almanach with all the sports results of the last half century. His bully -- I forget the name -- finds it and finds the time machine and goes back to the 1980s. When Marty finally returns to the 80s, his world has been completely transformed into an post-apocalyptic Springfield because the bully became super-rich thanks to the almanach and reigns over the town.
Well, I might be weird but that's what came to my mind yesterday when Al talked about what could have happened if his victory had not been stolen in 2000. I wanted to put him in a time machine, go with him, kill Florida, and see what happens!
The inconvenient truth is that Al is too smart to be elected. As LeAnn said, he gave a speech that Bush could not understand. And neither half of the voters. If Al had been running for President, that speeech would have been too smart, too high-brow, too "elitist," the Republicans would have said.
The man who recovered from a post-defeat-although-he-won-really depression by making a show of global warming and touring the world with it, was not in for the show last night. He was there for the indictment of the usurper of his position and to focus on the change they are all talking about.
Change, change, change!
For a long time during this campaign -- which officially only starts now for Barack by the way -- that is only what we could hear. Change! "Yes we can." Well, maybe for the first time as clearly, Barack Obama explained yesterday what change meant to him.
"I accept your nomination for the presidency of the United Sates," he started. And then, for the first time really, he explained why John would be a bad president, for the first ime really he indicted George W. Bush.
For the first time, he said to John: Cut the crap! Referring to the negative ads that his opponent keeps running, he made clear that yes he loves his country, yes he has enough experience, yes he can be commander-in-chief, yes this campaign deserves better than calling each other celebrities. John McCain, if you want to debate about what this election should be about, I'm ready!
And he said what he would do. Of course, it was an electoral speech, and he won't probably be able to do eveything he says he wants to do. But he gave specifics, and at least theoretically, it seems to be coherent and ideologically progressive.
I highly recomment the listening of these two speeches on the net. Go ahead, they are not boring.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Barack and his nomination by acclamation
That's it, Barack is the candidate of the Democratic Party for the Presidency. The suspense is over.
Yesterday, the Democrats were in their third convention day, and that was the day that was supposed to remind us what a convention was for. Historically, the convention allowed the delegates of all states to meet and to elect their candidate. That was in pre-media age, of course, since we now know who the candidate is as soon as the results of the primaries are out.
However, to make sure the convention is not only a huge expensive party, the tradition remains and the roll call still takes place. Yesterday, then, the delegates were called one state at a time and were asked to cast their votes.
But an unusual procedure interrupted the procedure. When came the turn of the state of New York, Senator of New York Hillary put a motion forward: "I move that Senator Barack Obama of Illinois be selected by this convention by acclamation as the nominee of the Democratic Party for President of the United States."
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, then asked for a second -- the motion needs to be approved by at least one other delegate -- before asking the convention to approve the motion. The second was met with a roar, and another roar signaled the approbation of the motion.
This procedure is a way to elect a nominee unanimously, so it is of course very powerful as a symbol of unity.
Politics is of course more and more made of symbols. The nomination by acclamation is one of them. The fact that is was moved by Hillary, Barack's opponent for 18 months, is also a symbol.
These symbols are good for the morale of the troops, they are met with cheers, with joyful tears, but can you win an election with symbols only?
Yesterday, the Democrats were in their third convention day, and that was the day that was supposed to remind us what a convention was for. Historically, the convention allowed the delegates of all states to meet and to elect their candidate. That was in pre-media age, of course, since we now know who the candidate is as soon as the results of the primaries are out.
However, to make sure the convention is not only a huge expensive party, the tradition remains and the roll call still takes place. Yesterday, then, the delegates were called one state at a time and were asked to cast their votes.
But an unusual procedure interrupted the procedure. When came the turn of the state of New York, Senator of New York Hillary put a motion forward: "I move that Senator Barack Obama of Illinois be selected by this convention by acclamation as the nominee of the Democratic Party for President of the United States."
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, then asked for a second -- the motion needs to be approved by at least one other delegate -- before asking the convention to approve the motion. The second was met with a roar, and another roar signaled the approbation of the motion.
This procedure is a way to elect a nominee unanimously, so it is of course very powerful as a symbol of unity.
Politics is of course more and more made of symbols. The nomination by acclamation is one of them. The fact that is was moved by Hillary, Barack's opponent for 18 months, is also a symbol.
These symbols are good for the morale of the troops, they are met with cheers, with joyful tears, but can you win an election with symbols only?
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Hillary, Hillary, Hillary! Hillary!!!
Surprise, surprise! Hillary whole-heartedly endorsed Barack.
Yeah, it's a surprise because for three whole days, all the journalists and commentators of all TV channels were wondering what Hillary would say, whether she would gut at McCain, support Obama, invade Russia. They were really scaring the crap out of me. I really thought she was going to say, at the Democratic Convention, that McCain would be the greatest president ever, that the poor guy had been a POW so he deserved to be in the White House for eight years, that the Constitution should be amended to allow him to run again and again.
Some even went as far as speculating that she wanted Obama to lose and McCain to win, because then it would give her a sure opportunity to be elected in four years. Oh, and that her middle name was really Machiavelli.
But no, 20 seconds in a speech, she said "I am proud to be a supporter of Barack Obama."
I was so relieved. I don't know what the journalists are going to talk about now. I guess they are not going to show up on TV today.
The thing is, apparently, according to some polls, a huge proportion of her supporters are not ready to vote for Obama and had rather vote for McCain.
Hm, I'm sorry, dear Hillary-supporter, but what the heck is wrong with you. I don't quite fathom the depth of your stupidity if you vote for the guy who is simply antithetical to what your beloved Hillary believed in. Sure, Hillary and Barack slightly disagreed on a few issues, but fundamentally, they want the same thing. Sure, they were opponents within the same party, but that's because they are both ambitious and megalomaniacs (just like any other public figure; yes, you have to be a little bit ambitious and megalomaniac if you feel you have something to say to huge audiences; come to that, I am a megalomaniac -- okay a small one -- because I feel bold and confident enough to address the two readers of my blog, my wife and my mommy).
But now, it's over, Hillary lost, get used to it, swallow the pill, and listen to her: "Were you in this campaign just for me?" If you were, you do not deserve a good leader, you deserve a monster-demago-megalomaniac who will put his portrait on huge billboards at every street corner. And, every time you see a portrait, you can kneel down and worship it.
Hillary-supporter, voting for John would offend the one you supported. So come on, listen to her and be proud of her. You can be, because last night, Tuesday 26, 2008, she delivered what was probably her best speech ever.
And she'll be president in eight years.
Yeah, it's a surprise because for three whole days, all the journalists and commentators of all TV channels were wondering what Hillary would say, whether she would gut at McCain, support Obama, invade Russia. They were really scaring the crap out of me. I really thought she was going to say, at the Democratic Convention, that McCain would be the greatest president ever, that the poor guy had been a POW so he deserved to be in the White House for eight years, that the Constitution should be amended to allow him to run again and again.
