Barack, John & I (and a few others)

Rick and Barack? Yuck!

2008-12-20T07:44:00.000-08:00

This week, we have witnessed the first scandal of the Obama Administration-to-be. Or so say the media.

Barack has invited evangelical pastor Reverend Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration. Rick Warren is one of the religious leaders who give a powerful voice to the activists of the religious far-right which has supported the Republican party for years, and the Bush Administration in particular.
This move by Obama can be seen as a brilliant one. Keep your friends close and you enemies closer. By inviting someone representing the very people who hate him the most, those who call him a Socialist Muslim terrorist who eats babies alive for breakfast, Obama is sending a signal that he won't be the President of the people who voted for him only. He reaches across the ideological divide. He explains his move by repeating his mantra: "We can disagree without being disagreeable."

Warren, among other negative and positive -- he notably encourages Christians to confront problems like AIDS and climate change -- characteristics, is anti-abortion and anti-gay, which makes his participation at the inauguration of Obama very controversial. The gay community, in particular, is very upset.

The anger of the gay community is very understandable. Warren -- whose church refuses non-repentant gay people and sponsors programs to cure gay people -- equates gay marriage to incest, pedophilia and polygamy. This kind of statement is clearly unacceptable and shocking.
After the shameful passage of Proposition 8 in California, a proposition banning same-sex marriage a few months after it had been made legal by the California Supreme Court, many gay people already feel that their fellow citizens are doing everything they can to deprive them of the right of the pursuit of happiness guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence.
After the announcement of Warren's presence at the inauguration of the President they overwhelmingly supported, they understandably feel betrayed.

However, there is one aspect of the whole thing which I think should be very controversial but that the media have not mentioned at all. Not even the very liberal media like MSNBC.

What in the world is a religious leader doing at the inauguration of the President of the United States?

Even a representative of an activist group called Association for the Separation of Church and State has protested against the participation of Warren on the grounds of his homophobia but has never mentioned that this should not even be an issue, since no religious leader should be praying the Lord at the inauguration of the President.

I have mentioned to a friend of mine who happens to be a quite liberal Southern Baptist pastor that it seems strange to me that the separation of church and state does not guarantee that religious leaders will not participate in the inauguration ceremony. He replied, That's the American tradition. Just like "In God We Trust" stamped on the banknotes. It's ridiculous.

It is a tradition indeed. It is so ingrained that it is not even questioned when an anti-gay pastor is invited to give the invocation at the inauguration of the new President. It is so deeply rooted in American society that people will tell you that this is what the Founding Fathers wanted. They simply ignore that most of the Founding Fathers were a bunch of atheists disguised as deists.

When tradition keeps people into such apathy, it is time indeed for change.

Obama's move is a bold one indeed, and I am pretty sure that he will regain the favors of the gay community by other bold moves. After the Warren participation was announced, Barack declared at a press conference that he was "a fierce advocate of equality of rights for the gay community." I do not think that any president, or any major candidate had declared such a thing before.

However, I wish Barack had made an even bolder move, by not including any religious act in his inauguration ceremony.

I hope Obama is going to win this election

2008-12-15T06:47:00.000-08:00

I am very nervous today. For the last month and a half, I thought we were safe, I thought Barack had won the election, but I -- as well as approximately everyone else -- had just forgotten one little detail.

The vote that took place on November 4 did not count for anything.

The real vote takes place today, on December the 15th, or, as the Constitution so clearly puts it, on the first Monday after the second Wednesday of the third December month after the September month of the year two years before Election Year (I hope I am getting that right).

Today, the Electors meet in the capitols of their respective states and cast their ballot. Presumably, they will cast it for the candidate that the people of their state voted for, but they do not have to. They can cast it for whoever they want, or not cast it at all.

This is the Electoral College, a very complicated electoral system that leaves even most American voters confused. Every year I teach the American Presidency, I have to learn it again before my class on the American electoral system. Every year, one student asks one question I don't have the answer to.

As a simplistic reminder, here is what it boils down to.

The American voters do not elect their president directly. They elect a list -- it is really called a slate -- of Electors. This year, they chose either the list for Obama, or the list for McCain. In Oklahoma for example, they chose the list for McCain. On the list in Oklahoma, there are seven Electors, which equals the number of congresspeople Oklahoma has in Washington (5 representatives and 2 senators). Today, these seven Electors meet in the capitol in Oklahoma City and presumably cast their ballot for McCain. They will be 7 of the 173 Electoral votes won by McCain.

At the end of the day, 538 ballots will be cast through the nation. They will be counted by the Congress in joint session on January 6.

Why such a system in "the best democracy in the whole universe"?

Well, because the Founding Fathers did not trust the people back in 1787. The US government was doing so poorly under the first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, that many people started to feel nostalgic of the British tyranny. So to make sure elections would go as planned, the Founding Fathers made sure that people who knew better would cast the final votes, the votes that counted.

Of course, that is not the official explanation. The official explanation is that with this system, small states, with a small population, can have a weight in the elections.
Of course, when we see what actually happens during a campaign, this explanation is not very convincing. Small states never see any candidate, especially if the polls show that they are very likely to go one side or the other.
Again, let's take Oklahoma as an example. This is a very red state -- the reddest this year -- with only 7 Electoral votes. Because it was very likely Oklahoma would go for McCain, Obama never came to Oklahoma during the campaign. Not only that, but because Oklahoma was a sure state for him, McCain never came either.
In a word, the voters in Oklahoma were taken for granted.

And that is the case of many states.

There is something wrong in "the best democracy in the world."

Now, why such delay between the popular vote (on November 4 this year), the Electoral vote (today on December 15) and the inauguration of the President on January the 20th?

Well, because at the time the Constitution was drafted, it took that long to count the ballots and to travel the distances.
Mind you, it can still take time to count the ballots. The results of a Senate race in Minnesota are not yet definitive (that's a whole other story that I will tell in a post I am preparing and which will be entitled "Voting in the Third World").

Today, if we know already who will be the next President, it is because of the advent of communications technology. We know (most of) the results on the day of the popular vote simply because the overwhelming media is omniscient enough to be behind every voter and to know who will be inaugurated almost three months later.

But let us ponder over this for a minute. We know only thanks to the media. Nothing will be official before January 20. But during the whole campaign, John and Sarah told us the media were biased, that Barack was their pet, that they were basically campaigning for him!

What if... what if the media, all this time, were telling us Obama won so that we can get used to the idea of having a Muslim Socialistic terrorist at the head of the "best country on the surface of the earth"?
Once the people is brainwashed into believing that that's okay, then it will be too late to react.

Oh, my gosh, what if they are reading this right now, as I write. They are everywhere, these bloody commies. What if aaaarrrrrrrggggggghhhhhh.............

Different play, same characters

2008-11-19T07:55:00.000-08:00

Two weeks since the election. Some results keep falling. Yesterday, we learned that Ted Stevens, Senator from Alaska, a convicted felon, was NOT reelected. A convicted felon lost by so thin a margin that the results were official only two weeks after the election.
But hey, that's Alaska.

Two weeks.
What has happened?

Well, Barack is still here, of course. He will be for the next four years, eight years hopefully. Well actually, he might be here for the next forty years. Yes, apparently, according to some of the best experts -- they are speaking in the telly, so I suppose they are some of the best -- President-elect Obama is a Muslim Socialist taking the country on the slippery slope of dictatorship. So I wouldn't be surprised if one of the first measures Barack takes is shut down Congress, execute the Supreme Court Justices and take all powers in his own hands.
I am not sure that would be such a bad thing, especially if he locks up some of the best experts speaking in the telly.

So Barack is still here, and maybe for a while, but that's not surprising; after all, he was just elected.

Now, more surprising, Sarah is still here.
Oh my gosh, they keep talking about her. She actually keeps talking about herself. We have never seen so many interviews of her. When she was running for Vice President, she was also running away from the evil elite media. Now that she has lost, she talking to everybody.
Well, she might be running for President in 2012. If God shows her an open door.
Yes, guys, don't laugh, she has the experience now. Especially the experience of defeat. There is a rumor that the Obama campaign might raise funds for Palin's campaign in 2012.
Anyway, she does not have any other choice now if she wants to clean up Washington. She hoped to be a Senator. If the convicted felon, Ted Stevens, had won, the Senate would have thrown him out -- after all, he is a convicted felon -- and Sarah could have run for his seat.
But Stevens lost just barely -- well, he is a convicted felon -- so, Sarah won't be a Senator any time soon.

John is still here too. Guess what. Barack invited him for tea. He wants John to work with him. We expect John to be offered a position in the cabinet. Interesting, isn't it. When Barack was talking about bipartisanship on the campaign trail, he was apparently not lying like candidates usually do. This is a bit overwhelming.
What worries me, though, is that John might not be confirmed. If he pals around with Barack, he is actually palling around with a Muslim Socialist terrorist, and so John would be guilty by association, as his running mate Sarah so brilliantly explained the voters during the campaign.
Huh, that's tricky.
Anyway, I hope he will be confirmed, so that I don't have to change the title of my blog.

Finally, guess who's back.
Hillary. Hillary is back. Forget the hard feelings of the campaign during the primaries. Barack wants her to be Secretary of State, that is the person who deals with foreign policy, that is the one subject Barack and Hillary disagreed upon.
Confusing.

Anyway, that's what's going on right now.

Oh, something else. Last night, Carla Bruni-Sarkozy was on David Letterman's show.
I felt a bit ashamed. For months, I made fun of my American friends because their country produced Sarah Palin.
And they got right back at me with Carla Bruni-Sarkozy on TV.

Why John lost

2008-11-07T06:46:00.000-08:00

It is time for finger-pointing in the Republican party.

A lot of Republican commentators and editorialists put the blame on the economic crisis. At the beginning of September, McCain was ahead in the polls. Then, there was the economic crisis. Then Obama won.

I think that is a bit too easy.

If McCain lost, it is not because of the economic crisis, but because of the way he handled it. He claimed repeatedly that the economy was fundamentally strong. He "suspended" his campaign to go to Washington give a hand, and then took 23 hours to go from New York to Washington. As David Letterman said then, at the time of the Founding Fathers, it did not take as long to take the trip.
As was said at the time, McCain was erratic and impulsive.
One major reason for his defeat.

One other main reason is, of course, his choice -- although I still believe it was not really his -- of Sarah Palin as a running mate.
Palin will be remembered as the most incompetent and the most ignorant candidate in the history of Vice-Presidential candidates, and a lot of voters, including some Republicans, saw that.

We already knew that she does not know the role of the Vice-President, and that she was incapable of citing one Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade.

We are learning more these days. From the McCain campaign, too.

Yesterday, some anonymous sources revealed that she did not know that Africa was a continent, that she thought South Africa was the southern part of a country. She did not know either that Canada, the US and Mexico were part of NAFTA.
We were also told she was a "shopaholic" during the campaign. One aide called her and her husband "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast."

The Republicans are unleashing their frustration. It is a bit unfair, but it is so much fun.
I think we are going to learn much more about Palin in the next few weeks.

And I thought I would miss her.

But the main reason for John's defeat, let us not forget, is that Barack led the best, the most disciplined, the most honest, the cleanest campaign.

This is clearly Obama's victory more than it is McCain's defeat.

Post November 4 ethnic relations

2008-11-06T06:02:00.000-08:00

It is quite incredible what is happening here after the election of Barack Hussein Obama (I like using his middle name because I feel that helps our racist friends out there to get used to it for the next four, sorry, eight years).

On election night, we saw Oprah and Jesse Jackson -- along with thousands of other people at the Obama rally in Chicago -- cry like babies. That was amusing and quite to be expected.

But yesterday, we saw Colin Powell, a Republican -- one of the best of them, for sure -- tear up in an interview as he was expressing his happiness for the Obama victory.

Wait, there is better.
Condoleeza Rice, current Secretary of State in the Bush administration, in an interview where she evoked the "extraordinary election" that has just taken place, could not hide shiny eyes from the camera.

Even Bush, whom -- whatever we think of his catastrophic presidency -- we cannot accuse of closing the door of his administration to people from diverse ethnic groups, sounded unusually sincere when he talked of the "stirring moment" that it will be when Barack, Michelle and their two girls walk into the White House.

Maybe I have stayed too much in the US and I am growing cheesy and sentimentalist, but that is something!

The New York Times titled "Obama Elected President as Racial Barrier Falls."

Yet, I don't think this is the end of racism in the US.

Racial prejudice has undermined the whole campaign, in more or less covert ways. After seeing Obama on TV for two years, the question asked by Republicans, Who is Obama really?, was nothing short of racism.

Casting doubts on his religious affiliation as if being a Muslim was a bad thing was nothing but racism.
A student told the campus newspaper that she did not think Obama was a Christian. She said that if he cals himself a Christian, she might have to start calling herself something else.
I want to tell her that Yes, she should call herself something else.
Racist sounds appropriate.

Accusing prominent black political figures, like Colin Powell, of endorsing Obama just because of his black skin, was racism.

Thinking Obama was dangerous for the country was racism.

White men predicting that the Latino voters would never vote for a black man was clearly white racism.
The Latino community overwhelmingly voted for Obama.

Calling the US led by Obama an Obamination, as many people still do today, is racism.

I certainly do not want to be a killjoy. But I don't think such racist prejudices will disappear that easily.
Obama's victory is the best thing that could happen, but as I wrote yesterday, I think he owes his victory mainly to his phenomenal qualities as a political leader.

And I am pretty sure that, if not for racism, Barack Hussein Obama would have won in a landslide rather than just a sweeping victory.

Let's enjoy, but let's remain vigilant.

364

2008-11-05T12:13:00.000-08:00

To be elected President, Barack Hussein Obama had to win 270 Electors.

Today, without counting Missouri and North Carolina, which according to the CNN website at 2.20pm Central Time, are still too close to call, Obama has won 349 Electors.
Missouri will probably go to McCain, who will then have 174 Electors.
North Carolina looks like it is going to go to Obama: he will have 364 Electors.

It is a huge victory. In 2004, Bush won with 271 Electors.

As far as the popular vote is concerned, the victory is also unquestionable. So far, Obama is winning with a margin of almost 7 million votes. Obama won 52% of the popular vote. McCain, 46%.

Enough with numbers. What is really significant is that Obama won nine states -- that is to say states who were traditionally red -- including some who had been red states for decades.

He won Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Virginia and probably North Carolina.
The most significant victories are of course Virginia and North Carolina, two states from what is called the Deep South.
All these states were won by Bush in 2000 and 2004, except New Mexico and Iowa, which were red in 2004 but blue in 2000.

This is important because it makes of Obama a President who is more than a sectional President. He is not a bi-coastal President. He represents all parts of the country.
What makes him a unifying President, also, is of course the popular vote, unfortunately not taken much into account in the broken Electoral College system ruling American presidential elections.
In many forever-red states, the margins between the Republican vote and the Democratic vote are smaller than they used to be. For example, in states like Nebraska or South Dakota, the distributions of votes in 2000 were close to 70-30. This year, they are getting closer to 60-40.
In Texas, the proportion is this year 55-45 for McCain. In 2000 and 2004, it was 60-40.

It is in Oklahoma, where I am now, that the margin is the widest: 65.6 for McCain, 34.4 for Obama.

I guess my blog has not been read by many Republicans.
Darn it!

President-elect Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-05T06:02:00.000-08:00

In 1865, slavery was abolished in the United States.
In 1954, the US Supreme Court declared that segregated schools were unconstitutional,
In 2008, a black man named Barack Hussein Obama was elected President of the United States.

Although the media had tried until yesterday not to focus too much on the amazing historical event that an Obama victory would represent, last night, after they called the election, CNN and MSNBC commentators were all about how racial relationships are going to change after this election. Jesse Jackson was crying. Oprah Winfrey was crying. Roland Martin, an African-American CNN journalist, was crying live on TV.

