Posts by Neil Morrison
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
In her clumsy fashion Ferraro is saying many people are supporting Obama because of the symbolism - the US finally overcomes the past by electing a black President. This view is put forward by Michael Tomasky who in criticising Ferraro makes her point more clearly -
...I am here to say that yes, the fact that Barack Obama is a black man is an important factor on his behalf. There is no earthly reason that it should not be. This country has a history on the question of race with which you may be familiar. The idea that we might elect a black president would indeed in my mind help redeem that hideous legacy, and it would change our present in a million small ways that would benefit the whole society. He'd be an incredible role model for young black men, and, assuming he was even a reasonably successful president, a better role model for old white men who didn't believe an African-American could do the job.
Which is all fine and one could say exactly the same thing about Clinton and woman. Why race should trump gender here I don't know but apparently it does:
His election would also - far, far more than the election of another war-mongering white man, and yes, even considerably more than the election of a woman - send an unimaginably powerful message to the rest of the world, where most of the people are darker than most Americans are by this shade or that.
That's far more than a woman coming from an Obama supporter. What would be the reaction if a Clinton supporter said far more than a black man. (And Tomasky overlooks the fact that there are slightly more woman in the world what ever their colour).
-
Key could also have a had a shoot at Labour for letting the Geothermal Institute at The Univeristy of Auckland fold.
That was a highly successful progargmme run in conjunction with the UN that provided education to many developing country students and facilitated research into a significant sustainable energy source.
Letting it fold doen't sit very well with Labour's current desire to be seen as pro-science.
-
You cannot and shouldn't solely fund basic science but you also must not pretend for a second that you can "pick winner" because of some clever economic goal. It just doesn't work that way.
I've had quite a few discusions with mathematicians while doing some work for NZIMA and time after time the story was "I was just doing some obscure bit of pure maths and now various industries are beating a path to my door".
NZIMA is losing its funding.
-
They've jumped the shark.
It's remarkable how badly Key has handled this.
I would have thought he could very easily have gone for "This is too much like the government picking winners. What we'll do is put more money into science research overall and let the market do the rest".
-
Obama wins Mississippi. 11% 0f voters were Republican - they broke 3 to 1 for Clinton. They're leaving it a bit late to start taking Limbaugh's advice.
-
Graeme, have you had a look at the Delegate Selection Rules that TalkLeft link to?
It makes interesting reading. No wonder there's a bit of debate over Florida.
...it would also be interesting to see some stats on Dems who turned out to vote this year only because there was a candidate who was perceived (rightly or wrongly) as outside of the party orthodoxy.
The Dems have had a massive turn out and Obama has been a major part of that. It's hard in this sort of debate not to sound a bit churlish about one or other of the candidates.
-
Craig, I just can't fathom the degree of hostility that Obama supporters have for HRC. On the basis of policy - where there are very slight differences between them - I can't see the justification.
Sure she's gone after Obama - but he's done exactly the same, that's politics. But Obama is attempting to portray himself as a different sort of politician when he isn't. I don't have a problem with that, it's campaign branding with as much claim to reality as Clinton's "experience" brand.
But all he's doing is travelling a well worn path to the White House by playing the outsider who will clean up Washington. Reagan did it, Bill Clinton did it. But it's just a marketing exercise after all.
And may I point out that more than 50% of those who voted want Barrack?
yes, thanks to Republican and independent voters who can turn up and vote in this selection system.
Or her use of a proxy like Ferraro to raise the race card again, or her cleverly worded denial that Obama is a Muslim "as far as I know", or her attempts to change the rules in Florida after the fact etc etc.
I'm not going to defend everything the Clinton campaign has done but pointing out that Obama gets some advanatge from being black is on the same level as saying Clinton gets some advantage from being a woman. Are we supposed to ignore such obvious demographics?
I think you're reading to much into her words regarding the Muslim thing.
As for Clinton trying to change the rules TalkLeft have a bit on that. Again Clinton is getting a bad rap for nothing.
-
From where I've been standing, it seems fairly clear that the vast majority of the dirty pool and negative politics has been coming from the Clinton camp -
Obama made a series of TV ads attacking Clinton's health policies. Those ads were exact copies of ads the insurance industry used to sink her heath reforms back in the 90s.
I think that's dirty politics, especially as there are quite a few sensible commentators that think Clinton's health policies have an edge over Obamas'.
...the willingness of her camp to fight on with such a scorched earth policy strikes me as being against the interests of the Democrats
Scorched earth - you mean pointing out that Obama is willing to say one thing to one audience and the opposite to another? This is politics.
I think that the interests of the Dems should be determined by the Dems themselves and at present around 50% of them want Hillary. She may not win but she's perfectly entitled to keep running and to keep offering Dems an alternative. One of the benefits of this close contest is that every vote in every state is meaningful.
But certainly the Obama camp is promoting the idea that her even running is an attack on democracy.
I don't have a problem with Obama - his presidency would look a lot like hers but this Saint Obama vs. The Devil Clinton that Obama supporters have got into is complete BS.
-
HRC is a bit of a fighter, maybe shameless.
And Obama is above all that - he's going to bring a fresh approach to Washington.
Except that while he was telling the workers of Ohio how much he opposed NAFTA he had his people meet with the Canadian govt to say he didn't really mean what he was saying. He then denied the meeting took place. Problem is it did.
It's not unusual for politicians to tailor their message for particular audiences but for some one who is campaigning on bringing an end to such politics, who claims such moral high ground, it's a bit odd.
So Obama isn't really that different from other politicians but pretends otherwise. HRC is no different from other politicians and doesn't pretend otherwise.
-
- it seems to me that a system with surplus resources is likely to have redundant checks that catch mistakes, whereas in a stretched, under-resourced system, every participant has to get it right every time.
Under resourcing maybe be a factor but another is the difficulty in making decisions about when to deny people liberty and force them to have treatment. There's always going to be situations where the decision errs to far one way or the other but often you only find out when its too late.