Some even went as far as speculating that she wanted Obama to lose and McCain to win, because then it would give her a sure opportunity to be elected in four years. Oh, and that her middle name was really Machiavelli.
But no, 20 seconds in a speech, she said "I am proud to be a supporter of Barack Obama."
I was so relieved. I don't know what the journalists are going to talk about now. I guess they are not going to show up on TV today.
The thing is, apparently, according to some polls, a huge proportion of her supporters are not ready to vote for Obama and had rather vote for McCain.
Hm, I'm sorry, dear Hillary-supporter, but what the heck is wrong with you. I don't quite fathom the depth of your stupidity if you vote for the guy who is simply antithetical to what your beloved Hillary believed in. Sure, Hillary and Barack slightly disagreed on a few issues, but fundamentally, they want the same thing. Sure, they were opponents within the same party, but that's because they are both ambitious and megalomaniacs (just like any other public figure; yes, you have to be a little bit ambitious and megalomaniac if you feel you have something to say to huge audiences; come to that, I am a megalomaniac -- okay a small one -- because I feel bold and confident enough to address the two readers of my blog, my wife and my mommy).
But now, it's over, Hillary lost, get used to it, swallow the pill, and listen to her: "Were you in this campaign just for me?" If you were, you do not deserve a good leader, you deserve a monster-demago-megalomaniac who will put his portrait on huge billboards at every street corner. And, every time you see a portrait, you can kneel down and worship it.
Hillary-supporter, voting for John would offend the one you supported. So come on, listen to her and be proud of her. You can be, because last night, Tuesday 26, 2008, she delivered what was probably her best speech ever.
And she'll be president in eight years.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
John and Jay (and the French)
Oh, man, that's funny! John, you're killing me, really!
Okay, so, you remember that last week, John could not tell how many houses he and his wife own, right.
Well, a week later, last night, the guy goes to a comedy show hosted by excellent Jay Leno. Okay, if I'm John McCain, and I plan to go for a chat with witty Jay, I know the dude is gonna make fun of me about my not knowing how many houses I own, blah blah blah. So I'm gonna work all week to get my answers straight, right. I'm gonna talk to my staff, summon a meeting or something, and I'm gonna find out how many houses I own, so that I don't make the same blunder twice in a week.
So John goes to chat with Jay. And of course, Jay asks John, ah ah ah, how many houses he owns. Well, John is a funny guy. He could give a straight answer, right, like "yes, I admit, I own ten houses, you see, my wife is very rich, etc, etc." But no. Because he is the guest of a comedy show he says: "You know, could I just mention to you, Jay, in a moment of seriousness, that I spent five and a half years in a prison cell, I did not have a house, I didn't have a kitchen table, I didn't have a table, I didn't have a chair."
Oh, John, you're my man. That was hilarious. Can I elect you President of France? Pleeeeeease?
Note for my friends in France: the funny guy is very happy about Nicolas. "The French, 80% of their electricity is generated by nuclear power. We want to imitate the French, of course. We have the President of France who is pro-American, which shows anything can happen if you live long enough."
John, come on, remember when you were a kid, the French helped the Americans in their revolution.
Okay, so, you remember that last week, John could not tell how many houses he and his wife own, right.
Well, a week later, last night, the guy goes to a comedy show hosted by excellent Jay Leno. Okay, if I'm John McCain, and I plan to go for a chat with witty Jay, I know the dude is gonna make fun of me about my not knowing how many houses I own, blah blah blah. So I'm gonna work all week to get my answers straight, right. I'm gonna talk to my staff, summon a meeting or something, and I'm gonna find out how many houses I own, so that I don't make the same blunder twice in a week.
So John goes to chat with Jay. And of course, Jay asks John, ah ah ah, how many houses he owns. Well, John is a funny guy. He could give a straight answer, right, like "yes, I admit, I own ten houses, you see, my wife is very rich, etc, etc." But no. Because he is the guest of a comedy show he says: "You know, could I just mention to you, Jay, in a moment of seriousness, that I spent five and a half years in a prison cell, I did not have a house, I didn't have a kitchen table, I didn't have a table, I didn't have a chair."
Oh, John, you're my man. That was hilarious. Can I elect you President of France? Pleeeeeease?
Note for my friends in France: the funny guy is very happy about Nicolas. "The French, 80% of their electricity is generated by nuclear power. We want to imitate the French, of course. We have the President of France who is pro-American, which shows anything can happen if you live long enough."
John, come on, remember when you were a kid, the French helped the Americans in their revolution.
Teddy and Michelle in Denver, Hillary everywhere
Yesterday, Monday 25, 2008, was the first day of the Democratic Convention, taking place this year in Denver, Colorado.
Originally, the party conventions were meetings in which the delegates of each party casted their vote to choose their nominee to run for president.
Today, in the age of fast communication and technology, we know, of course who the nominees are, even though they are still referred in the media as "presumptive nominees."
Yet, the conventions still take place. The vote -- the roll call -- will still take place (on Wednesday) but the conventions serve other purposes today.
Basically, they are huge and very expensive parties -- the Democratic Convention will end on Thursday night, and they gather thousands of people -- where the music is interrupted with speeches of key figures of the party.
What do they talk about? Well, sometimes, they talk about political and social issues, the platform of the party. Mostly, though, they talk about their families and their personal histories, and they say "God bless America" and "God bless you all," and they make people cry in the audience.
Okay, so from the French arrogant and cynical point of view, this has nothing to do with politics. A campaign should be about what people want for their society, for their country, and should not care about the candidate's first communion or whether he is nice to his neighbors or not. And the wife of the candidate should not give a speech unless she is a political figure, and the kids of the candidate should not come on stage because they are 10 and 7 and they are not political figures.
In last year's French election, Nicolas, now our dear President, gave such an American taste to his campaign, and it was very annoying. He recurrently appeared with wife and children and that was relatively new, at least to the extent he was doing it. This very American -- and now, I fear, French practice -- gives democracy a monarchical taste, in the sense that monarchy, especially in modern times, is not much else than a show. Get the Queen out for the spectacle of politics while social issues are, or are not, tackled backstage.
When politics is reduced to that show, it is probably rather problematic.
However, this is what people want and need. So Teddy Kennedy and Michelle Obama, yesterday, did an amazing job.
Michelle Obama's big brother first introduced his sister and talked about how good and generous she was. Then Michelle talked about herself, her parents and her husband. She told how poor they were when they were kids, how hard-working her parents were, how they did every sacrifice possible to allow their kids to get a good education. It was very tear-pulling and heart-wrenching for the non-cynical.
But she did what she had to do. Barack's adversaries describe him as an elitist, out of touch with the common Americans. So someone had to set the record straight, had to tell where he comes from, had to depict the blue-collar background that is his. How can you say of someone who was born in poverty, who grew up in a single-mother family, who climbed up the social ladder by simply working hard that he is an elitist. The accusation is plain ridiculous, and Michelle's speech made sure the accusation would sound ridiculous from now on.