It is really an incredibly important event.

However, we should truly be amazed at the fact that it took so long, rather than at the fact that it finally happened.

Besides, what I find even more amazing -- and beautiful -- is that Barack won this election, he became the first black man to become President, without playing the historical card.
I followed this election closely and I do not recall one moment when Obama appealed specifically to black voters, not one moment he tried to convince the voters to vote for him because it would be a historical watershed moment.
On the contrary, to the end, even when the Republicans were calling one part of the country -- "real America" -- against the other part, Obama always and consistently called for unity.
I never heard him utter such phrases as "as a Black man," or "as an African-American," etc., etc.

He has never defined himself in terms of ethnic identity.

And I think the journalists and commentators should not make such a big deal now out of the fact that he is black. In a strange way, I think it is demeaning his victory. It is saying "People voted for Obama because they wanted to make history, they based their decision on the fact that he is black."

The sad truth is that the racism I saw in this campaign is so deep that it is not going to disappear so easily.

The happy truth is that Obama won this election not because he is black and making history but because he is incredibly smart, he has compassion, he knows the problems voters are facing and he addressed these problems, he sounded sincere all along his campaign. He was truly the best candidate of this campaign, and probably the best candidate in a long time.

And he will be a smart, intelligent, open-minded, tolerant President, and that is the best thing that could happen to this country who has cruelly lacked intelligence in the White House for many years.

Barack Hussein Obama did not win because he is black. This is just a plus. He won because he is brighter than most of us, and probably more honest than most politicians I have seen or heard.

On a humorous note, let me quote a comedian last night on the special show hosted by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.
"They were so focused on him being a Muslim and a Socialist, they forgot he was black."

O-ba-ma! O-ba-ma!

2008-11-02T17:05:00.000-08:00

A motley crew for Obama

2008-11-02T15:33:00.000-08:00

On the way to Springfield, Missouri, to hear Barack's stump speech, I thought, for a minute only, We might get lucky and be able to take our seats in a half empty stadium.
The part of our five-hour car trip in Missouri was through deep red country. Not an Obama sign in sight, a lot of McCain signs. Farming countryside, trailer parks, etc.

When we got to Springfield and caught sight of the one-mile line, I knew I had day-dreamed.

In the reddest of the red counties of Missouri, a county called "Republican stonghold" by the local press, in the very same county where Palin had addressed 15,000 people a few days earlier, Obama had managed to attract about 40,000.

And I have to admit, there was something striking about this crowd. I had heard, of course, how Obama was uniting Americans, how he inspired so many people, etc., etc. And I had thought these comments a tiny bit sentimentalist-American-Dream-like. However, it was rather remarkable how diverse the crowd was.

A lot of old people and a lot of young people. Some probably too young to vote. The local newspaper this morning told the story of the two first persons to get in line at the stadium on Saturday morning. One was 17. She won't vote. The other was an Indian immigrant, not yet naturalized. She won't vote either. But they were there.

There were a lot of African-Americans of course, many of whom, I am pretty sure, had not voted in a long while because they had lost total trust in their politicians.

A man who looked like a biker, shaved head, long ZZ Top beard, whom I would have been scared of had I met him in a dark alley, was here with his African-American wife and their three children.

A family that, again with all the prejudices I am guilty of, I would have imagined part of narrow-minded ignorant white trash Republican America, believing Obama was a Muslim and believing that Muslim equalled terrorist, this family was in line behind us. As it happened, the 16-year-old daughter was taking French at school, although she was too shy to speak French with me.

I saw bumper stickers saying "Rednecks for America," which I find really funny. They actually have a website. Check it out.

B., of the couple that I mentioned in my previous blog, with whom we socialized, was telling us that he was a Christian for whom such issues as abortion and gay marriage had been moral dilemmas four years ago. He had voted for Bush. On Tuesday, he will vote for Obama.

And there was a French guy, who did not even drive fifteen minutes to go hear Royal, the candidate he voted for, giving a rally in his town. This weekend, he drove ten hours so that his kids could be part of a truly historical moment, and so that he could write about it in his blog.

There is, truly, something exceptional in this guy who is bound to become the next President of the US. He draws masses. He inspired millions to register to vote. Millions have already votes, waiting hours in line.

As the paper reported this black guy saying of the Rednecks for Obama, "it is beautiful."

Springfield, Missouri. Again!

2008-11-02T03:52:00.000-08:00

This morning, I am waking up in Springfield, Missouri, again.
Last time I was there, I had a terrible night, and I blogged from my car at five in the morning.
It is a bit later today, and I am in the lobby of a nice motel.
I did not sleep well though.

But why am I in Springfield, Missouri, in the first place, since this seems to be a town where I am doomed to agitated sleepless nights?

Well, yesterday, Saturday November 1st, I received a message from Barack. I keep receiving emails from Barack, Michelle, Joe and the rest of the Democratic team.
He was telling me that he would be in Springfield, Missouri, that very night.

Remember how frustrated I had been, a couple of weeks ago, for missing Barack in St Louis.
Well, I ain't gonna miss him this time, says I to myself.

Sprinfield is a five-hour drive, though. Is it really reasonable?
No, it's not, let's do it.

LeAnn and the kids packed faster than they ever did and we hit the road in a small Prius with three kids in the back.
We left at 1.30pm, got in Springfield at 6.30pm. As we were looking for the stadium. we see a long line of people starting at about what our mapquest sheet says is about 1 mile away from the stadium.
We park, and we get in line. No time to look for a hotel.

It is not moving fast. But in there, we meet a very nice young couple, K. and B. They were also coming from Oklahoma City. Very nice and very interesting. Very excited about this election. We chatted all the way, they helped us with Alyenor, who was super hyper by the four lane road.
We were probably in line for two hours.

We finally got to the stadium. Packed with 40,000 people.
And it's happening. After an introduction by the local senator, Claire McCaskill, and by Michelle Obama, Barack comes up on stage.
And we are here, in the stadium, this time at the exact same time Barack is here, not three days before like in St Louis.
And we can see him. From very far, for sure, and on tiptoe, but we get glimpses. And we can hear him too. Well, we did not really listen much, because we had heard most of it on TV in the previous day.
But we are here. Shouting his name, yelling Yes We Can. Well, I was yelling Oui On Peut, so that he knows France supports him too, you know. We are here. Participating in this historical moment. The kids will have something to tell. Me too, even if I have to embellish it and exaggerate it.

He spoke for about half an hour. We had driven five hours, waited in line for two hours, we are about to drive five more hours.
It was worth every minute of it.

Campaign Trail

2008-11-01T06:54:00.000-07:00

For Halloween, I was a Democrat campaign trail.
I was pretty scary for the folks in Noble, Oklahoma.

If Sarah Palin had not been with me, I would have got shot.

Don't elect me, I'm like you

2008-10-31T06:52:00.000-07:00

On the Republican side, this whole campaign has been, overtly or in an underlying way, about accusing the other side of being elitist.

Elitist, in Republican rhetoric, is a slur, as well as socialist, redistributor (coined by McCain to describe Obama, just before he coined redistributionist in chief), liberal of course, etc., etc.

So John and Sarah pretend to be like any other American. It does not really matter that John owns seven houses and Sarah owns a plane. What matters is that, at heart and in talking, they are like us. You betcha!

Unfortunately, this pose does not always go as planned.

A few weeks ago, Sarah the Hockey Mom, dropped the puck at a hockey game (dropping the puck is "donner le coup d'envoi" for a soccer game, my dear French readers).
She was booed by the Hockey Joe Six-Packs filling up the stands.
Oops!

Yesterday, in Pennsylvania, Palin started her speech by saying it was a great pleasure to be in the home state of the Philadelphia Phillies (note for my French baseball-clueless friends, the Phillies, the baseball team from Philadelphia, just won what they call here the World's Series -- although the Americans are the only ones playing baseball, but shhh, some American friends are listening).
She was booed by the audience. Her own audience. Why? Because she was talking in western Pennsylvania, home of the arch-enemy of the Phillies, the Pittsburgh Pirates.
Oops, again!

Yesterday also, McCain was campaigning in Ohio. He called Joe the Plumber on stage. "Joe, come on up... Joe, where are you? ... Joe??? Joe, I thought you were here with us today." Oops again! Joe was not there. Had his staff played a mean trick on John? It doesn't matter. John knows how to get out of such a dire strait honorably. "Well, it doesn't matter, you are all Joe the Plumbers," he said to the timidly cheering crown of 6,000 which included 4,000 high school students who had been bused in.

But why was he calling for Joe the Plumber, by the way?
Well, because Joe the Plumber had been campaigning for John and Sarah. He has been answering questions from the audience. Not just questions about plumbing. Nooooo. Questions about foreign policy. He agreed with an idiot in the audience saying that if Obama was elected, it would mean the death of Israel!

What the f...!!!

Joe, come on. Go back plumbing. I know you really want to be John's Secretary of State, but John is not going to win, so forget it.

I don't really understand why people don't want someone smarter than they are leading their country. I wouldn't want someone like me for President, and yet, I dare say I think I am reasonably smart.
They have had the dumbest president ever for the last eight years, and they haven't learned the lesson yet.
When I thought you could not produce a worse candidate than Bush, John invented Sarah.

Please, if you are not really smart, don't vote for the people who say they are like you.

Violence in the campaign

2008-10-28T06:22:00.001-07:00

Last week, a young Republican supporter claimed that while getting money at an ATM she was attacked by a tall black man, "an Obama supporter" who had carved the letter B for Barack with a knife on her cheek.

As it turned out, it was a hoax. She had mutilated herself with a B on her cheek and invented the whole story. The hoax did not last long. The B was backwards. She had done it looking in a mirror.

Yesterday, we learned that two youngsters defining themselves as neo-Nazis, had planned to assassinate Barack Obama. Before that, they were planning to kill 88 black people, 14 by beheading. 14 and 88 are symbolic numbers for neo-Nazis. 14 is the number of words in a sentence uttered by a supremacist leader about preserving the white race and the white children. 8 corresponds to the letter H in the alphabet. Two 8 means two H, the initials for "Heil Hitler."

This is the kind of violence which goes with the current election. In previous posts, I wrote about the fact that the supremacists wanted Obama to be elected, I wrote about the outbursts of racist hatred coming out of McCain and Palin's audiences.
Quite incredibly, this violence, underlying or in the open, is becoming commonplace. People are hardly shocked by such news. They do not really question the deep-running causes of such hatred and violence.

It does not really matter how often the candidates on both sides will say that the US is the greatest country on earth, the US still has a long and continuing history of violence, racism, presidential assassination. What does it mean to be the greatest country on earth when such violence is commonplace?
And for my American readers, I have to insist that although I am saying this, I am not "a primitive anti-Americanist" as I was called once on national French radio. I love the US. I teach the US, I read the US, I married the US, I have US children.

I just think that if only all those people who claim they love their country so much simply questioned their country now and then, they could make it better.

I come from a country where the electoral campaigns are so boring that when the candidates call each other liars, it is a big deal. Just imagine!

Of course, the candidates are not responsible for all this violence. Well, kinda!

As I wrote in a previous post, Palin has not reacted in the least bit to the hateful outbursts coming from her audience. A reminder: "Off with his head!" "Kill him!' could be heard when Palin said Obama was "palling around with terrorists."
McCain has been very slow, and mild and awkward, in correcting the outbursts in his audience, taking the mike from a woman calling Obama "an Arab." A reminder of McCain's awkward response: "No, Ma'am, he is a decent family man." Awkward, but still the most soothing reaction he has had so far.

Since then, Obama has been linked to terrorists again and again. Until he was called a Socialist, also with underlying violence, since the socialism they are refering to here is not the Mitterandian socialism that we the French know, but something McCain, Palin and their surrogates confuse with Stalinist Communism.
Why is Obama called a socialist? Because he wants to "spread the wealth." That is he wants the rich to pay more taxes than the poor, and use that money to help the poor.
Finally, yesterday, commentator David Gergen had tried to remind everybody that this is not Socialism in the Communist sense of the word, it is Progressive Taxation, something that Teddy Roosevelt, McCain's model advocated and a policy that Reagan, another model of McCain and Palin's, implemented.

But that does not matter. "Socialist" and "terrorist" are uttered so often in the Republican stump speeches that they almost become synonyms, negative epithets that depict Barack Hussein Obama as a dangerous man. An editorialist has even gone so far as accusing Obama a "Muslim Socialist."
When Barack is finally elected next Tuesday, this is so stupid and absurd that it will be funny. Right now, though, it is stupid and scary.

One more thing: Colin Powell, a Republican who served in the Bush administration, endorsed Obama last week. He explained very clearly why he did so. He said that Obama was a transformational figure. He said that McCain's VP pick said much of his poor judgment. He gave a lot of reasons that he had thought through.
The following day, Rush Limbaugh, a racist, far-right radio host, yelled in his mike that Powell's endorsement of Obama was "totally about race."
It does not matter that Powell is an intelligent man with a lot of political and military experience. For Limbaugh, he is above all a black man, and that's why he endorsed Obama.
I guess all the white men's endorsements of McCain are also about race then.
I guess all white people will vote for the white candidate, and all black people will vote for Obama. I guess Limbaugh wishes that were true. McCain would win. But Obama will.

I am rambling.
What I mean to say, I guess, is that, yes, the candidates are partly responsible for all this violence. They blow on the glowing ashes.
McCain still have not said anything about the hoax I referred to at the beginning of this post. He needs to talk about it, and about all the rest. He needs to talk against this violence and this ambient racism.
He could lose with dignity, at least.

Lionel Hussein Larre

Republican volunteers and us

2008-10-25T14:08:00.000-07:00

Hellow, my fellow Americans. Oops, this whole campaign rhetoric is getting to me.

So, what's up?

I'm okay, I guess. Slowly recovering from missing the biggest Obama rally in the history of the greatest country on earth.

Anyway, there is a huge lot to talk about. Some serious stuff, too. The campaign has become very very disturbingly ugly. Quite incredibly, what has dominated the campaign this week is racism. At a shocking level. I will write about that in a post later next week because I suspect this is not over.

There would be a lot to say, also, about Palin. Again. And about her shopping spree. $150,000 dollars in high-end clothes stores in the last eight weeks. But here again, I think Palin is not done yet with her daily blunders, so I'll write a comprehensive Palin post before Election Day.

I also need to write about Socialism, the new S word. Obama is accused everyday of being a Socialist, of wanting to "spread the wealth." Oooohh! Bad Obama, bad!

I could also talk about the new candidate, Joe the Plumber. Remember, my fellow French, in our last election, we had a lot of talk about "le plombier polonais." Well, that was nothing compared to how many times we hear the candidates refer to Joe the Plumber this week.

Anyway, a lot to write about.

But today, I would like to tell you about my last own adventure. Get the kids away from the screen, because it is kind of scary. But you know, I am an adventurer, and I am not afraid to face danger. I have spent a year in the Guiana rainforest, two years in the Libyan desert, including a night in a Libyan jail. Let me tell ya, that was nothing compared to today's adventure.

I paid a visit to the Republican headquarters in Norman, Oklahoma.

I did that quite innocently. I went in because I was looking for the best button ever, the one that says "Our VP is a hot chick."

But I went in with my wife, LeAnn and my two-year old daughter, Alyenor. And LeAnn loooooves to argue. Oh yeah, she does! (Love ya, honey).

There were a man and a lady in their fifties there, sitting at a table covered with pamphlets, leaflets, stickers and other campaign attire. I told them the object of my visit.
I wanted to pretend I was an independent voter and engage into a discussion with them. LeAnn could not refrain from saying we were from the other camp.