In a campaign when the accusations are more about your private life than about your political stances, you cannot simply address political issues when you talk to the voters.
Last night, if you were not moved by Michelle, you had to be moved by Teddy, who spoke before. The guy is fighting a brain cancer, he has had an almost 50 year-old political career in which he fought for what his two assassinated brothers fought, equal civil rights for everybody, and he delivers the only speech that actually addressed some issues -- health care for everybody -- and that tried to unite a divided party around the hope for a better future that their candidate want to inspire. His very presence played the part of moving the teary-eyed audience; he just had to stand there to convey emotions that reach back to November 1963. So he could let his bodily presence play that part and give a political speech.
Even the French arrogant cynic that I am had to concede that yesterday's speeches at the Democratic Convention were darn good and smart politically.
In the meantime, commentators kept talking about what Hillary would say tonight. Is she going to be passionate about her former rival. Are her supporters going to finally swallow the pill of the defeat and see what is more important for them now, the victory of their party's candidate. 25% of Hillary's supporters claim they are going to vote for McCain. Come people, are you voting for a person or for issues that are dear to you? How can you possibly consider voting for John when you supported Hillary? That does not make much sense, does it?
Originally, the party conventions were meetings in which the delegates of each party casted their vote to choose their nominee to run for president.
Today, in the age of fast communication and technology, we know, of course who the nominees are, even though they are still referred in the media as "presumptive nominees."
Yet, the conventions still take place. The vote -- the roll call -- will still take place (on Wednesday) but the conventions serve other purposes today.
Basically, they are huge and very expensive parties -- the Democratic Convention will end on Thursday night, and they gather thousands of people -- where the music is interrupted with speeches of key figures of the party.
What do they talk about? Well, sometimes, they talk about political and social issues, the platform of the party. Mostly, though, they talk about their families and their personal histories, and they say "God bless America" and "God bless you all," and they make people cry in the audience.
Okay, so from the French arrogant and cynical point of view, this has nothing to do with politics. A campaign should be about what people want for their society, for their country, and should not care about the candidate's first communion or whether he is nice to his neighbors or not. And the wife of the candidate should not give a speech unless she is a political figure, and the kids of the candidate should not come on stage because they are 10 and 7 and they are not political figures.
In last year's French election, Nicolas, now our dear President, gave such an American taste to his campaign, and it was very annoying. He recurrently appeared with wife and children and that was relatively new, at least to the extent he was doing it. This very American -- and now, I fear, French practice -- gives democracy a monarchical taste, in the sense that monarchy, especially in modern times, is not much else than a show. Get the Queen out for the spectacle of politics while social issues are, or are not, tackled backstage.
When politics is reduced to that show, it is probably rather problematic.
However, this is what people want and need. So Teddy Kennedy and Michelle Obama, yesterday, did an amazing job.
Michelle Obama's big brother first introduced his sister and talked about how good and generous she was. Then Michelle talked about herself, her parents and her husband. She told how poor they were when they were kids, how hard-working her parents were, how they did every sacrifice possible to allow their kids to get a good education. It was very tear-pulling and heart-wrenching for the non-cynical.
But she did what she had to do. Barack's adversaries describe him as an elitist, out of touch with the common Americans. So someone had to set the record straight, had to tell where he comes from, had to depict the blue-collar background that is his. How can you say of someone who was born in poverty, who grew up in a single-mother family, who climbed up the social ladder by simply working hard that he is an elitist. The accusation is plain ridiculous, and Michelle's speech made sure the accusation would sound ridiculous from now on.
In a campaign when the accusations are more about your private life than about your political stances, you cannot simply address political issues when you talk to the voters.
Last night, if you were not moved by Michelle, you had to be moved by Teddy, who spoke before. The guy is fighting a brain cancer, he has had an almost 50 year-old political career in which he fought for what his two assassinated brothers fought, equal civil rights for everybody, and he delivers the only speech that actually addressed some issues -- health care for everybody -- and that tried to unite a divided party around the hope for a better future that their candidate want to inspire. His very presence played the part of moving the teary-eyed audience; he just had to stand there to convey emotions that reach back to November 1963. So he could let his bodily presence play that part and give a political speech.
Even the French arrogant cynic that I am had to concede that yesterday's speeches at the Democratic Convention were darn good and smart politically.
In the meantime, commentators kept talking about what Hillary would say tonight. Is she going to be passionate about her former rival. Are her supporters going to finally swallow the pill of the defeat and see what is more important for them now, the victory of their party's candidate. 25% of Hillary's supporters claim they are going to vote for McCain. Come people, are you voting for a person or for issues that are dear to you? How can you possibly consider voting for John when you supported Hillary? That does not make much sense, does it?
Sunday, August 24, 2008
John, Barack and abortion
In US politics, especially during election times, abortion is a thorny issue. It has emerged -- or re-emerged -- in the current campaign a week ago when Rick Warren, the pastor of a California superchurch, talked with John and Barack about several issues.
First, from a French point of view, it can look disturbing that the two major candidates for the presidential election are being "interviewed" by a religious leader live on TV. I might come back to that subject in a subsequent post.
Today, however, I want to focus on the specific issue of abortion because some media decided to focus on this issue this past week.
The debate sometimes reaches hardly believable levels of stupidity, intolerance and extremism. Barack, as a pro-choice, that is as a defender of women's individual rights to abort, is accused by some of favoring infanticide or of being a baby-killing extremist. Some prominent conservative figures, like Sam Brownback, talk about a "holocaust" to refer to the 40 million abortions that have taken place since Roe v. Wade in 1973, Roe v. Wade is the Supreme Court decision that declared that abortion was a right, a decision that conservative activists want to see overturned.
This kind of talk can be deemed shocking in its own right. No other comment is necessary.
Last week, Rick Warren asked John and Barack their view on the question by asking the following question: "At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?" The question in itself, of course, is biased. The use of the term "baby" instead of "fetus" emotionally predetermines the answer that is morally right to give. Besides, no one wants to publicly say anything against "human rights."
Barack gave the following answer, according to editorialist Kathleen Parker: "Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade."
John gave the following answer, without thinking for a second after the question was asked: "At the moment of conception."
And that's where commentators stop and build whole stories and hour-long debates. That is how they report the candidates' answers to that tricky question. Of course, Barack is being derided and ridiculed for giving a hesitant answer, and an answer which is a way to escape the issue. The way Kathleen Parker transcribes the uhs and the you know-s is obviously a comment in itself on how Barack is afraid of confessing he is pro-choice.
The problem is these commentators are plainly dishonest and are not courageous enough to look beyond their own personal views of the issue.
First of all, Barack is talking in front of a Christian audience whom he knows condemn abortion. So, of course, he is probably a bit nervous.
Besides, Barack is in fact the one who gives the most complete and intellectually valid answer. How can anyone be as self-confident, even arrogant -- or even to use the terminology of the those who call themselves pro-life, god-like -- enough to answer, in the most assertive way, without blinking, such a difficult question? People have debated for decades about the issue of when life starts and when the limit should be to allow or forbid abortion, and John, in the fraction of a second, solves the issue and thinks the answer he gives is enough to conclude the debate.
John proceeds to say that he has a "25-year record of pro-life policy in the Senate" and that his presidency will be a "pro-life presidency." That does not say much of abortion per se, philosophically, theologically, socially, not even politically. It only says that John has been for 25 years as self-confident and arrogant about this very complex issue as he is today and he does not plan to change.
Besides, John, calling yourself "pro-life" when you are ready to send soldiers be killed in Iraq for 100 years if necessary, is sadly ironic.
On the contrary, Barack actually addressed the issue. After he said that talking about abortion theologically or scientifically was "above my pay grade" -- in which he is right of course, since he is neither a theologian nor a scientist and so like most of us, he cannot have a definitive theological or scientific answer about abortion -- he addressed the issue socially, which is what political and social officials should do, since abortion is a social issue.
Barack first concedes that there is a moral and ethical dimension to the issue. So he does not condemn people who call themselves "pro-life" as Christian fundamentalists. Some pro-choice advocates do that, and they are wrong, because it is certainly not helping the debate.
Then, he clearly syas that he is pro-choice and that he believes in Roe v. Wade. He does not beat about the bush, he does not hide a position that he knows is risky for him. He explains why he is pro-choice: "I don't think women make these decisions casually." No, they don't, and it is an insult to them to dismiss the issue as casually as John did. Many women who abort do so because their pregnancy endangers their life. Very importantly, Barack says that his being pro-choice does not mean he is pro-abortion. This is too often the ridiculous equation that the advocates against abortion make: pro-choice = pro-abortion. You can personally be unfavorable to abortion and yet believe that individuals should be free to choose whether they personally want to abort or not. Pro-choice advocates do not demonstrate in front of maternities brandishing signs that say "Abort! Abort!"
Barack asks the critical question: "What can we do to reduce the number of abortions?"
The US ranks at the top of the chart for the highest number of teenage pregnancies. If young girls knew what they were doing when they have sex for the first time, if they were not afraid -- because of predominant hypocritical taboos -- of asking and learning about their sexuality, they would know better than getting pregnant in high school and aborting without telling anyone about it because of the guilt they would be made to feel.
It is high time the US woke up and smelled the stench of the hypocrisy of all that.
Let's give the final words to Benjamin Franklin: "If mine, then, is a religious Offence, leave it, Gentlemen, to religious Punishments. You have already excluded me from all the Comforts of your Church Communion: Is not that Sufficient? You believe I have offended Heaven, and must suffer eternal Fire: Will not that be sufficient? What need is there, then, of your additional Fines and Whippings? I own, I do not think as you do; for, if I thought, what you call a Sin, was really such, I would not presumptuously commit it."
He wrote this about 250 years ago as fictional Miss Polly Baker talking to her judges. Ironcially, she was being judged for having children out of wedlock. Times change. The hypocrisy of the condemning moral voices do not.
First, from a French point of view, it can look disturbing that the two major candidates for the presidential election are being "interviewed" by a religious leader live on TV. I might come back to that subject in a subsequent post.
Today, however, I want to focus on the specific issue of abortion because some media decided to focus on this issue this past week.
The debate sometimes reaches hardly believable levels of stupidity, intolerance and extremism. Barack, as a pro-choice, that is as a defender of women's individual rights to abort, is accused by some of favoring infanticide or of being a baby-killing extremist. Some prominent conservative figures, like Sam Brownback, talk about a "holocaust" to refer to the 40 million abortions that have taken place since Roe v. Wade in 1973, Roe v. Wade is the Supreme Court decision that declared that abortion was a right, a decision that conservative activists want to see overturned.
This kind of talk can be deemed shocking in its own right. No other comment is necessary.
Last week, Rick Warren asked John and Barack their view on the question by asking the following question: "At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?" The question in itself, of course, is biased. The use of the term "baby" instead of "fetus" emotionally predetermines the answer that is morally right to give. Besides, no one wants to publicly say anything against "human rights."
Barack gave the following answer, according to editorialist Kathleen Parker: "Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade."
John gave the following answer, without thinking for a second after the question was asked: "At the moment of conception."
And that's where commentators stop and build whole stories and hour-long debates. That is how they report the candidates' answers to that tricky question. Of course, Barack is being derided and ridiculed for giving a hesitant answer, and an answer which is a way to escape the issue. The way Kathleen Parker transcribes the uhs and the you know-s is obviously a comment in itself on how Barack is afraid of confessing he is pro-choice.
The problem is these commentators are plainly dishonest and are not courageous enough to look beyond their own personal views of the issue.
First of all, Barack is talking in front of a Christian audience whom he knows condemn abortion. So, of course, he is probably a bit nervous.
Besides, Barack is in fact the one who gives the most complete and intellectually valid answer. How can anyone be as self-confident, even arrogant -- or even to use the terminology of the those who call themselves pro-life, god-like -- enough to answer, in the most assertive way, without blinking, such a difficult question? People have debated for decades about the issue of when life starts and when the limit should be to allow or forbid abortion, and John, in the fraction of a second, solves the issue and thinks the answer he gives is enough to conclude the debate.
John proceeds to say that he has a "25-year record of pro-life policy in the Senate" and that his presidency will be a "pro-life presidency." That does not say much of abortion per se, philosophically, theologically, socially, not even politically. It only says that John has been for 25 years as self-confident and arrogant about this very complex issue as he is today and he does not plan to change.
Besides, John, calling yourself "pro-life" when you are ready to send soldiers be killed in Iraq for 100 years if necessary, is sadly ironic.
On the contrary, Barack actually addressed the issue. After he said that talking about abortion theologically or scientifically was "above my pay grade" -- in which he is right of course, since he is neither a theologian nor a scientist and so like most of us, he cannot have a definitive theological or scientific answer about abortion -- he addressed the issue socially, which is what political and social officials should do, since abortion is a social issue.
Barack first concedes that there is a moral and ethical dimension to the issue. So he does not condemn people who call themselves "pro-life" as Christian fundamentalists. Some pro-choice advocates do that, and they are wrong, because it is certainly not helping the debate.
Then, he clearly syas that he is pro-choice and that he believes in Roe v. Wade. He does not beat about the bush, he does not hide a position that he knows is risky for him. He explains why he is pro-choice: "I don't think women make these decisions casually." No, they don't, and it is an insult to them to dismiss the issue as casually as John did. Many women who abort do so because their pregnancy endangers their life. Very importantly, Barack says that his being pro-choice does not mean he is pro-abortion. This is too often the ridiculous equation that the advocates against abortion make: pro-choice = pro-abortion. You can personally be unfavorable to abortion and yet believe that individuals should be free to choose whether they personally want to abort or not. Pro-choice advocates do not demonstrate in front of maternities brandishing signs that say "Abort! Abort!"