Havoc ensued. What follows are bits and pieces that I grasped when I could not turn a deaf enough ear to the whole conversation.

The lady said to LeAnn that she was a one-issue voter, that she was against abortion in all cases and that she could not vote for anyone, Republican or Democrat, that is "pro-abortion." I knew then, of course, that that lady would not be convinced by anything. LeAnn tried anyway.
I looked at the stickers and the buttons. The man looked at me looking at the buttons. And the ladies went on.

In the meantime, the lady would point at Alyenor and asking LeAnn questions like "Would you have aborted her if your life had depended on it?"
The question is so obviously stupid that I am not going to waste my time to comment on it. It is sad, though, that people make up their political minds on such generalizations and skewed interrogations.

LeAnn was trying to tell that lady that on such an issue, people cannot convince each other because they start from fundamentally different premises, etc, etc. She was right of course, so right that she did not convince that lady.

At some point, though, I could not refrain myself. The lady said that those Obama people don't care about babies. I had to say that this was nonsense and that people should not be characterized in such a way.
She said they were "pro-abortion." I said if they were "pro-abortion," they would encourage people to abort, and of course, they don't, so it is also nonsensical to use that label against your opponents.
So then, she asked me what experience Obama had to be President.
I said none. Obama does not have more or less experience than McCain and Palin, but Palin does not know what a Vice-President does.
She said that Palin is not running for President.
I said, No, she's running for Vice-President, and she does not know what a Vice-President does.
"Yes, she does."
"Well, she was asked that question several times, and she could not answer the question."
"Yes, she did."
"Well, I'm sorry, but she didn't"
"She does know what the Vice President does."
"Well, no, she doesn't. My French students know what the role of the Vice-President is," I lied, "and Palin does not. It is simply unbelievable."
"Well, it was nice talking with you. You have a nice family," said she very nicely, without an ounce of irony or sarcasm.
I said "Thank you" and that was the end of our conversation about whether or not Sarah Palin knows what the job she is applying for is about.

At the end of the day, I am thinking, that lady was a nice lady. She is the average citizen, with an average everyday unnoticeable life, like you and me. Really, what I am trying to say is that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with that person. She was not mean to us, she was not aggressive. I might actually have been more aggressive in my trying to prove a point, which does not make me a superior to her.
But she is ignorant. I don't mean that disrespectfully. I am not saying she is stupid. She is just a misinformed voter who believes the lies she is being told because they tap into her core values.
Either you think beyond your core values, or you don't. Nobody, I am sure, enjoys the idea of abortion. At the core of everybody, there is the idea that abortion is not a cool thing. And then, some of us go beyond our core value and try to think and to get informed about the reality that abortion implies, the reality faced by women who consider an abortion. And although that reality does not resonate much with our core value, we think, we ponder, and we make up our mind.

Now, if you don't think and ponder beyond your core value, you are going to vote for the person that tells you that abortion is murder.

As LeAnn concisely put it to me on our way home, "I should have told her it is easy to be agaisnt abortion in all cases. Because it prevents you from facing the reality of the women who consider abortion."

The other day, Michael Moore said that Obama is not running against McCain, he is running against ignorance. He's right. Many working-class, struggling, Joe Six-Packs and Joe the Plumbers are going to vote against their best interest because they are lied to and they are not informed enough to see beyond the lies.

As a final note for today, I would like to write for my Presidency-and-Congress-class students who might happen to read this blog: When I ask what you know about the American Constitution and more specifically about the role of the Vice President, please don't be ashamed not to know anything about it. There is not shame for you not to know since one of the two Vice-Presidential candidates this year thinks that "the Vice-President is in charge of Congress" and can work with Congress at "policy-making."
Don't be ashamed not to know, but if you ever write that answer in your papers, don't be surprised if I call you Sarah, and that won't be a compliment.

Barack and I were in St Louis last weekend

2008-10-20T06:45:00.000-07:00

Last week, we visited LeAnn's brother and family in St Louis, Missouri, unexpected toss-up state in the coming election.

Because Missouri is an unexpected toss-up state, Barack came to St Louis on Saturday.

And I did not even know of his coming before we took the trip. How lucky is that for someone as interested in the election as I am! The candidates do not publicize their campaign trail too much in advance because, especially in the last weeks, they go where they have a chance to overturn the Electoral votes. I suspect, it is also for security reasons. They do not want to give loonies too much time to plan an assassination.
Anyway, pure luck!

Barack spoke under the famous Gateway Arch by the Mississippi River, symbolizing the opening to the westward expansion. Incidentally, for Barack, it could symbolize many other things if you enjoy symbols. The Arch is standing across the highway from a white house. In that case, it is the white courthouse of St Louis. But it is not just any courthouse, it is the courthouse of the infamous Dred Scott case. Dred Scott was a slave who remained a slave after the US Supreme Court declared slavery constitutional in 1856. Barack, about to become the first black US President in the history of the country, was addressing 100,000 people on Saturday facing a white house which is a symbol of the peculiar institution that slavery was.
I am not sure Barack thought of all that when he decided to come speak there, but I enjoy the symbolism.

Anyway, I was in St Louis on that historical day.

We even had a picnic under the Arch. As we were having the picnic, with the kids running around, we saw four or five men in dark suits talking and looking like they were assessing the area. When I saw them, I immediately thought they were secret services personnel planning a political rally. It is funny how secret services personnel do not look secretive at all. They are conspicuous, a la James Bond. You know how different spies can be, right? There is the James Bond type, especially Sean Connery or Roger Moore-style, the most famous spy ever, telling everyone, including the villains, "My name is Bond, James Bond." He might as well add, "I work as a spy in the service of Her Majesty, and I have a license to kill that I intend to use against you after I have jumped from a few buildings and chased you with my fancy conspicuous car. Oh, and by the way, I am great in bed, as your girlfriend is about to find out." And there is the Jason Bourne/Matt Damon type -- or Ferris/Leo DiCaprio in the last Ridley Scott movie Body of Lies. Bourne has a hundred different passports, spends his life hiding, never gives his real name.
Well, the "spies" I saw under the Arch in St Louis were clearly the James Bond conspicuous type, although I suspect they do not have the same qualities as James Bond himself (I am not talking about the good-in-bed part, here, I don't know about that, and did not have time to ask).
Okay, I probably recognized them as secret services personnel also because on the way to Missouri, we had heard on the radio that Jill Biden, the democratic VP candidate's wife, was planning to spend a few days campaigning in Missouri, in yet unknown places.

Anyway, Barack, not Jill, came to St Louis to speak on Saturday.

In the morning, I took the family to the Cahokia mounds in nearby Illinois, Obama state. The mounds -- pyramid-like structures -- were built by Cahokia Indians between 900 and 1200 AD. Besides being very interested in American politics, I am also very interested in Native American history, so that was a great place to go to. Great museum, amazing mound sights. The kids had fun and learned a lot. Great.

Then, we went home and had a nap. Well, Alyenor, my three-year old needed a nap, and I took one too because I was knackered after the crazy day we had spent on Friday at the crazy City Museum.

After the nap, we went to town and had dinner at the Hard Rock Cafe, the loudest restaurant I have ever been to, and after I paid a bill that made me feel like I was a communist government bailing out the freaking place, we went home and went to bed.

What about the Obama rally? you might wonder, dear reader.

Well, that's the beauty of it. I went to the Arch on Wednesday. I saw the spies on Wednesday. Barack came to St Louis on Saturday. Under the Arch where I had a picnic on Wednesday, he gave the most important political rally in the history of the universe on Saturday. At the time he was giving a speech under the Arch, I was having a nap and a lousy expensive dinner in the most annoying restaurant in the history of the universe. I learned about the Obama rally on Sunday morning in the paper. Obama gave a speech in front of 100,000 people, and I was three blocks away! I am writing a blog on this election, and I was three blocks away from Barack Obama and I missed him!

I missed Barack Obama, although I was three freaking blocks away from him! I went to the Arch three days before him!

Barack, Michelle, Joe, David Plouffe, the campaign manager, send me emails every single day, several emails every day, and I did not know Barack would be three blocks away from me!

How dumb is that!!

I am so dumb I might vote Republican, and I am not even an American voter.

Dear reader, if you can't believe what you have just read, it is simply because it is too darn stupid to be true. Read it again.

Now, I need to go blow my brains out.

Adieu.

O like Obama?

2008-10-18T13:46:00.000-07:00

A few days ago, Barack Obama gave a speech in front of flags that looked that the American flag but instead of the fifty stars representing the states, there was a big O in the blue part of the flag.

Some kind of conservative radio commentator said that really, standing in front of an American flag which had been transformed to fit a big O for Obama was wrong, unpatriotic, and that it was the sign of someone who would become "a potentate, a dictator."

Well, in fact, Obama was standing in front of the Ohio flag. O like Ohio, not Obama.

Is it me, or anytime there's the most idiotic comment out there, it is from a Republican?

Miscellany in a rental car

2008-10-15T03:47:00.000-07:00

As I am waiting the kids to snore and sniff the night away, and since the nice lady at the reception does not want to let me sit in the lobby waiting for breakfast time, I am blogging my waking night away with random thoughts and breaking news from the campaign trail.

It is 5.00 am, I am on the parking lot of an Econolodge (more econo than lodge) in Springfied, Missouri, and I don't see any candidate around. Yet, surprisingly, Missouri is a battleground this year.

Missouri is one of the few traditionally red states which are about to turn blue this year, if something horrific does not happen before. Among the other states in the same situation are North Carolina, Nevada and Virginia. It does not sound crazy, but trust me, it is.

Obama could be elected in a landslide.

Yet, some people are talking about the Bradley effect. Bradley was a black candidate running for mayor of Los Angeles in the eighties. The polls saw him win easily. On Election Day, he lost. Many people had said they would vote for him, but at the last minute, in the privacy of the booth, they did not vote for the black guy. This is the Bradley effect.

Some journalists who like to scare themselves argue there might be a Bradley effect with Obama. Others argue, however, that if there was to be a Bradley effect, it would have taken place during the primaries. They are probably right.

Two days ago, the chairman of the Republican Party in Virginia declared that both Obama and Bin Laden have friends who bombed the Pentagon, and that's scary.

I don't think I need to comment on that.

A few days ago, at McCain/Palin rallies, there was a sign saying Obama Bin Lyin'.

Also, there was a man holding a stuffed monkey with an Obama head band.

I don't think I need to comment on those either.

McCain and Palin have not yet repudiated the "Kill him!" and "Off with his head!" shouts heard at their rallies.

Last Friday, an independent investigation declared that Palin had abused her power in Alaska.

All weekend, Palin was declaring that she was very happy that the investigation cleared her of any legal infraction.

Go figure.

Tonight is the last debate, and I hope my hosts will let me watch it.

I'm gonna try to grab some breakfast now.

Hatemongers

2008-10-11T07:24:00.001-07:00

This has been the craziest week I have ever seen in a political campaign.

Crazy and scary, really, sad, pathetic, dangerous.

A month or two ago, a friend of mine, Jack, and I were talking about the campaign. At the time, there was a rhetoric the Republicans had just barely started to use, and they used it very occasionally, consisting in saying that we don't really know who Barack Obama is. Jack thought that this rhetoric was really code language to say "He is black. We can't have a black president."

It made much sense to me when we had this conversation. Since then, though, the economic crisis has been forefront and the question "Who is Barack Obama really?" was dropped.

This week, this rhetoric has come back full swing, and in a very ugly way.

And Jack was right.

Last weekend, as I wrote previously, Sarah Palin started to link Obama to terrorists. The exact quote was: "Obama thinks America is so imperfect that he pals around with domestic terrorists." Since then, she has repeated this kind of attack everytime she had an opportunity, depicting him as someone who is "not one of us," "not a man who sees America like you and I see America."
At one of her rallies, a sheriff talked of Barack Hussein Obama, emphasizing Obama's middle name.

The code is hardly veiled now. Clearly, this whole rhetoric appeals to old subconscious fears and hatred in American people's minds.

Now here is the scary part: it works, it does arouse what the worst in the audience's subconscience (and I am saying it is subconscious only to be polite). When Palin or McCain talked about Obama at their rallies this week, you could hear people screaming "Terrorist!" "Kill him!" or even "Bomb Obama!"

Palin and McCain did not try to shut them up. They can't even tell they did not hear them to justify their inaction, because on one occasion, after we hear "Terrorist!" from the crowd, we can see McCain frown. He frowns in disapproval, he just can't believe he heard that, but he continues as if nothing had happened.
This is wrong, very wrong. Even if the US did not have the history of presidential assassination and of black lynching it has, it would be wrong to let people get away with this kind of outbursts.

And McCain knows it is wrong (I am not so sure about Palin) and he redeemed himself slightly.
Yesterday, at a town hall meeting, after a man in the audience told him he had to "fight" and a woman said: "I don't trust Obama, he's an Arab," McCain actually, albeit awkwardly, defend Obama.
He literally took the microphone from the woman and said: "No, Ma'am, no, Ma'am, he's not, he is a decent family man." Of course, it is a bit awkward since this response to "Obama is an Arab" kind of implies you can be an Arab and a decent family man at the same time. But, McCain reacted in the spur of the moment, improvised, and I am not going to be too picky. To the man asking him to fight, he answered that he will, but respectfully. He said he respects Obama, that Obama is a decent man, with a decent record; he disagrees with him, and he thinks he would be a better president than Obama, but Obama is a decent man.
As he was saying all that, McCain was booed by his own audience. But he went on.

I have to say, I was flabbergasted. These images were riveting, fascinating to watch. Not really because this was beyond who McCain is, but because it was completely inconsistent with the rest of the week.

Here is my theory, for whatever it's worth. I do think McCain is a decent and honest politician. I think his policies are not good, but he is a good guy. And I think he did not control his campaign. I think he was not free to choose the VP he wanted and he is not free to choose the campaign he wants.
The Republicans do not like McCain, he is not their favorite candidate. I think he was forced by the Republican strategists to pick Palin, a woman that he had met once before and who had never been mentioned as a possible pick, who had not even run for the nomination. I think the strategists use Palin now as a pitbull but I think McCain disapproves. McCain lost to Bush in 2000 after the Bush campaign launched a rumor saying that McCain had fathered a black child out of wedlock! So, I don't think McCain really wants to play that ugly.
Yesterday, when he defended Obama, he became himself again, rebelling against the strategists of his party.
Sure, he might have realized also that people had enough of hearing this kind of crap when they are losing money everyday in the stock market.

What a crazy week this was!
To crown it all, we heard yesterday of the results of an investigation taking place in Alaska to find out whether Palin abused her power when she fired the head of the State Troopers because he refused to fire her former brother-in-law who had given a hard time to her sister. It turns out, she did abuse her power.
Of course, she says now that the investigation was biased. The problem is, the judiciary committee which led the investigation was composed of a majority of Republicans.

Don't throw the first stone, Sarah. The glass ceiling you were talking about when we first met you might collapse on your cute little face.

What is Sarah running for?

2008-10-08T18:47:00.000-07:00

Sarah Palin declared today that this campaign is at a "halfway point"?

Oh my gosh, that's why she is so bad. She thinks she has time to prepare and learn about stuff, because she thinks she is running for the Republican primaries of an election that would take place next year.

Be nice, Republican friends. I know you are kind of ashamed of your VP pick now, but you need to tell her that the election takes place in 27 days.

President Obama

2008-10-08T10:47:00.001-07:00

Last night, Tuesday October 7th, was the second of the three presidential debates.

John was supposed to carry it because it was a format he is used to, the town-hall format. Questions were from the audience, follow-up questions was from moderator Tom Brokaw from NBC.