Barack asks the critical question: "What can we do to reduce the number of abortions?"
The US ranks at the top of the chart for the highest number of teenage pregnancies. If young girls knew what they were doing when they have sex for the first time, if they were not afraid -- because of predominant hypocritical taboos -- of asking and learning about their sexuality, they would know better than getting pregnant in high school and aborting without telling anyone about it because of the guilt they would be made to feel.
It is high time the US woke up and smelled the stench of the hypocrisy of all that.
Let's give the final words to Benjamin Franklin: "If mine, then, is a religious Offence, leave it, Gentlemen, to religious Punishments. You have already excluded me from all the Comforts of your Church Communion: Is not that Sufficient? You believe I have offended Heaven, and must suffer eternal Fire: Will not that be sufficient? What need is there, then, of your additional Fines and Whippings? I own, I do not think as you do; for, if I thought, what you call a Sin, was really such, I would not presumptuously commit it."
He wrote this about 250 years ago as fictional Miss Polly Baker talking to her judges. Ironcially, she was being judged for having children out of wedlock. Times change. The hypocrisy of the condemning moral voices do not.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
John's housing problem and Barack's Joe
So many things have happened in the last few days that I have had difficulties to keep up without staying all day in front of the TV.
Two major events, though, are worth mentioning.
Barack has chosen his Vice-Presidential candidate.
Much more shattering news: John does not know how many houses he owns. Two days ago, he was asked in an interview how many houses he and his wife owned. He answered Er... I am unsure. Let my staff get back to you, ok.
I beg your pardon, John, you don't know how many houses you own? Do you know where you live after these many months in your private jet? Write it down on a post-it and stick it on your plane tablet, my friend, because if you lose, you will need to get back home, in any one of them, and you might be in trouble if you don't know where to go.
Since that lapse of memory, John's housing problem has been a running joke for just about everybody that is not a Republican. Keith Olberman, brilliant MSNBC guy, refers to it about 20 times per show and does not get tired of it. Me neither, I have to admit.
To explain the blunder -- yes, the blunders always get to be explained by spokesmen, and the explanation are always worse than the blunders, always -- a McCain spokesman declared Mr McCain lived more than five years in the same home, and that was prison. The spokesman referred to his candidate being a prisoner of war for five years in Vietnam.
John has the tendency to use his POW status as an excuse for everything, and I think that this is going to piss people off. The war in Iraq has become less than a priority for American voters struggling with recession, but if John keeps referring to his POW status so often, he might remind voters of a war that they used to hate.
John, I am very sorry for what you endured in Vietnam, but it does not make you a better man, it does not even make you an expert in foreign affairs.
A piece of advice, John. The only way to explain your housing blunder without appearing out of touch is to concede you are too old to remember. I know, it would be counterproductive with your trying to define Barack as too young and inexperienced, but it would be moving.
Last night, at 3.00am, Barack text messaged me (yes, Barack and I are so close he sends me text messages in the middle of the night). He was telling me that he had picked his VP. All week, he kept it a secret (I don't really know why), the cameras of CNN were in front of three houses -- not all Biden's houses (he owns one) but the houses of three contenders -- filming nothing expecting probably Barack to appear rushing at one of the three front doors screaming I want you! I want you! Please be my Veep! But he finally announced it by the text message he sent me last night, and that's why I am telling you now so that the TV journalists have something concrete to talk about today.
He picked Joe Biden, Senator of Delaware. He is not very well-known but experts say he is the best choice because he know foreign affairs very well and he is more experienced than his teammate. The National Convention of the Democrats start in two days. We are living exciting times.
Prediction of the day: John was doing better last week, but at the end of this week, I still see Barack winning. And I don't think Hillary will be picked as VP. To tell you the truth, I think she is pissed off and I look forward to her and her husband's speeches at the convention.
I'll let you know.
Two major events, though, are worth mentioning.
Barack has chosen his Vice-Presidential candidate.
Much more shattering news: John does not know how many houses he owns. Two days ago, he was asked in an interview how many houses he and his wife owned. He answered Er... I am unsure. Let my staff get back to you, ok.
I beg your pardon, John, you don't know how many houses you own? Do you know where you live after these many months in your private jet? Write it down on a post-it and stick it on your plane tablet, my friend, because if you lose, you will need to get back home, in any one of them, and you might be in trouble if you don't know where to go.
Since that lapse of memory, John's housing problem has been a running joke for just about everybody that is not a Republican. Keith Olberman, brilliant MSNBC guy, refers to it about 20 times per show and does not get tired of it. Me neither, I have to admit.
To explain the blunder -- yes, the blunders always get to be explained by spokesmen, and the explanation are always worse than the blunders, always -- a McCain spokesman declared Mr McCain lived more than five years in the same home, and that was prison. The spokesman referred to his candidate being a prisoner of war for five years in Vietnam.
John has the tendency to use his POW status as an excuse for everything, and I think that this is going to piss people off. The war in Iraq has become less than a priority for American voters struggling with recession, but if John keeps referring to his POW status so often, he might remind voters of a war that they used to hate.
John, I am very sorry for what you endured in Vietnam, but it does not make you a better man, it does not even make you an expert in foreign affairs.
A piece of advice, John. The only way to explain your housing blunder without appearing out of touch is to concede you are too old to remember. I know, it would be counterproductive with your trying to define Barack as too young and inexperienced, but it would be moving.
Last night, at 3.00am, Barack text messaged me (yes, Barack and I are so close he sends me text messages in the middle of the night). He was telling me that he had picked his VP. All week, he kept it a secret (I don't really know why), the cameras of CNN were in front of three houses -- not all Biden's houses (he owns one) but the houses of three contenders -- filming nothing expecting probably Barack to appear rushing at one of the three front doors screaming I want you! I want you! Please be my Veep! But he finally announced it by the text message he sent me last night, and that's why I am telling you now so that the TV journalists have something concrete to talk about today.
He picked Joe Biden, Senator of Delaware. He is not very well-known but experts say he is the best choice because he know foreign affairs very well and he is more experienced than his teammate. The National Convention of the Democrats start in two days. We are living exciting times.
Prediction of the day: John was doing better last week, but at the end of this week, I still see Barack winning. And I don't think Hillary will be picked as VP. To tell you the truth, I think she is pissed off and I look forward to her and her husband's speeches at the convention.
I'll let you know.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Barack and the Supremacists
The Ku Klux Klan wants Barack Obama for President!
Sounds crazy, I know, but get a load of this. In The Oklahoman, a Conservative-leaning daily newspaper, I read on August 9 an article about the supremacists prospect of a white revolution if Barack is elected.
The supremacists are a group of enlightened wackos who believe in the superiority of the white people. Oh, did I mention they continue living in the 21st century?
Paradoxically, these heralds of tolerance and democracy would not be too unhappy if Barack were elected because it "would jar whites into action [...] rather than sitting around complaining" (I quote the paper).
Some people even fear the supremacists want Obama to be elected so they can assassinate him...
Sadly, ethnicity is very much at the core of the current campaign. John McCain has accused Barack Obama of playing "the race card." Barack retorted that John did it first.
The truth is both candidates, in their tour across the country, meet the different ethnic communities in turn and address the issues that are relevant to their specific audiences.
Ethnicity pervades everything. In an opinion paper, editorialist Kathleen Parker even suggested that McCain's ad conveying that Barack was just another celebrity by juxtaposing his image to Britney's and Paris's went even further than just doing that. It was stirring up in the American psyche the old nightmare of miscegenation. Arguing that apart from celebrity, sex is the natural connection that the viewer associates with an image of either of the two brainless, resume-less young ladies, Parker suggests that "the black man/female woman sexual taboo [which] still burbles just beneath the surface of America's inconscious mind" is awakened in "the pockets where racism is still easily tapped."
Because I am naive, I want to believe that Parker is wrong and way out there. But the ethnic factor is so overwhelmingly present that she might have a point.
Here's a thought. If ethnicity is pervading the narrative so much, it might be because the American English language has not yet done what the French language has done with the word race. Race has been nonsensical since it was discovered and established that there are no human races. Yet, race is the term still used by the Americans to identify their ethnic origin.
Is it possible to contend that the word itself is perpetuating boundaries between people, boundaries which are ingrained in the word itself and automatically conveyed each time the word is used?
Because races do not exist, when the word race is used in French, it is used consciously contrary to established fact that races do not exist and so it is used clearly out of racism. In American English, it is not. But it should be. Maybe people will stop thinking of themselves in terms of different races (an aberration, I repeat) if they stop using this term in the erroneous meaning it has taken.
I might be completely mistaken here, but I think racism is a much more shameful matter in France than here in the US. It seems to me that the French racist is less outspoken than the American one because he knows it is shameful to be racist. Two days ago, I read in the same newspaper a reader's letter entitled Love Us or Leave Us! The woman is incensed by an organization of Hispanic-American citizens called Nuestra America which organizes a national Hispanic voter registration campaign. This is what she writes: "Nuestra America means Our America. This gives me serious thought since I see the Mexican flag displayed in parades and protest rallies. [...] They are working to correct our American laws to favor both legal and illegal immigration. La Raza [another Hispanic-American organization, which by the way should change names] is tax exempt, so we're obligated to finance their efforts. If they would work as hard in Mexico as they do here to change laws, perhaps their back yard would be a great place to play. We are fine without their intrusive help. [...] Love us or leave us! I've never enjoyed company who come to visit and try to take over the house."
Not only this person does not seem to find any problem with what she writes, but a daily newspaper publishes it.
In all fairness, I have to say that the same page shows an opinion paper, by George Will, remembering some 80 black people lynched by a mob exactly 100 years ago in Springfield, Illinois, where Barack announced his candidacy last year. George Will concludes "Things have not always been as they are."
Well, they have not changed much either.
Sounds crazy, I know, but get a load of this. In The Oklahoman, a Conservative-leaning daily newspaper, I read on August 9 an article about the supremacists prospect of a white revolution if Barack is elected.
The supremacists are a group of enlightened wackos who believe in the superiority of the white people. Oh, did I mention they continue living in the 21st century?
Paradoxically, these heralds of tolerance and democracy would not be too unhappy if Barack were elected because it "would jar whites into action [...] rather than sitting around complaining" (I quote the paper).
Some people even fear the supremacists want Obama to be elected so they can assassinate him...
Sadly, ethnicity is very much at the core of the current campaign. John McCain has accused Barack Obama of playing "the race card." Barack retorted that John did it first.
The truth is both candidates, in their tour across the country, meet the different ethnic communities in turn and address the issues that are relevant to their specific audiences.
Ethnicity pervades everything. In an opinion paper, editorialist Kathleen Parker even suggested that McCain's ad conveying that Barack was just another celebrity by juxtaposing his image to Britney's and Paris's went even further than just doing that. It was stirring up in the American psyche the old nightmare of miscegenation. Arguing that apart from celebrity, sex is the natural connection that the viewer associates with an image of either of the two brainless, resume-less young ladies, Parker suggests that "the black man/female woman sexual taboo [which] still burbles just beneath the surface of America's inconscious mind" is awakened in "the pockets where racism is still easily tapped."
Because I am naive, I want to believe that Parker is wrong and way out there. But the ethnic factor is so overwhelmingly present that she might have a point.
Here's a thought. If ethnicity is pervading the narrative so much, it might be because the American English language has not yet done what the French language has done with the word race. Race has been nonsensical since it was discovered and established that there are no human races. Yet, race is the term still used by the Americans to identify their ethnic origin.
Is it possible to contend that the word itself is perpetuating boundaries between people, boundaries which are ingrained in the word itself and automatically conveyed each time the word is used?
Because races do not exist, when the word race is used in French, it is used consciously contrary to established fact that races do not exist and so it is used clearly out of racism. In American English, it is not. But it should be. Maybe people will stop thinking of themselves in terms of different races (an aberration, I repeat) if they stop using this term in the erroneous meaning it has taken.
I might be completely mistaken here, but I think racism is a much more shameful matter in France than here in the US. It seems to me that the French racist is less outspoken than the American one because he knows it is shameful to be racist. Two days ago, I read in the same newspaper a reader's letter entitled Love Us or Leave Us! The woman is incensed by an organization of Hispanic-American citizens called Nuestra America which organizes a national Hispanic voter registration campaign. This is what she writes: "Nuestra America means Our America. This gives me serious thought since I see the Mexican flag displayed in parades and protest rallies. [...] They are working to correct our American laws to favor both legal and illegal immigration. La Raza [another Hispanic-American organization, which by the way should change names] is tax exempt, so we're obligated to finance their efforts. If they would work as hard in Mexico as they do here to change laws, perhaps their back yard would be a great place to play. We are fine without their intrusive help. [...] Love us or leave us! I've never enjoyed company who come to visit and try to take over the house."
Not only this person does not seem to find any problem with what she writes, but a daily newspaper publishes it.
In all fairness, I have to say that the same page shows an opinion paper, by George Will, remembering some 80 black people lynched by a mob exactly 100 years ago in Springfield, Illinois, where Barack announced his candidacy last year. George Will concludes "Things have not always been as they are."
Well, they have not changed much either.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
John (Edwards) and everybody else
John Edwards was a candidate of the Democrats in the primaries. In 2004, he was John Kerry's running mate. In 2006, he had an affair. Until Friday 8, 2008, he lied about it to the American people.