Before the debate, there was a lot of anticipation of nasty attacks on character, as they call it. For the three previous days, the Republicans had tried to tie Obama to a former "domestic terrorist."

The problem is, yesterday the Dow Jones went down more than 500. So McCain could not possibly sling mud and retain some appearance of decency.

He attacked though, repeating over and over than that Obama wanted to raise taxes when the latter repeats over and over again that he will not, or repeating over and over that Obama does not understand foreign policy.
Barack then responded: It is true, I don't understand. I don't understand why we invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
Oops.

As far as contents and policies go, the debate was quite enlightening, both candidates explaining more or less clearly what they would do. Hear both and choose. My writing here that I think Obama's policies would be better is rather useless.

What is interesting though is how each candidate manages to contradict their opponent and explain why their opponent's policies are wrong. At that game, Obama clearly won, explaining very clearly, not being too professorial -- that is his Achilles' heel -- "Achilles' what? Let me come right back to ya" -- okay, Sarah, do that, take your time -- explaining very clearly, I was saying, why, for example, McCain's health care plan would make things much much worse.
On the other hand, the typical response McCain gave to basically any topic was "Look at my record, my friends."

Since all this is a show anyway, let's talk about style. After all, a huge proportion of voters base their decision on style.
John simply looked like an arrogant, condescending, patronizing jerk. At one point, he even called Barack "that one" (that is a big deal in the news studios today). He had a smirk on his face, he hardly ever looked at his opponent. He said to one guy in the audience who had asked a question: "You probably did not know what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were before recently but..." How awkward! It might have been true, but a candidate should not assume his voters don't know what he is talking about.

On the contrary, Barack was cool, man, amazingly so. The guy remains so calm under attack it is almost creepy. While McCain lashed at him, he was looking straight at his opponent, relaxed, happy to be there, no worries, never trying to interrupt, not shaking his head, nothing.
Then, he gets up and says, after an attack on his foreign policy experience: "John McCain seems to think I am green behind the ears, that he is the sober one..."
John interrupts saying "thank you" with a big smug smile on his face.
Barack continue: "... but John is the one who sang Bomb bomb bomb, Bomb bomb Iran, he is the one who after Afghanistan said 'Next stop, Baghdad.'"
A fortunate cut showed McCain in the background. His smile was yellow, as we say in French.

The first post-debate polls showed a huge advantage for Barack.

There is no way the campaign is going to get uglier and uglier. And there is no way McCain is going to win however ugly he gets.

If Barack is a terrorist...

2008-10-06T16:37:00.000-07:00

That's it. It's getting dirty. A month before the election, the McCain campaign knows they cannot win on issues, especially on the issue number one among Americans polled, the economy. So, they are getting dirty. That's how the Republicans win their elections.

They let go of the pitbull. They sure put some lipstick on it, but you can put lipstick on a pitbull, it's still a pitbull.

For the past three days, Sarah Palin has emphasized some link Barack had with Bill Ayers, a radical anti-Vietnam war activist of the 60s whom she calls "a domestic terrorist."

We are back to the tactics used before the summer to try to depict Barack Obama as a mysterious guy whom people don't really know. There are some fishy things about him.
First, he is black of course. Experts say that this fact probably costs him about 5 percentage points. You can actually hear people saying it is a problem for them to elect a black president.

Then, his middle name is Hussein. Barack Hussein Obama. That's not very American, is it? Hussein, Hussein, hmm, it rings a bell. Didn't we just hang a dictator called Hussein? Even a guy with Milhous as a middle name would be better off (that was Richard Milhous Nixon).

Oh, and he attended a muslim school in Indonesia when he was a kid. So, he is a Muslim.

Now, in today's context, what does the whole picture represent? A stroke of former ties with a radical activist, a stroke of "Hussein is his middle name," a stroke of "he attended a Muslim school," take a few steps back and you have portrayed Barack Obama as a terrorist.

If someone would have told me that the Republicans were cynical enough to do this, I would not have believed it. This has to be the dirtiest campaign I have ever heard of.

It is too early to know if people buy that. But I wouldn't be surprised. Ignorance and fear are the two pillars of a Republican victory.

What that move truly does, though, is debunking the seriousness of terrorism. American voters who are afraid of terrorism, who were terrified and horrified at the planes crashing in the World Trade Center should realize that people who use images of 9/11 during their convention, who play so lightly with the words terrorist and terrorism are not trustworthy.

In my world, Osama Bin Laden was a terrorist. If Barack is in fact a terrorist, I guess Osama Bin Laden is Jesus!

Vote Osama Bin Laden, then.

Folksy Sarah!

2008-10-03T05:50:00.001-07:00

Well, last night's VP debate was quite disappointment.

I did not really expect Sarah to go down in flames -- since I was sure she would come prepared and that the campaign staff forbade her to say again that she is a foreign policy expert because she can see Russia from her bedroom window -- but I certainly hoped she would commit more blunders. I even performed a little bit of witchcraft in my backyard to make her say that Canada should be attacked and invaded because they have nuclear -- by the way, I think she says that word the Bush way, "nukelar" or something like that -- weapons directed at Alaska.

No, she did not blunder too much, but she did not answer the questions either when the answers she learned by heart did not fit. The way she changed the topic of the questions asked was quite incredible. They all come up with rote answers to some extent, but I had never seen anyone ignore the questions like she did.

Towards the end, there was this beautiful moment when the moderator asked the debaters what were their "Achilles' heels." Her answer to that humbling question was to explain how prepared she was for the job, how much her experience as mayor would make her the perfect VP, etc., etc.
Joe Biden kind of did the same thing, but only after acknowledging the question with humility.
I think Sarah's answer there was not only the same technique of changing the topic. I think she did not understand the question, she does not know what Achilles' heel means!

Anyway, contentwise, the debate was relatively interesting. Joe Biden knows what he is talking about. Sarah Palin wants diplomacy but without sitting at the table with foreign leaders. To the question, Do you support same-sex marriage? they both answered The definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, but Joe Biden said he supports equal civil rights for gay couples. When Sarah was asked Do you support equal civil rights for gay couples? she answered the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman.
????

Are you gonna raise taxes? The definition of marriage is between a man and a woman.

Do you want to attack Pakistan? The definition of marriage is between a man and a woman.

Do you see Russia from your house? The definition of marriage is between a man and a woman.

In the end, what will be remembered of the debate is that Sarah is just like us, she is just like me "Joe Six-Pack" and you "Hockey Mom." And she talks like us. She is folksy, because that's just who she is, us. So, repeatedly, she said:

"I betcha"
"you're darn right"
"Joe Six-Pack"
"Hockey Mom"
"in Alaska up there" (a hundred times)
"also" (a million times)
"Obama, he" or "John and I, we"
"blessed their hearts"
"to tap into 'em"
"ready to back ye up"
"I tell ya"
"I can't wait to work with ya"

For the intonations and the face language that is just like ya, see video on the net.

Now, I want to tell my numerous American readers: Beware! Talking like the man in the street, sorry, like Joe Six-Pack or your regular "Hockey Mom," works. How do I know? Our dear French President Nicolas Sarkozy did it.

Never underestimate the power of language.

Anyway, I really look forward for this country to be governed by Joe Six-Pack and Hockey Mom, because really, what is so hard in governing a country that Joe Six-Pack and Hockey Mom can't do it. Those Liberals with all their Ph.Ds and expertise are not going to tell us how the world works. What do they know? They have spent their time learning stuff in libraries, how do they know how to look into foreign leaders' eyes and see their soul?

John, Barack and populism

2008-10-01T08:40:00.000-07:00

The bailout plan has failed.

Congress is about to try again to pass it. I am not quite sure what sense it makes to reject a bill one week and accept it the next, but that is what seems to be about to happen. To be more successful, some people suggest that they should stop calling it "bailout plan" but "rescue plan."
Power to the language!

Anyway, I don't really know if they should approve this bill or not because I don't understand much of the economy generally speaking.

There is one thing I know though. It is that both Barack and John, who both support the bailout /rescue plan are very populist about it.

They, and many others -- supporting or opposing the bill -- keep saying that Main Street -- that is the average Americans, the small businesses and their employees, the taxpayers -- should not pay for Wall Street's mistakes and greed.

This is highly hypocritical, or blind.

There is no denying that Wall Street shares a huge responsibility in the current disastrous economic crisis.
But Main Street is also responsible.

Generally speaking, Americans live way above their means. I read this morning that American cardholders have in average nine credit cards in their wallet. Americans live on credit. They buy houses they can't afford, they buy cars they can't afford, they buy huge TVs they can't afford, they have to have the last new thing, even if they can't afford it. How do they do that? They pay with plastic. That is, they pay until they can't.

I go to campus everyday. A huge number of students drive huge cars that I could not afford. All of them are not from rich families. Yet, they drive big brand new SUVs or sports cars. How do they do that? They go in debt forever.

Every other day, when I go see my daughter's soft ball game or my son's football game, I see 12 year-olds playing with their iPhone. Do they really need an iPhone at their age?

This way of life is unhealthy. It can't go on forever. People buy and buy and buy, but they don't own anything. The banks and credit companies own people's houses, cars, TVs, iPhones.

At the end of the day, the US as a whole owes so much to China that the US does not own anything.
China owns the US.

If the candidates cannot face this reality, I am not sure people are going to change their mindset.
The sad part is that even if the economy collapses, I don't think people are going to wake up and understand they need to change their way of life.
They will keep blaming Wall Street, with the blessing of their leaders.

It's starting to dawn on them

2008-09-28T13:32:00.000-07:00

Two weeks ago, everybody was crazy about Sarah.

Today, we know her.

Today, Kathleen Parker, a very Conservative editorialist -- I already mentioned her --, someone who called sexist people who criticized Sarah Palin, someone who talked about media persecution, someone who loved Sarah, is starting to, well, see a bit more clearly.

She authored a paper entitled "Palin should bow out," in which she simply asks Sarah to give up, to leave the ticket, five weeks before Election Day.

Parker is waking up because this week "a more complicated picture has emerged." She is referring to the financial crisis and suggesting that it might not be enough for Palin to be "introduced as just a hockey mom with lipstick."
So apparently, the financial crisis is just recent, and before it emerged, being a hockey mom was enough to be Vice-President of the United States.

More than the financial crisis, I think that this week's interview of Palin by Katie Couric is striking the last blow. Watching these interviews is just embarrassing. I mean, it is embarrassing for me who is not even voting in this election, so just imagine how it must feel when you are a smart Republican (yes, there are a few). It must be simply unbearable to see their VP candidate once again argue that she is qualified to deal with Russia because it is Alaska's neighbor. The first time she said that, you could forgive her. When she repeats it every time she has an opportunity, she just does not look quite bright. Parker still argues that Palin has "common sense" but I don't think that arguing this ridiculous point over and over again is a proof of common sense. It is just dumb.

So now, Parker is calling Sarah "a problem." She was boosting the Republican party three weeks ago, and today she is a problem, a hindrance, for the Republican party.

Parker confesses that she was "delighted" when Sarah appeared. "Palin's narrative is fun, inspiring and all-American in that frontier way we seem to admire." There lies the rub. This election should not be about fun. It is kind of a serious job. And call me elitist if you want but, yes, I think you need to have more than a BA in journalism to fill in the position honorably. Any body with her qualifications would not dare apply to any high-rank position in a corporation and she dares apply to the second to highest-rank position in a country which has a lot of huge crises to solve! What the heck!

So, although she hates saying it, Parker says it. She watches the interviews "with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted."

Parkers adds: "Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there's not much content there." And then she gives examples of circumvoluted nonsensical answers given by Palin, answers you can hear on youtube or CBS and a slight caricature of which is brilliantly performed by Tina Fey (see my blog, or youtube, or Saturday Night Live website).

Parker's most brilliant line must be the already proverbial: "If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself."

Parker adds: "If Palin were a man, we'd all be guffawing."

She concludes thus: "McCain can't repudiate his choice for running mate." If she was his choice. I won't be surprised to learn soon that he was pressured by the party into picking her.
Parker's final words: "Only Palin can save McCain, her party and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first. Do it for your country."

Well, it's gonna take some Democrats to defend Palin before long.

Next Thursday is the VP debate, unless the McCain campaign pulls out another stunt to get out of it.

Who won the first debate?

2008-09-27T06:09:00.000-07:00

Yesterday morning, on the web, there was an ad claiming "McCain won the debate."

Only one problem: the debate took place last night. That ad appeared even before John confirmed that he would attend to debate, thereby suspending the suspension of his campaign. The unbearable suspense was over.

If John won the debate before the debate, who won the debate after the debate actually took place?

Well, that's not an easy one.

My first gut feeling was that John won the debate. Not because the policies he advocated are better, but because I think he said what people wanted to hear.
Barack exposed policies that I think more efficient, more intelligent and less simplistic. But that is exactly why he might have lost the debate. We know how most voters work.

A few random facts, first about the style of the candidates, then about the contents of what they said.

John never looked at Barack. He was speaking about "Senator Obama" in the third person, addressing and looking only at the moderator. He never looked at the camera -- that is the American people and myself.

Barack talked about "John" and he looked at him, using "you" instead of "he." A couple of times, he looked at me -- that is into the camera.

John did not blunder -- except on the name of Ahmadinejahd, but I don't think that counts -- as he had done for the previous two weeks every time he attempted to talk about the economy.

Barack said several times that he agreed with John, or that John was right, etc.

First conclusions: John did much better than I had seen him do before. However, he looked contemptuous, never looking at his opponent, never addressing him. Many commentators thought he looked angry. I did not perceive it that way, but I might be wrong. To me, his avoiding to look at Barack made him look strong, straight in his boots, an unflinching tough guy. A commander-in-chief kind of guy. This is exactly why John might have won the debate. Many people want to see a tough guy in the White House these days.

Barack did not look as lecturing as he might have. He actually appeared rather gentlemanly. Maybe too much. There is no doubt the Republicans are going to rehash today that Barack said he agreed with John about ten times. They will of course ignore the fact that everytime he agreed with John, it was to better bring up a distinction, a point about which they were in fundamental disagreement.
I don't think Barack was punchy enough, especially during the first part of the debate dealing with the economy. He let John talk about government spending without telling him what I think he should have told him: It is not about how much the government spends, it is about how and where the government spends.

By the way, it was quite ironic to hear them talk about how bad government spending is just when the government is about to spend $700 billion dollars to bail out Wall Street.

Content-wise, given the fact that John really sucks at economics, I think he won the part of the debate dealing with the economy. Again, not because I think his policies are better -- on health care, for example, he repeated that a governmental health care system would be bad because "the government should not be between the doctor and the patient" (oh my god! I can't hear that crap anymore; Keith, make me come to your show so that I can explain a few things about a governmental health care system) and that families should be able to choose their health care plan (meaning they can choose between daylight robbery and shameless rip-off) -- not because his policies are better -- I was saying before ranting -- but because he was simplistic enough for people to understand what he was saying.

On foreign policy, though, Barack was brilliant. Maybe too brilliant, too savvy, with too much in-depth analysis. He demonstrated that he knows the world as it is, but I am not sure people want to hear that Ahmadinejahd is not the most powerful man in Iran. I think people want to hear that Ahmadinejahd is a bastard and he should be hanged.

However, Barack probably scored points -- with undecided voters, not with Republican voters -- when he drove home that John was wrong about the war in Iraq: When you said the war would be quick and easy, you were wrong; when you said we would find weapons of mass destruction, you were wrong; when you said Al Qaeda was in Iraq, you were wrong.
That was probably the strongest Obama moment.