This is what defines John Edwards today.
Before Friday, John Edwards was a successful lawyer and a hopeful presidential candidate. A rather populist one, for sure, but he had helped focus the campaign on social issues that the other candidates tended to neglect. He was morally respectful.
John Edwards has been a competent and dedicated senator and could have been some day a competent and dedicated president of the US (he is still young). Unfortunately, he lied to the American people about a very private affair that he had admitted to his wife as early as 2006, and that should have been the end of the story, and it should not even have been a story at all.
The problem, really, does not seem to be that he cheated on his wife, but that he cheated on the American people.
On Friday, he admitted to the affair, acknowledging he had made a mistake, that he had been "disloyal" to his wife and family, that he had become "egocentric" and "narcissistic" under the public light.
His wife, Elizabeth, declared that she knew, she had forgiven, and she hinted at the fact that she should not have to make that declaration.
The focus of the media now -- not only Fox News but also CNN, MSNBC and all others -- is on the "Edwards scandal." Forget the campaign for a while.
The candidates have even been asked to react to the scandal. Hillary, Barack and John have all been intelligent enough not to comment. I felt a bit relieved.
I sense I have a mission now. I need to tell Americans that one of our recent Presidents in France, a very competent and respectful man, had a hidden love child who now is on the public stage as a writer and that a recent presidential candidate concealed for years the end of her relationship with the father of her four children and leader of her party. That our current president also pretended to be happily married during the campaign, divorced within months after the campaign, remarried in a If-you-come-back-I-cancel-everything way within weeks, and is now the proud cover of low-brow magazines because his new wife is a former model turned wannabe singer and, as Paris would say, is totally hot.
And the best in all this is that we don't give a crap.
If we hate our president, it is because he enforces inhuman immigration policies and destroys social measures that America envies.
Let Edwards be forgiven by his wife and continue being the competent politician he is. It is not going to take away the fact he was a bastard to his wife but that, really, is none of anyone's business.
Ironically, if people were not so darn morally hypocritical, Edwards would not have had to lie. Edwards could have been Obama's running mate. A few months ago, though, he declared that he was not interested in the position. He had been interested in the position four years ago and he was respected by a lot of Democratic voters. He had been running for President. REally, it was surprising that he was not interested in running for VP. At the time, I dismissed the declaration as a way not to look too eager. But now, it makes perfect sense. Edwards knew that this scandal would come up, and he knew that he could not allow this to come up as a Vice Presidential candidate.
How sadly ridiculous!
This is what defines John Edwards today.
Before Friday, John Edwards was a successful lawyer and a hopeful presidential candidate. A rather populist one, for sure, but he had helped focus the campaign on social issues that the other candidates tended to neglect. He was morally respectful.
John Edwards has been a competent and dedicated senator and could have been some day a competent and dedicated president of the US (he is still young). Unfortunately, he lied to the American people about a very private affair that he had admitted to his wife as early as 2006, and that should have been the end of the story, and it should not even have been a story at all.
The problem, really, does not seem to be that he cheated on his wife, but that he cheated on the American people.
On Friday, he admitted to the affair, acknowledging he had made a mistake, that he had been "disloyal" to his wife and family, that he had become "egocentric" and "narcissistic" under the public light.
His wife, Elizabeth, declared that she knew, she had forgiven, and she hinted at the fact that she should not have to make that declaration.
The focus of the media now -- not only Fox News but also CNN, MSNBC and all others -- is on the "Edwards scandal." Forget the campaign for a while.
The candidates have even been asked to react to the scandal. Hillary, Barack and John have all been intelligent enough not to comment. I felt a bit relieved.
I sense I have a mission now. I need to tell Americans that one of our recent Presidents in France, a very competent and respectful man, had a hidden love child who now is on the public stage as a writer and that a recent presidential candidate concealed for years the end of her relationship with the father of her four children and leader of her party. That our current president also pretended to be happily married during the campaign, divorced within months after the campaign, remarried in a If-you-come-back-I-cancel-everything way within weeks, and is now the proud cover of low-brow magazines because his new wife is a former model turned wannabe singer and, as Paris would say, is totally hot.
And the best in all this is that we don't give a crap.
If we hate our president, it is because he enforces inhuman immigration policies and destroys social measures that America envies.
Let Edwards be forgiven by his wife and continue being the competent politician he is. It is not going to take away the fact he was a bastard to his wife but that, really, is none of anyone's business.
Ironically, if people were not so darn morally hypocritical, Edwards would not have had to lie. Edwards could have been Obama's running mate. A few months ago, though, he declared that he was not interested in the position. He had been interested in the position four years ago and he was respected by a lot of Democratic voters. He had been running for President. REally, it was surprising that he was not interested in running for VP. At the time, I dismissed the declaration as a way not to look too eager. But now, it makes perfect sense. Edwards knew that this scandal would come up, and he knew that he could not allow this to come up as a Vice Presidential candidate.
How sadly ridiculous!
Barack, John and Paris (Hilton)
I think the French should use, in times of elections, what the Americans use a lot, namely campaign ads. Campaign ads are very problematic, of course. They are used to degrade the opponents more than address real issues; they are simplistic; they are often full of lies; but they can be so fun. The French electoral campaigns have reached the American level of emptiness anyway. Just like in the US, the last election opposing Sarkozy to Royal has been mainly about communication, empty promises, etc., etc. Only the fun is missing. In the last French campaign, we had Johnny Hallyday, Enrico Macias and Mireille Mathieu on stage. In the US, they have Paris Hilton. What is the difference between Mireille Mathieu and Paris Hilton? Well, as Paris herself says, she is "totally hot."
Recently, John McCain has released a campaign ad saying very little of himself and much of his opponent, Barack Obama. This ad put Barack in the same basket as Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. He is a mere celebrity, a "pipole," as we say in French. "But can he lead?" was the question asked by the ad. Barack hardly responded.
Paris did, with a campaign ad of her own.
And I have to say, I was, like, oh my gosh, totally shocked. I could not believe what I was watching. It was hilarious and smart. Of course, Paris did not write a line of what she is saying in her campaign ad, but she is actually good at saying it, and I think she totally, like, deserves an Oscar.
Here is a link where you can watch the video: www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536a6d
I highly recommend it. You will enjoy it much more than my telling about it.
In her video, apart from warning her voters that she might paint the White House pink, Paris solves the hot issue of the daym the energy crisis. This is what everybody talks about these days on this side of the Atlantic. Forgotten is the war in Iraq. The price of gas has dramatically increased, and that is much more important because my Hummer* needs a lot of gas.
So Congressmen, and everybody else, have recently debated about new offshore drilling. Some dare say that this would be only a short-term solution since the oil one would find would soon run short anyway and then the world would be left without gas to put in their Hummers because while offshore drilling would be pumping up all the remaining oil, no other solution to move the Hummers would have been looked for.