Barack was also politically smarter when he advocated for more diplomacy, saying that the US need to sit with rogue states and talk.
John tried to ridicule the idea that the US President should sit with people like Ahmadinejahd without pre-conditions.
Barack made clear he is not talking about the President himself inviting Ahmadinejahd "for tea," but a US representative sitting with an Iranian representative. One of his strong lines was when he said that "without preconditions" means that the US can't tell Iran or Pakistan, We will meet with you only after you have done exactly what we want you to do.

Untill the Americans understand that point, they will be unsafe, and the world will be full of "people who don't like us," as John said again. At some point, the Americans are going to have to wonder why there are so many people who don't like them. Barack emphasized that when he said several times that the US is not respected anymore as it used to be.

There were many other points worthy of commentary during this debate, but I am ranting and it's not coming back to me right now.

Just one last point. Although Barack advocated more diplomacy in US foreign policy, he still appeared like he would not hesitate to go to war against Iran or Pakistan if needs be. The US seems to be doomed to be a bellicose nation. Barack even agreed with John that Iran is building nuclear weapons. To my knowledge -- but I am no expert and please comment and talk me down if you know better -- Iran's building nuclear weapons has not been proved more strongly than Iraq's WMD yet. As far as I know, all we know about Iran's nuclear activities is that they are civilian programs, which should be fine.
More fundamentally, I think there is a problem when the country with the most powerful nuclear arsenal orders another country not to have any nuclear activities.

Anyway, if you have seen the debate, please leave comments, hightlight things that I have not mentioned, give me your input.

Next Thursday, it's VP debate day. Joe Biden, the most savvy of them all about the world at large, vs. Sarah Palin, who can see Russia from her bedroom.

By the way, just a quick note about Sarah (it's hard to resist talking about her): more and more Republicans are embarrassed at the interview she gave to Katie Couric this week (you can see bits of it on my facebook or on CBS website). One Conservative female editorialist even said: "If BS [bullshit] was currency, Sarah Palin could bail out Wall Street herself."

Adishats!

How did John sleep?

2008-09-26T08:14:00.001-07:00

Wow!

It is difficult to keep track with this campaign when blogging about it is not the only thing you have to do. I’m no Meghan McCain.

Tonight is the big night. The first debate between Barack and... well... an empty chair. At least, that’s the state of our knowledge this morning of September 26, 2008.

Two days ago, as I already wrote, John decided to “suspend” his campaign to go to Washington to save the world economy. Well, he said suspend, but he did not really suspend his campaign, no, we kept seeing his surrogates on TV who explained that he had “suspended” his campaign. Actually, we saw John in person saying quite a lot why he was “suspending” his campaign.
Of course, everybody knows now that the very “suspension” of his campaign was one more brilliant campaign stratagem.
When I say brilliant, that is of course to the measure of the Palin-pick standard of political brilliance.

I am writing this during the commercial breaks of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, who just described John as the only man who overreacts at an event which is ten days old.
That is exactly what this “campaign suspension” looks like.

So anyway, he suspended his campaign and asked for a delay of the debate due to take place on Friday night.

Suspense!!!! (over the suspension...)

The truth is probably, of course, than John does not want to debate. Because he does not really know what he is talking about, as is made obvious by the big perspiration drops rolling down his temples during the interviews he dares give.
You know, I will have to write a blog about the Republican ticket interviews, because I have never quite seen something like that anymore. Sarah Palin, in particular, is quite something. Yesterday, again, she said to Katie Couric of CBS that she has foreign policy experience because Russia is Alaska’s neighbor, and when the Russians violate American airspace, they will be over Alaska first. I mean, you don’t get better than that. Or maybe you could by saying that from Alaska, you can see Russia. Oh, wait a minute. She did that already.

The truth is also that John faces an incredible dilemma. He says the Paulson bailout plan (the government spends $700 billion dollars to save the economy) is a bad plan because the taxpayers should not have to pay this kind of money. That is basically the general opinion. A poll yesterday showed that a bit less than a third of the Americans favor the plan, a bit more than a third do not, and about a third are undecided. If such a huge measure does not get immediate widespread enthusiastic support, it is not a good sign. On Thursday morning in the very Conservative Oklahoman – my new Bible – where the readers’ letters are usually about how you should love America or leave it, or about how the President should be very very Christian, or how abortion is murder etc, etc, well, on Thursday, all the letters were about how the taxpayers should not have to save Wall Street.
Just a sign.

The interesting thing is that from both sides, they are against this plan for different reasons: on the left, they obviously do not want rich businessmen who benefited from years of Republican deregulations to be saved from their blunders and on the right, they see this plan as Socialism, which to them is synonymous with Soviet policies (cf. Previous posts).

So here is John’s conundrum. Either he does not sign the plan as a Senator and a majority does not sign it and the economy collapses; he does not sign the plan but the plan passes and is successful and he was not one of the saviors; he does sign the plan and he alienates the base who does not want the plan and his fellow Republicans who consider that regulating the market is Stalinist socialism.

Yesterday, at the beginning of the afternoon, Congressmen were saying that they were about to hit a deal. Two hours later, one of them came out of the room and announced that they were far from a deal yet, that there were some fundamental disagreements.
What happened in the meantime?
John arrived to Washington.
I’m not kidding.

In any case, all this is very exciting. Kind of in a pathetic way, but exciting all the same. I have never seen such a campaign, and apparently, a lot of people feel the same.
Really, my non-intellectualized gut feeling when I see McCain interviewed is that he knows he is fighting a lost battle. He knows there is no way he can win, so he is attempting the craziest moves: he picks a VP running mate who literally stutters when asked a serious question, whose body language clearly, unmistakebly shows she has no clue about anything except moose-hunting (I mean really, I can’t describe it but please view some of interviews on the net if you don’t have access to US TV channels), and whose lies and manipulations of investigations and pork-barrel politics are unveiled every single day; he approves ads saying that Obama wants to teach kindergartners sex education; then for ten days of a major economic crisis, he keeps saying the US economy is fundamentally strong before he finally declares he suspends his campaign to go solve this major crisis.

The cynical interpretation of all that is that while he is doing all those crazy things, the press is talking about him, and on November 4th, a big proportion will vote for the guy whose name is the most familiar.
This is working. When you look at this campaign, and when you add it to a very unpopular President who blundered during eight years, and you put on top of that an economic crisis, which historically is never good for the incumbent, then you would think that the margin between the two candidates would be 20 percentage points. Instead, they are in a dead heat. And not because Obama is running a bad campaign, like only our very own French Socialists know how to run.
It is quite unbelievable.

Well, I am looking forward to tonight.

Sleep well, John.

Katie and Sarah

2008-09-24T15:53:00.000-07:00

Just a quick note.

I've just seen Katie Couric interviewing Sarah Palin.

Katie asked Sarah several times to give her examples of John McCain pushing for more economic regulations in his 26-year career in Washington.

Sarah weaseled out of the answer.

Katie insisted.

Sarah answered: "Well, I'm gonna find some and I will get them right back to ya."

That was a homage to her running mate's answer to the question "How many houses do you own?"

John our hero

2008-09-24T12:25:00.000-07:00

On Friday, the first presidential debate between John and Barack was supposed to take place.

However, John has just announced that he would suspend his campaign on Thursday in order to go to Washington to help solve the economic crisis. He is asking to postpone the debate.

After the brilliant Palin move, here is John's brilliant let-us-solve-the-crisis-before-campaigning move.

Either Barack will refuse, and he will look like the bad guy since Oh my God, the presidential campaign is more important for him than the millions of Americans suffering from the crisis.

Or Barack will accept, and the debate is not going to take place on time, which might be slightly relieving to John.

All this does not matter anyway, because John is here to save us. He's going to Washington and everything is gonna be okay. Be relieved, World, John is going to solve the crisis that his cronies and his party's political philosophy have entailed. A bipartisan Congressional commission is working on it right now, examining the presidential bill of an appropriation of $700 billion to bailout the economy, but they probably do not know what they are doing.

John, on the contrary, these last two weeks, has shown his economic expertise, by saying the economy is fundamentally strong, by calling for a 9/11 Commission of the economy, etc, etc.

Go get'em, Johnny! As you keep saying, you have taken on tougher guys!

Ronald lives on

2008-09-23T08:18:00.000-07:00

"In this present crisis, the government is not the solution to our problem. The government is the problem."

This statement, by Ronald Reagan, lives on today and is one of those sloganish statements used over and over again to avoid addressing the issues that would make the government, and the country, better.

Again, from a French point of view, I cannot help screaming how ignorant people are, and how paradoxical their stances are, when they say on TV or write in the press about the evils of big government.
Every day, I insist, every single day, you hear or read someone equating big government to Communism. Again, this morning, a reader of The Oklahoman writes: "They're slowly but surely taking over in the pretext of liberalism (communism). We have a presidential candidate who's preaching the old communist axiom "We are going to take from the haves and give to the have nots." He goes on by quoting Norman Matoon Thomas, a six-time candidate for president from the Socialist Party of America who said: "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." This reader also recommends reading The Communist Manifesto before casting one's ballot.

Beware, Communism is still creeping!

Because these people are afraid of big government, they reject any kind of regulation of the free market.
When this deregulation results is the major crisis happening today, they do not regret. To the following question: "In your time in Congress, you have supported deregulation of the economy. Do you regret that now?" John McCain has answered: "No, I think deregulation has probably helped the economic growth of this country."
This interview took place two days ago, between the bailouts of major Wall Street corporations and the Secretary of the Treasury asking Congress for a $700 billion check for more bailouts.

Now, when I am really pissed off at hearing or reading this kind of stuff, I scream how stupid people are. But that is probably unfair. The common people do not know what they are talking about, just like I do not know what I am talking about when I start talking about the economy.
People just know what they are being told. If you keep telling them the US is the greatest country on earth, with the greatest economy, a country where everything is possible, where anybody can live the American Dream, why wouldn't they believe that? When the lies are flattering, you don't question them.

What is truly fascinating is that any Conservative who would read this blog -- if there are some, please leave a comment -- would call me a dangerous Communist.
There is no middle of the road in what I hear or read about small and big government. What they are truly talking about is no government and dictatorship.

When you tell them that a bigger government could provide for free health care for everybody, they don't say "Oh great! Let's have that." No, their reaction is "Yeah, but in Canada and in France, where you have universal health care, you wait for six months to see your doctor, and you don't find your medicine when you need it."

This is the common belief. And apart from when I write a letter to a newspaper, I never read or hear anywhere that this is simply not true.
Just in case a Conservative reads this, let me repeat it: I live in France, and when I need to see my doctor, I call him and I see him before the day is over. After the consultation, I give him 21 euros (about $15 today) which is reimbursed to me within two weeks. I then go to the pharmacy. They give me my medicine, and I give them a few cents. The first time my American wife went to the pharmacy for her and her daughter's asthma and allergy medicine, she expected to pay $150. Instead, she was asked for 12 cents.
By the way, for all that, I pay less than $100 a month and that covers my wife and my three children.
If that is big government, if that is Stalinism, I say Yeah!!!

I want to see people on Fox News tell that story. I want to go on Fox News and tell that story! Fox News, call me if you dare!

The most fascinating, of course, is that people say and write this nonsense, and then they act in very paradoxical ways.

When Hurricane Ike was about to strike the coast of Texas, people were asked to leave their homes because they were in danger.
40% of the residents of under-sea-level Galveston Island, which was about to be completely devastated, decided to ignore the authorities and stayed. After Ike has struck, billions of dollars of federal money are being spent to rescue and rebuild.

Nobody would criticize the government for doing that. Nobody with a sane mind would say "Let the evil government out of this. People and business are going to take care of themselves!"

Well, the health care in this country is under the destructive action of Hurricane Private Insurance Corporation. Many more people are in danger because of lack of health care than because of hurricanes. So the government needs to act on it as it acts -- or should act -- after hurricanes.

I think the government is the problem when it does not do anything for the governed.
You the people have asked enough what you could do for your country. It might be time again to ask what the country can do for you.

A TV commentator brilliantly summed it up last night: if you believe the government is the problem, don't run for government.

Of Moose and women, of fish and men

2008-09-19T10:57:00.000-07:00

Well, I have been away from my blog for a week, and the campaign is unrecognizable.

Last week, we were talking lipstick on pigs, sex education to kindergartners, sexist persecution, etc., etc.

Since last week, capitalist deregulations have entailed apocalyptic disasters on the market, and that revealed a lot about the candidates.

With the current major financial crisis, the McCain campaign cannot decently continue launching attacks based on Barack's lipstick on a pig comment. Even by Republican standards, that would be shockingly cynical. Besides, Barack talks about the economy this week. In the wake of the bailouts of Lehman Bros. and AIG and of the erratic course of the Dow Jones, he actually tries to address the issues. Oh, he probably won't do miracles, but he is making a lot of sense especially when he claims that the Republican philosophy of economics is at least partly responsible for what is happening.
So John has to address the issues too. And he is trying. He has even admitted in a radio interview that No, Barack Obama did not call Sarah Palin a pig. Good. A bit late, but good. That's a start away from the swiftboating of the previous weeks. For my numerous French readers who would not be familiar with swiftboat campaigning, the expression comes from the 2004 election during which an allegedly independent group of Vietnam veterans broadcast an ad claiming that Kerry -- who claimed he had been part of a heroic swift boat company in Nam -- had not really been there. These were pure lies, and Kerry lost. He had been swiftboated.

Well, that is what the McCain campaign had been doing before the financial crisis and before Karl Rove -- yes, the vicious and cynical Karl Rove, King of Swiftboating who sole-handedly put Bush in the White House twice -- that very same Karl Rove said on Fox News -- yes, Fox News, aka Fixed News, this Conservative nest of hard-hitting journalists who interview Sarah Palin's hairdresser to find out how hard Sarah works when she is waiting her turn at the salon, without complaining, just waiting patiently like all of us -- that McCain ads had not really past the 100%-true test.

Mind-blowing.

Anyway, John is also trying to talk about the economy now. And it is not pretty. The thing is, he does not look very confident when he talks about the economy. He stutters that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" on the very day the Dow Jones plunges. And you can almost see big drops of sweat on his temples. And his body language is so awkward when he is asked to explain and when he says he meant by "fundamentals" the American workers, "the best workers in the world," and so when Barack criticizes him for this comment about the fundementals of the economy, well, he really criticizes the American workers.
And you can't believe he just said that. But then, if you haven't broken your TV, you observe him for one more second and you realize that he does not believe he just said that either. He is at a loss. He does not know what to do. He is leading a smear campaign because that is what Republicans do, that's all, but he knows he should be better.
But he has a huge problem. He cannot defend any economic policy, because the Republican economic policy is the cause of the current mess. So, what can he do? Give up the fight before Election Day.
John is a moose at bay.

Talking about moose, what about Sarah? Well, she has given some interviews finally. With journalists that she picked. And she also looks very much like she does not know what she is talking about, although this comes less as a surprise. She was asked what she though of the Bush doctrine. Well, she thought nothing, because she did not know what the Bush doctrine was.
I am not being elitist here, I think it is okay for anyone of us not to know what the Bush doctrine is -- I knew only because I mentioned it in one of my classes -- but when you run for Vice President of the US, I think it is a clear, red-alert sign that you are not fit for the job when you don't know that the Bush doctrine, the doctrine that is running your country, is about preemptive strikes on countries deemed rogue countries.

She keeps claiming that she did not blink when she was asked to be on the ticket, that she would not blink in case of a new terrorist attack. She would not blink. What does it mean not to blink? Does it show courage or dumb foolhardiness? I think that the President and the Vice-President of the most powerful country in the world should blink a lot, and I think Bush and Cheney should have blinked a bit more six years ago.
Blink, baby, blink.

Oh boy, there is so much more to say about this past week.

Todd, Sarah's husband has been subpoenaed in the context of allegations that Sarah might have abused her power in having her brother-in-law fired.
Todd refused to comply with the subpoena.
The media have just started investigating why some people in Alaska call Todd the shadow governor. Apparently, he plays a big role in his wife's governing. Official state email are copied to him and he attends official meetings.

John said that more offshore drilling would be environmentally good because the fish love those rigs, there are a lot of fish around the rigs, so drilling would be good not only for our cars but for our meals too.
This is not a joke.
A few weeks ago, a Republican surrogate had claimed that Sarah's pipeline in Alaska was a good thing environmentally speaking because the caribou and the moose come huddling against the warm pipeline.

I thought I had heard the most stupid things ever in the 2007 French electoral campaign. Well, I was wrong.

Reality-making rhetoric

2008-09-12T12:39:00.000-07:00

Native Americans believe in the creative power of language. Words create the world. The world comes into being by being spoken. In the beginning was the word. The Judeo-Christian culture is also based on this principle. Sociologists and philosophers like Pierre Bourdieu or Michel Foucault have demonstrated how language can impose definitions of the world.

This dimension of language is fundamental to politics, whatever side you are on. Both Democrats and Republicans keep repeating the US is the greatest country on earth. It does not matter that this expression is absolutely meaningless. The greatest country in what respect? For landscape beauty? One of the greatest for sure. Individual freedoms? Undoubtedly among the greatest, yes, although the recent years have done nothing to maintain the US to the top of the chart. Health care? One of the worst actually. And getting worse and worse. Knowledge of the world outside its borders? Very bad, very bad indeed. Environmental issues? One of the worst too, unquestionably. For diplomacy? Not too great, no. The US is actually one of the most bellicose nations in the world.
So, what does it mean?

Yesterday, at a forum at Columbia University, John McCain was asked the question. Does it mean the Americans are better than the rest of the world? John answered that “the US is the only country I know that believes that all men are equal.” Well, he was right to qualify that statement with “I know.” It is the only country he knows believes all men are equal. He does not know much about other countries, then. So I guess he is less qualified than his running mate as far as foreign policy is concerned. Because I know a lot of countries that believe all men are equal. Let me think... er... well, France would be one of them. And many others, of course.
I guess he does not even know the US very much either, for that matter. When I read the readers’ letters in a local newspaper like The Oklahoman, for example, I understand that many Americans do not believe that all men are equal.
When John uttered this stupid statement he referred, once again, to the Founding Fathers. John, I know Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that all men were equal, but John... how shall I put?... er... Jefferson, and most of the other people you call Founding Fathers, had slaves.
You might not have heard of slavery, but that was not the best episode in the history of the greatest country on earth.
Oh, and by the way, until the middle of the 20th century, people were in segregated schools and it took the Supreme Court to change that because apparently the federal government had a hard time believing that all men were equal.
Yes, I know, they were separate but equal. But that was a huge bunch of hypocritical crap, right?

So, anyway, all this does not matter anyway. What is important is how many times they repeat the same lies. After a while, the lies become reality.
Even though all politicians are guilty of this, the Republicans in this campaign seem to elevate this practice to art.

The media are persecuting Sarah and her family.

The mayor of a small Alaska town has huge responsibilities.

Sarah has always opposed pork barrel politics.

Barack is sexist.

The US is winning the war in Iraq.

John and Sarah are mavericks and reformers.

Barack wants to teach kindergarten children about sex education.

Abortion is murder.

Andrew Rice – running in Oklahoma for the US Senate – opposes traditional marriage.

All these simplistic statements are lies. But they are simplistic, easy to understand, they have a great impact, and they are what most Americans will remember from this campaign because they simply don’t have time – or the willpower – to get informed at a deeper level.

So, if they repeat those statements enough, every day, all day long, on all channels, every time they are interviewed whatever the questions they are being asked, those statement will become reality. Not truth, but reality. That is to say they will become the context that will determine how the voters are going to act. People’s actions will not be determined by true conditions and circumstances but by the conditions and circumstances that will be real to them. In their limited world, Andrew Rice does not oppose an amendment – called Traditional Marriage Amendment – to the Oklahoma Constitution that would state that a marriage is a union between two human beings of different gender; in most people’s limited but real world, Andrew Rice opposes traditional marriage.

This is reality-making rhetoric and this is what this campaign is about.
And it works.
It has worked before.

Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Al Qaeda is in Iraq.
Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Al Qaeda is in Iraq.

Let’s go to war then.

Pigs and lipstick

2008-09-10T16:38:00.000-07:00

It is quite un-f***ing-believable -- I'm sorry but that's how I feel -- but, today, American politics were about pigs and lipstick.

For my far-away friends, let's recap briefly.

In her convention speech, Sarah told a joke: What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull? Lipstick.

Today, in a rally where Barack wanted to convey the idea that John McCain's policy would be the same as Bush's, no matter what he says and how many times he claims he represents change, he said "You can put lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig."

As you know, this is a colloquial expression, a very old phrase, funny, colorful, and very clear.

Well, apparently, it was not clear to everybody, or so they want us to believe. The Republicans have been acting outraged all day, complaining that Barack has called Sarah a pig.

Yep. And that's all they talk about, on all channels, all day long. And I am sure the newspapers will talk some more about it tomorrow.

I just can't believe the abysmal level this campaign has reached. That must be a historical campaign, and not only because there is black man and a woman running.

I have to say, again from my French point of view, and from someone who is really not a couch potato -- oops, I hope I am offending no one with my metaphors -- that I quite appreciate some of the journalists who really don't let their interviewees get away with dodging the questions. Tonight, for example, MNSBC Chris Matthews repeated over and over again the question he posed to his Republican guests: "Do you really believe Obama called Palin a pig?" "Well, what I know is..." was usually how the answers started.

The winner, tonight, is Mary Fallin (R), US Senator from Oklahoma. In his speech, Barack had elaborated on his metaphor by saying "you can wrap an old fish with a paper that says Change all over, it is still gonna stink."

Well, guess what. Mary Fallin, a brilliant Republican mind, not only thinks that Obama called Palin a pig, but she also thinks he called McCain an old stinking fish.

If I were not holding a gun in my mouth, I would burst out laughing.

I promise, if I survive my rage, I will soon write a post about political issues. It's been a while.

Who is sexist?

2008-09-10T10:10:00.001-07:00

In her acceptance speech at the Republican convention, Sarah told the following joke: What is the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull? Lipstick.

I think that if a man had told that story, and more precisely a man from the Democratic party, he would have been accused of sexism.

I know that as a fact because you just need to criticize Sarah to be accused of being a sexist.

And that is precisely what is sexist. Sarah is not a woman. She is a politician and she runs for the Vice-Presidency. So, she should be criticized for what she does wrong, and praised for what she does right – Good luck! – as any other candidate. Her record should be scrutinized, as should the record of all other candidates, and she should not be treated with any more deference – her campaign declared that she would give interviews only when the media will treat her with respect and deference – than the other candidates.

The Republicans are claiming they are making history by putting the first woman on the ticket. That is sexist. She should be on the ticket for her competence, experience and political honesty. Obviously, that is not the case. She is on the ticket because she is a woman. This is sexist.

Sarah is presented as a “mom,” supporters say she is a “babe.” Isn’t that a bit sexist?

At the convention, you could see buttons saying things like “We have the hottest VP” or “Such state for the Hot Chick.” This is amazingly sexist.

The Republicans are claiming that American women will vote for Sarah because she is a woman. Apparently then, American women are too dumb to base their vote on political or social issues, or even on ideology. American women vote for a woman. That is incredibly sexist and insulting.

If I am writing, right now, that I think this VP pick is more and more mind-boggling because everyday some new damning information is revealed about Sarah’s incompetence, am I being sexist?
Well, too bad. Let’s be sexist for a while.

Sarah is a dangerous religious fundamentalist who believes that gay should be prayed away, that the war in Iraq – and I assume any war against Muslim Arabs – is a God’s plan, and that creationism, sorry intelligent design – in which phrase intelligent refers to the designer and not the designed – should be taught at school.

Sarah is a dishonest politician who, as a Governor, supported lobbying Washington for earmarks and who now is lying about it, every day, in every speech.

She is a dishonest Governor who billed her state for per diem money when she was staying at home.

As a woman hunter and gun owner, she is no more nor less violent than a man hunter and gun owner.

Jesus (!) Sarah

2008-09-09T13:35:00.000-07:00

Okay, so, I think I'm going to have to stop this blog. You seem I am trying to be kind of funny -- more or less successfully for sure -- as I report what I perceive of this campaign. But if the candidates keep being as funny as Sarah is these days, it is going to be tough for me. I can't keep up. I mean, I'm no Keith Olberman nor Jon Stewart.

Yesterday, some videos of Sarah at church, shot only a few months ago, were released. The messages were pretty clear.

Sarah was saying that the pipeline she wanted built was the work of God, so she was exhorting her co-parishioners to pray for its construction.

She also said that the war in Iraq was a mission from God. She exhorted her co-parishioners to "pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God, that's what we have to make sure that we are praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."

In an incredible part of the video -- that you have to go see on youtube -- she is talking about her pastor who prayed for her to be elected governor of Alaska, and she explains how bold that pastor was because he was not praying saying "If such is your will, make sure she is elected," he was praying saying "Lord, make her way, and let her do that next step." And Sarah concludes "And that's exactly what happened." By the way, some Republicans criticize Barack Obama because he acts as if he is the Messiah.
Then she gives the mike to a fellow parishioner who calls this a "prophetic declaration." And, without Sarah trying to stop him but on the contrary with Sarah nodding at his side, this guy continues explaining that "there are some things about the natural resources about the state, there are some things that God wants to tap into to be a refuge for the lower 48 [the 48 US states south of Alaska] and I believe Alaska is one of the refuge state in the last days, and hundreds of thousands of people are gonna come to the state to seek refuge and the church has to be ready to minister to them"

So, a bit of explanation here might be necessary for my French pagan friends, not that you don't understand but you are probably saying to yourself what I have been saying to myself "okay, I heard that, I think I understand, but I must be wrong, I must be misunderstanding, that's just too crazy." So, yes, this guy is actually saying that the state of Alaska is going to be a refuge for the true Christians on the day of the Armaggedon, "in the last days," the days of the apocalypse.

Okay, I am a French pagan for sure, but I don't mean any disrespect for any religious belief whatsoever, really...

...

Oh, come on, man, Alaska chosen by God as a refuge for the saved!!??
Okay, I'm not saying anything.

So, granted, it is a religious belief, that's okay, it doesn't hurt anyone, blah blah blah.

However, there is a serious problem in having a Governor claiming that the war in Iraq is a mission from God, and asking her co-parishioners to pray for a political project such as a pipeline. The problem is called Separation of Church and State Endangered. I think Sarah needs to be seriously questioned and asked whether she believes in the separation of church and state, and how her faith is going to influence her actions as a Vice-President.

I find this basic principle of democracy seriously endangered in the US today as never before. The decisions that the Supreme Court has taken in that respect in the recent years have not always been unanimous and making sure that the Supreme Court keeps defending the separation of church and state is one of the stakes of this election. Several Justices are getting very old. The next president might have several opportunities to appoint a new Justice to a Supreme Court which is dangerously leaning towards 18th century ideology.

Many people keep referring to the Founding Fathers as Christians who made sure the freedom of religion would be secured and they take that to mean that it is okay for a vice-presidential candidate to say the kind of things Sarah said to her co-parishioners.
The problem is, the Founding Fathers secured freedom of religion and separation of church and state because they wanted to protect the state from lunatics. Get a load of this, my Republican friends -- if I have any out there -- most of the Founding Fathers were deists. What is a deist? Well, I like Diderot's definition: a deist is someone who has not lived long enough to become an atheist.

Finally, it was also revealed that Sarah once encouraged her co-parishioners to pray away the gay, to pray so that gay people would be converted into straight people. Did I mention 18th century ideology earlier? Sorry, I meant 16th.

The Republicans keep complaining -- in the media -- that the media are too mean to Sarah. Well, I think they are way, way too nice.

As I am writing this, the Washington Post is releasing a poll showing that a majority of women are now supporting the McCain/Palin ticket. I have an eye on the images the TV shows of today's REpublican rally, and apart from the campaign-manufactured McCain/Palin signs, I can see a lot of home-made signs praising Palin: "Palin Power," "Women for Palin," etc., etc.

This is not funny anymore. It is becoming quite scary indeed.

Words, words, words

2008-09-07T09:16:00.000-07:00

On the New York Times website, there is a very interesting graph showing how many times a number of given words have been used by both sides of the presidential campaign per 25,000 words spoken. The graph simply shows facts, but they are quite revealing if you take pains at a simple superficial analysis of them.

One of the most recurrent words in both campaigns is Change. The Democrats have used it 89 times, by far the word they use the most. It makes perfect sense. They are the opposition. The current Bush administration is very unpopular. So the Democrats need to convey the message that if they are elected, the voters' life is going to change for the better. This is a classic message of the opposition, here and anywhere else.
It is, however, more original to hear this word used a lot by the party which is leading the country. The Republicans have used Change 30 times per 25,000 words; it is the third most used word by them after God (43 times) and Taxes (42 times). Even more striking is that the word Reform(s) has been used much more by the Republicans than by the Democrats: 22 times to 6.
During the convention speeches, John McCain and Sarah Palin have indeed emphasized that their victory would bring change to Washington, although the country is led by a fellow Republican. This, of course, reveals the urgent need for McCain to separate himself from Bush, unpopular among the Republicans as well as among the rest of the population. It is an urgent need, but it is going to be a difficult trick to pull. JoeBarack Obiden need to constantly associate McBush in their campaign and remind people that change cannot be that significant from a Republican administration to a Republican administration. It is cruelly ironic than the name of Bush has only been used 7 times by the Republicans, who have never mentioned Dick Cheney's name. I don't have previous data of the same kind, but this has to be a historical record low. Even Al Gore, who ran in 2000 and who tried to separate himself from Bill Clinton's sex scandal, has probably cited his White House mate more often.
The Democrats have used the name of Bush 46 times and 6 times the name of Cheney.

Because promoting change is hardly making any sense for the Republicans, John and Sarah are campaigning a lot about their character. The word Character have been used 17 times by the Republicans and 3 times by the Democrats. Indeed, John is incessantly -- to the point of nausea during the convention -- depicted by himself and his supporters as a courageous and honorable POW who suffered for his country for so long. His biographical video at the convention and the speeches of some of his supporters -- Romney, Giuliani, Graham -- have told in graphic detail the five years he spent in a Vietnamese cell and the wounds he endured.
Sarah is constantly referred to as a mother, more precisely as a hockey mom, an expression used 4 times by the Republicans. It seems few but it is arguably a lot in a political campaign. This campaign should be about economic and social issues more than about the character of the candidates. Basing an electoral campaign on character could be risky because it is necessarily hypocritical. While portraits of John and Sarah emphasize their honor, courage, independence, morals, their opponents could highlight what the Republicans leave behind about their candidates: John cheated on his first wife, for example, which should be damning to the Conservatives who tried to impeach Bill Clinton and who politically killed John Edwards.

But the Democrats do not do that. They actually try to focus on policies, however simplistically. They have used the terms Economy 32 times (used 15 times by the Republicans), Health care 34 times (15 times by the Republicans), Energy 49 times (against 26), Jobs 39 times (against 18).
They are doing what they should do, but I am not sure they are doing what works to win an election.

Quite surprisingly, both sides have talked about immigration, Iran, terrorism very little. The campaign is not over, of course, and these themes will probably appear in the speeches. For now, they are overshadowed by what is causing trouble in the Americans' everyday life, the price of gas and milk.
Immigration was used 3 times by the Democrats and only once by the Republicans; Iran, 5 by the Dems, 2 by the Reps; Terrorism or Terrorists, 8 times by each side.