However, this kind of short-term pseudo-solution is exactly what the stuff of electoral campaign discourses is made of. So that's what the candidates and the media are talking about.
Others dare even say -- those are not running for presidency obviously -- that it is not even a short-term solution since the oil would not enter the supply for years and that voters are lied to when they are told they would get cheaper gas for their Hummers.
Barack first attempted to disapprove of offshore drilling. He suggested that Americans could save gas by properly inflating their tires. Everybody laughed at him. Well, it was a bit of a ridiculous solution. So now, he does not disapprove of offshore drilling that much. So now, everybody is okay with the idea of at least partial offshore drilling. Because it makes me feel better to know that I will have gas to put in my Hummer.
Recently, I drove across the plains of Oklahoma, the Texas Panhandle and the deserts of New Mexico. Well, I love the deserts of New Mexico, so let's leave them alone. But the plains of the Texas Panhandle, well, how shall I put it, they are not very exciting -- they are freaking boring, to tell you the truth, especially when you drive five hours on a road as straight as a new-con, and as your wife keep saying "oh, it's beautiful, you can see forever" --, they are very flat, very windy, very hot and very sunny. Well, all Americans should drive across the Texas Panhandle to realize how much of a waste all this space, wind and sun are. Cover the darn place with wind turbines and solar panels! The land will become useful, and a bit more exciting for the bored driver. The place is full of cows, for God's sake, they could even use cow paddies as combustible fuel. I already hear those who complain that the wind turbines are an eyesore. Go to the Panhandle, and you will wish for an eyesore that is not caused by desperately scrutinizing the horizon for any kind of landmark!
A rich oil man -- T. Boone Pickens -- has suggested the idea (the filling up the place with wind turbines idea, not the cow paddies one). There's hope.
On the other hand, the other day, a nice and smart average American young man, reacting to the incredible pollution over Beijing, was telling me that it does not make any sense that the US is the only country trying to protect the environment and reducing greenhouse gas effect emissions, when the rest of the world is not doing anything to help. I choked on my doughnut. There's hope, but let's remain lucid.
As I am writing these lines, my wife tells me of the latest breaking news. John Edwards -- former candidate from the Democratic party -- has just admitted having an affair in 2006. Ah! real issues are being addressed. Forgotten the people dying in Iraq, forgotten the energy crisis. Barack is saved from ridicule. Let's talk about Edwards' love affair. I hope it was with Hillary.
I promise you, dear reader, as soon as the campaign becomes interesting, I'll stop writing about it. I am guessing I'm gonna have a lot to write.
One more thing. From now on, everytime I post a text on my blog, I will prognosticate the winner. These days, I see Barack President.
Cheers.
*Note for the European Twingo-owner, a Hummer is a car bigger than your house, and driving it makes me feel powerful enough to invade your country.
Recently, John McCain has released a campaign ad saying very little of himself and much of his opponent, Barack Obama. This ad put Barack in the same basket as Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. He is a mere celebrity, a "pipole," as we say in French. "But can he lead?" was the question asked by the ad. Barack hardly responded.
Paris did, with a campaign ad of her own.
And I have to say, I was, like, oh my gosh, totally shocked. I could not believe what I was watching. It was hilarious and smart. Of course, Paris did not write a line of what she is saying in her campaign ad, but she is actually good at saying it, and I think she totally, like, deserves an Oscar.
Here is a link where you can watch the video: www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536a6d
I highly recommend it. You will enjoy it much more than my telling about it.
In her video, apart from warning her voters that she might paint the White House pink, Paris solves the hot issue of the daym the energy crisis. This is what everybody talks about these days on this side of the Atlantic. Forgotten is the war in Iraq. The price of gas has dramatically increased, and that is much more important because my Hummer* needs a lot of gas.
So Congressmen, and everybody else, have recently debated about new offshore drilling. Some dare say that this would be only a short-term solution since the oil one would find would soon run short anyway and then the world would be left without gas to put in their Hummers because while offshore drilling would be pumping up all the remaining oil, no other solution to move the Hummers would have been looked for.
However, this kind of short-term pseudo-solution is exactly what the stuff of electoral campaign discourses is made of. So that's what the candidates and the media are talking about.
Others dare even say -- those are not running for presidency obviously -- that it is not even a short-term solution since the oil would not enter the supply for years and that voters are lied to when they are told they would get cheaper gas for their Hummers.
Barack first attempted to disapprove of offshore drilling. He suggested that Americans could save gas by properly inflating their tires. Everybody laughed at him. Well, it was a bit of a ridiculous solution. So now, he does not disapprove of offshore drilling that much. So now, everybody is okay with the idea of at least partial offshore drilling. Because it makes me feel better to know that I will have gas to put in my Hummer.
Recently, I drove across the plains of Oklahoma, the Texas Panhandle and the deserts of New Mexico. Well, I love the deserts of New Mexico, so let's leave them alone. But the plains of the Texas Panhandle, well, how shall I put it, they are not very exciting -- they are freaking boring, to tell you the truth, especially when you drive five hours on a road as straight as a new-con, and as your wife keep saying "oh, it's beautiful, you can see forever" --, they are very flat, very windy, very hot and very sunny. Well, all Americans should drive across the Texas Panhandle to realize how much of a waste all this space, wind and sun are. Cover the darn place with wind turbines and solar panels! The land will become useful, and a bit more exciting for the bored driver. The place is full of cows, for God's sake, they could even use cow paddies as combustible fuel. I already hear those who complain that the wind turbines are an eyesore. Go to the Panhandle, and you will wish for an eyesore that is not caused by desperately scrutinizing the horizon for any kind of landmark!
A rich oil man -- T. Boone Pickens -- has suggested the idea (the filling up the place with wind turbines idea, not the cow paddies one). There's hope.
On the other hand, the other day, a nice and smart average American young man, reacting to the incredible pollution over Beijing, was telling me that it does not make any sense that the US is the only country trying to protect the environment and reducing greenhouse gas effect emissions, when the rest of the world is not doing anything to help. I choked on my doughnut. There's hope, but let's remain lucid.
As I am writing these lines, my wife tells me of the latest breaking news. John Edwards -- former candidate from the Democratic party -- has just admitted having an affair in 2006. Ah! real issues are being addressed. Forgotten the people dying in Iraq, forgotten the energy crisis. Barack is saved from ridicule. Let's talk about Edwards' love affair. I hope it was with Hillary.
I promise you, dear reader, as soon as the campaign becomes interesting, I'll stop writing about it. I am guessing I'm gonna have a lot to write.
One more thing. From now on, everytime I post a text on my blog, I will prognosticate the winner. These days, I see Barack President.
Cheers.
*Note for the European Twingo-owner, a Hummer is a car bigger than your house, and driving it makes me feel powerful enough to invade your country.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