Neither side has talked much of terrorism. However, one side has indecently used images of the 9/11 attacks during the party convention. I let you guess which one.

My Obama sign

2008-09-07T08:09:00.000-07:00

In France, we don't practice political yard signs and bumper stickers. So, since I'm spending six months in the US during an electoral campaign, I was very excited at the idea of putting signs in my yard -- really my in-laws' yard -- and bumper stickers on my car -- really my in-laws' car -- supporting my candidate -- really my in-laws' candidate.

So I did.

Less than a week later, my in-laws received an email from the president of the neighbors' association reminding them that the neighborhood covenant -- equivalent to contrat de syndic -- forbids all political signs! In the land of freedom!? I am sure that it did not help that my sign was an Obama sign in an Oklahoma yard.

For a minute, I thought of going to buy a gun at the local Wal-Mart -- equivalent to French Carrefour -- to go on a killing spree. But I reasoned myself and thought of what the Founding Fathers would have done.
And I think they would have put the sign in their bedroom, against the window with a view on the street.

Me alive, the freedom of speech will not be infringed upon!

John the funny Mavrick

2008-09-05T07:15:00.000-07:00

Before I start, I need to tell you two autobiographical anecdotes. If I understood one thing during this campaign, it is that it has to be about the biography of the candidates or their partners or any other people providing they allow to avoid addressing real issues. I don't have a video showing you my life with tear-pulling music playing in the background, but I can tell you a few anecdotes about my theater experience so that you understand what happened yesterday during John's acceptance speech.

There is kind of a tradition in theater to play tricks on your fellow actors at the last performance. It can be quite difficult to handle on the spur of the moment, but it is funny once you have passed -- more or less successfully -- the hurdle. For example, as I was playing a character who at some point unfolds a piece of paper where I was supposed to have written down a few notes to remember, my friends had replaced the paper I usually unfolded with one filled with obscenities about one colleague we did not like who was in the audience. In another play, my partner Yves and I were now and then having a drink of fake whiskey. For the last performance, our director Fred had replaced the fake whiskey with real whiskey. You imagine our reaction at the first drink we had.

Well, last night, John gave his acceptance speech, and some funny staffer had filled his speech with blunders and jokes that John apparently did not even notice as he was uttering them.

At the beginning of his speech, there was the only mention of the current President -- he had apparently forgotten his name since he referred to him only by his title -- in the following terms: "I'm grateful to the president of the United States for leading us in these dark days following the worst attack in American history."
In light of the rest of his speech, which was at times rather damning to the present administration and the Republican party he is supposed to represent, he obviously meant to say "the president of the United States for leading us to these dark days following the worst attack in American history."

A few minutes later, he said that his opponent and himself share something: "We're dedicated to the proposition that all people are created equal and endowed by our creator with inalienable rights. No country -- no country ever had a greater cause than that." That's something we hear a lot these days, the idea that only in the United States of America can individuals be equal and free. They can't possible mean that. They can't possibly be narrow-minded enough to believe that only in America are people free and equal. They can't truly believe the US of A is the only democracy around, that it is "the greatest nation in the history of the earth." They can't truly have forgotten that fifty years ago, a huge part of the American population were treated as sub-humans.
That must have been a typo in the speech too.

He said that Sarah "has worked with her hands and nose." That was a funny one, although we did not really understand what he meant. In fact, he had paused at the wrong place and the sentence was "she's worked with her hands and knows what it's like to worry about mortgage payments."

Oh, and just like everybody else in St Paul, Minnesota this week, he had his Bushian "Mission accomplished!" moment: "Thanks to the leadership of a brilliant general, David Petraeus, and the brave men and women he has the honor to command, that strategy succeeded, and it rescued us from a defeat that would have demoralized our military, risked a wider war, and threatened the security of all Americans." That was funny too. It would be truly hilarious if in fact the military were not demoralized and the security of Americans were not threatened, but hey, John is not a professional comedian.

He talked about health care. Well, actually he talked about how he understood Barack's plan for health care: "His plan will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages, and force families into a government-run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor."
Okay, so that has to be the funniest part of his speech. So John, let me play the arrogant French here and lecture you a little bit about what you call "a big government" can do for your health. You see, last time I went to my doctor's, I did not see any bureaucrat standing between him and I. I did not check under the desk, but I am pretty sure that's not what you call a bureaucrat, right? No, in fact the bureaucrat in a government-run health care system is far away from the doctor's office, at the other end of a telecommunication line and this is what happens: I go to the doctor's or the pharmacist's, and when the doctor or the pharmacist are done with me, I give them a small electronic card, they put that card in a machine and the government pays for my visit or my medicine. And that's it.
So when you say "All you've ever asked of your government is to stand on your side and not in your way," John, well that's what a big government can do for you. It can stand by your side and make sure you do no go bankrupt because you are sick.
Oh, and talking about big government... When you refer to former exemplar presidents as models, like "Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan," just a piece of advice, John, when you mention Roosevelt, don't forget the first name of the one you mean, because one of the Roosevelts -- arguably the most popular one, and the most popular of all Presidents -- was the epitome of big government.

John said he wants to "empower parents with choice." Yes, people, John is pro-choice.
Oops, sorry, I got carried away, he was talking about schools. He wants to empower parents at school. He wants "schools to answer to parents and students." Well, I can tell he did not meet some of the parents I met as a teacher.
This was a running joke in his speech, by the way, since later he encouraged people to become teachers: "My friends, if you find faults with our country, make it a better one [...] Become a teacher. Enter the ministry. Run for public office. Feed a hungry child. Teach an illiterate adult to read."

And here was the most hilarious moment of the convention, and I swear I am not inventing anything. I watched the speech on CNN. Just after John had exhorted the crowd to "teach an illiterate adult to read," a camera showed a sign in the crowd that said "John the Mavrick." How appropriate.

The funniest running joke that his speechwriters pulled on him, though, is the recurrent call to vote for Barack: "Change is coming! Change is coming!" he incessantly repeated.

Sarah and politics

2008-09-04T08:24:00.000-07:00

Last night, Sarah gave a very good speech.

She talked a lot about her family, who were all there attending. Even the teenage future husband of her teenage daughter was there. I wonder if anybody asked his opinion about being there. All week, though, Republican figures had asked the media to leave her family alone. "That's out of bounds. There's no need to be intrusive and pry into that," said Tim Pawlenty.

She said: "To the families of special-needs children across the country, I have a message for you: for years, you've sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters. And I pledge to you that, if we're elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House."

She said her husband, Todd, "is a world champion snow machine racer." She said: "Throw in his Yup'ik Eskimo ancestry, and it all makes for quite a package. And we met in hight school. And two decades and five children later, he's still my guy."

She also talked about her parents. She said that they taught her that only in America, "every woman can walk every door of opportunity."

She said she "had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town. I was just your average hockey mom and signed up for the PTA."

She said "a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities," referring to Barack's past helping people in the South side of Chicago.

She said that the media are plotting against her and her running mate. She said that "the pollsters and the pundits, they overlooked just one thing when they wrote him off. They overlooked the caliber of the man himself, the determination, and resolve, and the sheer guts of Senator John McCain."

She said she's "not a member of the permanent political establishment." And she said "if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone."

She said: "Americans, we need to produce more of our own oil and gas. And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: We've got lots of both." Some of them are even in wildlife reserves.

She said that "victory [was] within sight" in Iraq.

She said about Barack: "This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting and never use the word 'victory.'" Huh? I wonder if that might be because victories are hard to find in the recent American history.

She said that while Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America" Barack is "worried that someone won't read them their rights."

She said that John "is not looking for a fight, but he's not afraid of one either."

She said that JoeBarack Obiden are talking a lot about "fighting for you, but there's only one man in this election who really fought for you," referring to John's experience in Vietnam.

She said that her opponents plan "to make government bigger, and take more of your money and give you more orders from Washington, and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world."

Those quotes from her speech hardly need any comment on my part. Any intelligent reader -- and my two, okay five readers are intelligent -- can understand what they truly mean and what is behind them. But half of the voters do not question them.

They do not see that big government can be good as far as health care is concerned.

They don't see that small Conservative government is still big enough to give them orders such as Don't abort! Pray at school! Don't you gay people marry! Learn creationism! Forget science!

They don't see that there are as many conservative media as liberal ones.

They don't see that Conservative America is making the world dangerous by pretending to make it safer.

They don't see that what Sarah does when she talks about not reading their rights to prisoners of the war on terror, she is dismissing the habeas corpus, which is at the basis of the ideals of America that the Conservatives claim to protect, at the basis of democracy and freedom, two words whose meanings such speeches are betraying and turning their back to.

When Sarah says that her opponents want to increase government spendings, don't they see that for the last five years, the government -- a Conservative one -- has been spending huge amounts of money in a war without victory.

They don't see that it does not make any sense to define McCain as a maverick when he has supported the policies of the last eight years. They don't see that lashing at the Washington establishment when their presidential candidate has been in Washington for about 30 years is kind of stupid.

They don't see how meaningless it is to claim over and over again that the United States is "the greatest nation in the history of the earth" (Mitt Romney), that only in America can a black man or a woman be successful -- and both camps are to be blamed for such assertions, by the way.
They don't see that democracy does exist in some other places, they don't see that democracy is actually healthier in other places than in America.

They don't see that a former POW does not necessarily make a good president.

They don't see that a good mommy does not necessarily make a good Vice-President.

Attacks on the opponents as being friends of the media and part of the elite has worked before. The elite sucks! Stupid America rocks!

Sarah gave a great speech because she said exactly what approximately half of the Americans want to hear.
And that is the scary part.

Barack and young voters

2008-09-03T16:28:00.000-07:00

I am trying to remain neutral on this blog, I am trying very hard, yes I am, but everybody in the family is not as serious as I am.

The young and the restless in St Paul

2008-09-03T10:40:00.000-07:00

Political scientist Walter Bagehot once wrote about the spectacle of politics. He probably had in mind a higher form of artistic show in mind than the soap opera the Americans are being offered these days.

In our last episode, George, alone in his big white house in Washington, spoke to his former friends who were all partying in St Paul. They were all calling after him and acted happy to see him but George knew well they were pretending and kept talking over their cheers. He tried a few jokes -- John "is not afraid to tell you when he disagrees. Believe me, I know" -- but they kind of fell flat, and he looked so sad.

The thing is, George did not really want to talk because it was the last time he addressed his former friends, so he had to say farewell but he knew they would not miss him. Besides, he was supposed to say all the good things he thinks of John. But you see, he does not think many good things about John. In fact, he hates him. But hey, this was John's party, and he was invited, so he had to be polite. Besides, most of the other guests don't like John either, and they acted all excited.

George felt lucky, though, because Gustav had made his day. Yes, George was supposed to be present at the party the day before, and he was supposed to give a long speech. But Gustav decided to crash the party and wreak havoc and so George had to deal with that. So, he pretended to be mad at Gustav, but really, he was relieved. Just like his former friends who did not really want to see him in the first place.

In the meantime, Joe was wondering what he was doing here. He was wondering about that so much, and he wondered out loud in the microphone at some point: "What is a Democrat like me doing at the Republican convention like this?" That was so funny! You see, Joe had been invited to the party by his friend John. But the other guests hated Joe because he is not really part of the gang. But hey, he was invited and he had to be polite if he wanted to get a high position when John is president. Yes, you see, Joe had tried to be vice-president eight years ago with Al, and he almost won -- well actually he would have if George had not stolen the election -- and so he got bitter. Especially when his old friends did not ask him try again four years later. So, this year, he really hoped John, his new friend, would ask him to run with him. Unfortunately, just days before he was about to ask Joe to be his running buddy, John got drunk and saw a picture of Sarah in a fur bikini posing for Vanity Bear. And John looooves bikinis. His first wife was a bikini model, his second wife was a beauty queen. And so was Sarah. And John really loves this kind of woman. So he asked her out, leaving his pal Joe on the sidewalk. But Joe does not give up that easily. When John is president, he is sure he will ask him to be his Secretary of State or something.

So, Joe was polite. And he said he loves John, and that everybody should love John because he is the best, and Barack, the new best pal of his former friends, he sucks, he's young, he does not have experience, etc, etc. Man, Joe could not do better to be accepted by his new friends. Joe even said that thanks to John's perseverance in the Senate when Barack was advocating for the retreat of the troops in Iraq, "our troops are at last beginning to come home, not in failure, but in honor." I think Joe was afraid he would not be let in at the party and had started drinking before he got there. But that was not as funny, because really, the troops are dying in Iraq, and that's not honor, that's failure big time. But when he said that, the other guests, they clapped and cheered and screamed. I think they were completely drunk too. It was kind of sad.

In tonight's episode, Sarah will come to the party, if her teenage daughter is not too nauseated. Yes, you see, in a previous episode, Sarah's daughter got knocked up, and that was really bad because her mommy, she believes the kids should be taught abstinence only in school, instead of sexual education. Besides, Sarah wants to make her new friends believe she is pure and self-righteous and that she knows God personally, or something, so it's going to be kind of tough for her, but if she shows up in the proper sexy clothes, she will be fine.

Sarah, Bristol and privacy in American politics

2008-09-01T17:50:00.000-07:00

Bristol is Sarah Palin's daughter. She is 17. On the day her mother was introduced as John's running mate, she was carrying her little brother wrapped in a blanket that was covering a nascent potbelly.
Yes, the world learned today that seventeen-year-old Bristol, 17, is pregnant, although she is a 17-year-old teenager. Of course, she is not married. And her mother is an evangelical Christian.

What a shame! The work of the devil has struck at the core of Alaskan virtue! Vade retro!

But this is none of our business, American voters. This is a private matter. John said so, Sarah said so, even Barack said so. The families should be out of the game. The kids especially.

Er... excuse me, people? The families and the kids should be out of the game?

Okay, I don't quite understand something here. Do I keep seeing Barack's two lovely daughters, Joe's precious grandkids, Sarah's cute little ones -- the knocked-up teenager included -- every other time their presidential or vice-presidential parent appears on TV? Did I hear Michelle and Cindy talk to the conventions and brag about how great their husbands are? Do I know the whole biography of Michelle, Cindy and Todd because I read it in the newspapers? Do the candidates keep mentioning their families and kids? Didn't Joe say that his wife is "drop-dead gorgeous" on the day he was introduced as Barack's VP pick?

Hey guys, I'm sorry, but you set the rules of your game. They suck -- indeed, I don't think your families should get involved in all this, because really they don't have much to do with the job you are applying for -- but they are your rules, and you have been using them as much as you can. So, yes, let's talk about Bristol and her teenage pregnancy and let's try to find out how she got knocked up.

And I hope we learn soon that she was dead drunk and stoned when she had sex -- oh, my god, sex, no, no, get away from my blog, cursed three-letter word!

Lionel for President!

2008-09-01T10:33:00.000-07:00

I've had enough of this campaign.

I decided to run for President.

Go to the following link:

http://www.inews3.com/topstory.php?id=4c696f6e656c7c4c41525245

My running mate will be Paris Hilton. She has as much experience as Sarah Palin, she has as much to say, and she is hotter. So, it should be fine.

See you at the White House!

Lovely Sarah!

2008-08-30T08:18:00.000-07:00

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.

John and Sarah

2008-08-29T10:44:00.000-07:00

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.

Al, Barack and intelligent politics

2008-08-29T08:13:00.000-07:00

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.

Barack and his nomination by acclamation

2008-08-28T08:23:00.000-07:00

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?

Hillary, Hillary, Hillary! Hillary!!!

2008-08-27T08:10:00.000-07:00

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.

John and Jay (and the French)

2008-08-26T14:03:00.000-07:00

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.

Teddy and Michelle in Denver, Hillary everywhere

2008-08-26T08:21:00.000-07:00

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?

John, Barack and abortion

2008-08-24T14:25:00.001-07:00

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.

John's housing problem and Barack's Joe

2008-08-23T06:45:00.000-07:00

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.

Barack and the Supremacists

2008-08-11T14:26:00.000-07:00

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.

John (Edwards) and everybody else

2008-08-10T14:41:00.000-07:00

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!

Barack, John and Paris (Hilton)

2008-08-10T08:11:00.001-07:00

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.

John, Barack et le vote hispanique

2008-07-15T07:57:00.000-07:00

On le sait, le facteur ethnique est fondamental aux Etats-Unis, dans de nombreux domaines. Cependant, je crois que l’on ne s’en étonne pas assez. Il me semble que la résistance au temps d’un terme comme celui de race, par exemple, devrait poser problème. Ce terme, qui n’a plus de justification autre que racialiste depuis le XIXème siècle, c’est-à-dire depuis l’époque où l’on sait que les races humaines n’existent pas, est couramment utilisé en anglais américain, notamment pour définir les origines ethniques des individus lors des recensements par exemple.

En politique, le facteur ethnique (ou le facteur « racial », selon la presse et les divers commentateurs) est de prime importance. Cette semaine, la presse parle du vote hispanique, du vote noir, et du vote amérindien.

Le vote hispanique peut bien entendu être un des facteurs décisifs, du moins dans certains états, ceux du sud-ouest surtout, puisque la communauté est aujourd’hui – et ce depuis quelques années – la plus nombreuse des minorités ethniques aux Etats-Unis. Les candidats courtisent donc ces électeurs. Un sondage récent indique que 47% des Hispaniques voteraient pour Obama, 22% pour McCain. Ce qui laisse une bonne partie de ces électeurs non encore décidés.
Cependant, toute tentative d’explication du vote hispanique peut donner lieu à des simplifications trompeuses. En effet, la communauté hispanique n’est pas véritablement une communauté. Certes, la présence croissante de l’espagnol dans l’environnement sonore et visuel des lieux publics, là encore surtout dans les états du sud-ouest, peut donner l’impression d’une communauté unie qui grandit et colonise la communauté anglophone encore dominante. L’hispanisation de l’environnement quotidien américain ne laisse pas de surprendre le visiteur. Pourtant, l’histoire de la présence des Latinos aux Etats-Unis est complexe, et loin d’être un facteur d’unification.
Si aujourd’hui, le commun des électeurs a tendance à penser aux Hispaniques comme des immigrants clandestins mexicains, de très nombreux hispaniques ont une histoire américaine de longue date, qui précède même celle des anglophones. Les territoires des états de Californie, du Nevada, du Nouveau Mexique, de l’Arizona, du Texas, du Colorado furent colonisés par les Espagnols, qui devinrent Mexicains en 1821, avant de devenir Etats-Uniens en 1848.
Il est très possible que les descendants de ces premiers colons, qui sont nés aux Etats-Unis et y ont toujours vécu, aient des préoccupations aujourd’hui qui recoupent en partie celles des membres de la classe dominante anglophone, notamment vis-à-vis de l’immigration. La question de l’assimilation ne se pose pas non plus dans les mêmes termes pour ces électeurs que pour ceux qui ont été naturalisé.
Dans les élections précédentes, dans lesquelles le facteur religieux avait une place prépondérante, de nombreux Hispaniques, catholiques, votaient pour le candidat républicain, qui semblait être, d’un point de vue religieux, le plus moral. Les néo-conservateurs, certes, n’étaient pas catholiques, mais leur condamnation de l’avortement, du mariage gay et lesbien, etc., etc., rassemblaient tous les conservateurs religieux, quelle que soit leur dénomination.
Cette année, au point où en est la campagne aujourd’hui, les fondamentalistes semblent avoir perdu de leur influence, tout du moins sur les candidats. John McCain, qui ne se réclame guère de la présidence actuelle, n’a pas encore focalisé son discours sur les questions qui motivent souvent le vote de ces nombreux électeurs pour qui la morale religieuse passe avant l’augmentation du prix des carburants ou du lait.
Le fait religieux sera donc, peut-être, moins déterminant dans le vote hispanique.

En revanche, ce qui peut prendre davantage de place, c’est justement le facteur ethnique. Certaines tensions existent toujours entre la communauté hispanique et la communauté noire. Par ailleurs, bien que le gouverneur Richardson, du Nouveau Mexique, -- et par ailleurs superdélégué du parti démocrate – ait exprimé très tôt son soutien au candidat Obama dans la course à l’investiture, la communauté hispanique a largement voté pour Hillary Clinton.

En bref, la campagne en ce moment, se focalise beaucoup sur des questions de couleur de peau, d’origines ethniques, assez peu encore sur des questions géopolitiques ou économiques.
Dans de prochains envois, je rendrai compte de ce qu’on lit et entend à propos du vote noir et de celui des amérindiens.

Adishats

Nicolas, Barack et Jesse, off

2008-07-12T13:33:00.000-07:00

Parfois surprenantes les ressemblances que l’on trouve entre la politique américaine et la politique française vues au prisme des médias qui, grâce à l’internet, n’ont plus aucun secret pour nous (du moins veut-on le croire pour se sentir un peu plus maître de nos pensées).

Il y a à peine deux semaines, l’internet trahissait le monde politico-médiatique en diffusant ce que Nicolas Sarkozy avait osé dire, en off, avant son interview sur France 3. La France, ou une partie d’entre elle, s’était émue de ce que le Président se fut ému du « manque d’éducation » du technicien qui avait refusé de le saluer et de ce qu’il ait promis du changement dans l’audio-visuel public. Peu importe qu’il s’avéra que Sarko ne faisait pas là référence à ses réformes du service public mais qu’il répondait à une remarque inaudible d’une journaliste sur le plateau à propos de la culture bien française du manifestant. L’occasion était trop belle pour ne pas la saisir, l’occasion que nous donnait une fois de plus les médias de voir Sarko tel qu’il est vraiment. Le problème, c’est que depuis son désormais mondialement célèbre « Casse-toi pôv’ con », l’intéressé a mis la barre haut, et il nous faut nous inventer des histoires pour jouir de ce privilège qu’est le nôtre, et rien que le nôtre, de savoir sur notre Président quelque chose que nul autre ne peut savoir. Car c’est bien ce sentiment bêtement humain qui nous excite lorsque nous visionnons une séquence du off, bien que nous soyons très conscients des milliers de visionnages enregistrés par le compteur de youtube.com.
Soit dit en passant, je trouve dans cette vidéo bien plus problématique le dialogue entre le Président et le journaliste Leclerc : « Alors, ils t’ont mis au placard pendant deux ans ! ... ». Connivence, copinage, intervention du politique dans la vie interne d’une entreprise des médias, etc, etc.

Bref, ici aussi, aux Etats-Unis, les mêmes instincts bêtement humains des téléspectateurs ont été satisfaits par les mêmes médias manipulateurs.
C’est Jesse Jackson, le célèbre pasteur noir, qui fut l’auteur de ce que l’on appelle ici « a hot mike blunder », une « bourde au micro chaud », c’est-à-dire au micro allumé. Jesse Jackson, avant que l’antenne soit à lui, murmure à son voisin: « See, Barack been, um, talking down to black people on this faith-based thing... I wanna cut his nuts off!”, cette dernière remarque ambitieuse étant accompagné d’un geste vigoureux du bras au bout duquel on imagine aisément une main se refermer en un poing sur une partie anatomique particulièrement sensible du candidat démocrate à l’élection présidentielle avant d’être retirée fermement emportant avec elle tout ce qu’elle aura pu saisir.

A mon avis, Jesse n’a fait qu’exprimer un sentiment de frustration pour quelqu’un qu’il apprécie, comme on pourrait dire de ses enfants, dans un moment d’impatience rageuse, « j’ai envie de lui arracher la tête ».
Mais comme nous sommes aux Etats-Unis, il a présenté des excuses publiques moins de vingt-quatre heures plus tard.

Malheureusement pour Barack Obama, cette bourde fut commise sur Fox News, une chaîne entièrement dévouée aux conservateurs (Jean-Pierre Pernaut y ferait figure de gauchiste révolutionnaire). Par conséquent, sur son site internet, Fox non seulement diffuse ces images censées être privées, mais également les manipule afin de communiquer un message bien plus insidieusement destructeur que l’emportement du pasteur. Un montage passe la remarque de Jackson, puis la repasse mais en partie seulement, en s’arrêtant sur l’idée que Barack se montre condescendant envers les Noirs. On utilise le prétexte de la bourde pour en fait diffuser à l’envi un commentaire qui pourrait nuire au candidat démocrate. Et le tour est joué.

Les médias français ont tant à apprendre de Fox News.

Dans les prochains épisodes, je vous parlerai de ma première réunion de campagne démocrate, et du nouvel exploit de Pixar, Wall-E, l’histoire d’un petit robot solitaire qui indigne les conservateurs. En attendant, emmenez vos enfants voir ce film et si vous n’en avez pas, empruntez-en quelques-uns pour vous donner un alibi.

Ingrid et John

2008-07-03T00:40:00.000-07:00

Je ne m'attendais pas à publier un deuxième texte si tôt sur mon blog. Je ne suis pas encore aux Etats-Unis, au coeur de la campagne.

Hier soir, peu après l'envoi de mon premier texte d'introduction, j'ai allumé la télévision. "Excellente nouvelle," m'annonçait David Pujadas dans un flash spécial. Après six années de détention aux mains des FARC, Ingrid Betancourt était enfin libérée. Il se trouve que j'héberge ces jours-ci un ami colombien. "Camilo, Ingrid Betancourt is free!" Son incrédulité, suivie de sa joie et de son émotion, non dissimulées, faisaient plaisir à voir. Nous avons passé l'heure suivante devant l'écran, qui nous montrait en direct l'arrivée de l'ex-otage -- comme les journalistes l'appellent désormais --, les discours de chacun des quatorze autres otages libérés avec elle, puis enfin sa déclaration, émouvante, énergique, lucide, heureuse, reconnaissante, émouvante, émouvante, émouvante.
Je suis allé me coucher. Camilo a continué la nuit au téléphone avec sa famille en Colombie. Dans la pièce d'à-côté, je devinais beaucoup de joie.

Quel rapport avec le thème annoncé de ce blog?

Devant la télé hier soir, j'ai appris que John McCain, hasard de calendrier, était en Colombie au moment du sauvetage d'Ingrid.
Il n'a rien à voir avec l'heureux événement, mais il était là-bas, et il ne sera pas étonnant d'entendre le nom d'Ingrid Betancourt dans ses prochaines interventions.

Le fait est que les Etats-Unis ont joué un rôle dans la libération des otages. L'heure, pourtant, est aux félicitations abondantes à l'armée colombienne et au Président Alvaro Urribe. Le succès et l'audace de l'opération sont incontestables. Le triomphe est sans doute mérité. L'émotion et la joie sont grandes. On laisse le président colombien profiter de sa gloire et de son immense popularité auprès des Colombiens.
Bientôt, pourtant, on entendra que les Etats-Unis ont joué un rôle significatif dans cette opération, puisque les Américains, dont trois des leurs étaient également otages, ont mis à disposition de l'armée colombienne des moyens techniques -- satellitaires -- importants pour mener à bien leur opération de sauvetage. Soit dit en passant, cet aide fut apparemment plus pragmatique et efficace, sinon aussi spectaculaire, que celle de l'Etat français -- et je parle bien de l'Etat, pas des nombreux français qui se sont mobilisés pour faire campagne pour la libération d'Ingrid Betancourt -- dont le chef, Nicolas Sarkozy, a fait beaucoup de diplomatie et a déclaré qu'il serait prêt à aller chercher Ingrid lui-même dans la jungle colombienne!
Les Etats-Unis -- ceux de George W. Bush!! -- ont prêté leurs satellites.
Il ne sera donc pas étonnant, dans les jours qui viennent, que le succès de l'armée colombienne devienne un succès américain, un succès de Bush!

Certes, John McCain, comme tous les autres candidats à l'investiture du parti républicain, n'ont jamais exprimé une grande admiration pour leur président sortant. Si les militants démocrates brandissent haut des pancartes qui disent "McCain = Bush III", ça n'est pas pour plaire au candidat républicain.
Pourtant, McCain, comme Bush, est un va-t-en-guerre. Il ne cache pas qu'il est prêt à engager son pays en Irak pendant cent ans s'il le faut. Et Urribe, depuis quelques années, a mené envers les FARC une politique qui sied bien à McCain. John ne manquera pas de se reconnaître dans cette politique, peut-être même ira-t-il jusqu'à citer Urribe en exemple dans le domaine de la lutte contre le terrorisme. Certainement, cet événement va surgir dans la campagne. Je m'avance peut-être. J'espère que je me trompe. Mais la machine républicaine recule devant peu de choses lorsqu'elle est en campagne.

A suivre.
Adishats

Explication de titre

2008-07-02T11:56:00.000-07:00

Vous lisez le premier texte de mon tout nouveau blog, intitulé Barack, John & I (and a few others).
Encore un blog! Je cède moi aussi à cette mode. Je veux moi aussi devenir quelqu'un dans la blogosphère! Cependant, le premier objectif de ce blog vous intéressera peut-être.

Vous n'êtes pas sans le savoir, cette année 2008 est une année présidentielle aux Etats-Unis. Cette élection a déjà suscité chez nous en France, dans sa première phase -- celle des primaires -- un enthousiasme et des passions médiatiques je crois sans précédents. Les Français veulent tellement voir George W. Bush partir qu'ils s'intéressent à la campagne présidentielle du pays qu'ils adorent détester comme jamais auparavant.

Il se trouve que je vais passer les six prochains mois (du 10 juillet au 29 décembre 2008) aux Etats-Unis, plus particulièrement en Oklahoma. J'espère donc ainsi profiter d'un point de vue exceptionnel, et vous en faire profiter, si toutefois le sujet vous intéresse.
Le plus régulièrement possible, je vous rendrai compte de ce que je vois (peut-être aussi de ce que je pense) et que peut-être vous ne voyez pas de là-bas, de l'autre côté de l'Atlantique. J'espère être capable de vous apporter un point de vue original sur une campagne qui ne manquera pas de faire couler beaucoup d'encre, quelle qu'en soit l'issue, dans l'hexagone.

Je vous parlerai donc de Barack et de John (puisque les médias ont pris l'habitude de parler de Mme Clinton, candidate malheureuse à l'investiture du parti démocrate, en l'appelant par son prénom, je rétablirai un peu la balance du sexisme en appelant les autres candidats par leur prénom également), je vous parlerai de moi ( surtout de ce que je pense de tout ça, en essayant de rester le plus neutre possible sans pour autant viser l'objectivité; les journalistes s'en passent souvent, alors je ne vois pas pourquoi je ne pourrais pas m'en passer moi aussi), et je vous parlerai de quelques autres, c'est-à-dire des électeurs que je rencontrerai et qui voudront bien me parler.

Le titre du blog est en anglais, je viens de m'en apercevoir, car il est possible que certains textes à suivre soient rédigés en anglais. Peut-être prendrai-je le temps de les traduire. Aucune raison particulière ne présidera au choix d'une langue ou l'autre pour la rédaction des textes. Cela sera juste une question d'humeur, I guess.

Pour l'heure, je suis toujours en France. Je décolle dans une semaine et quelques heures. A partir de ce moment-là, je serai dans le bain, et je peux donc intervenir à tout moment.

Voilà, j'espère que tout ceci vous intéressera, j'espère que j'aurai la capacité de vous fidéliser, et j'espère surtout que vous réagirez et que vous me ferez part de vos pensées.

Adishats