Not flattering Hillary

When a photo of Hillary Clinton was mentioned to me yesterday, I said "I bet it's unflattering". Yep.

And sure enough, in today's paper, another bad photo.

Now I have my own gripes with her, but I have to say that she's very intelligent, and her heart's in the right place. I can only speculate that news editors are deciding that unflattering photos of her are more arresting than standard ones. Anything for attention.

Carter on the Middle East

Heard some comments from Jimmy Carter on the radio overnight - probably a BBC interview. He seemed to be very aware of the issues and points of contention in the middle east. Some of what emerged from that interview follows.

He mentioned that Obama consulted him on the middle east, and indicated it was one of his big priorities. Carter expressed strong optimism for the new administration's capacities to reduce tensions (his words on Obama in the past included: "honesty, intelligence, and politically adept"). He was especially praiseful for Obama's middle east envoy, George Marshall, who had a significant part in easing tensions in Ireland. Carter stressed Marshall's neutrality to the situation, with words that suggested a) previous envoys had been too pro-Israel to achieve solutions; and b) Israel probably wouldn't like him. Carter also noted that Israel seemed headed to a one-state solution, which was patently unviable, not the least because the arab population (Israeli? or Israeli+Palestinian?) was set to outnumber the Jewish.

Carter did not mention Hillary Clinton at all, which suggests that either Obama has no intention for her to play a significant part (wise), or that Carter had little confidence in her capacity to bring about peace. Certainly, Hillary's words prior to inaugeration sounded like a death-knell to peace, substantially the same attitude as past US administrations had had. I think it's possible for her to be a successful Secretary of State, but clearly not in this area.


The interviewer also made mention of Carter's upcoming book We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land: A Plan That Will Work. A promising title, and now, hopefully, a government with the capacity to achieve it.

Politics: Carter endorsing Obama

Former US President Jimmy Carter is a Democrat superdelegate. It was announced (by the Carter centre) that after polls closed in the final two Democrat primaries (Montana and South Dakota), Carter would pledge for Obama.



One wonders why he didn't do this before the primaries were over. Various news reports (here as well) point to an earlier surrogate endorsement when he said his family [children and grandchildren] supported Obama. Yet the Republicans (their National Committee) is reported to be active on the anti-Obama campaign by passing to journalists a two-year-old video in which Carter was apparently critical. The problem? Obama didn't yet have the "proven substance or experience".

Well, if that's all they can dig up, the Republicans are in trouble.

Carter also apparently said he regarded Al Gore as the best candidate (he wasn't ever to run), but if Hilary Clinton nominated, he would support her. But that was two years ago.

I'm not convinced that that earlier pledge was all that was behind the timing of Carter's official backing Obama. It's plausible that more superdelegates would have got behind Carter if he'd endorsed earlier, to the point of tipping the balance earlier.

Was it equivocation in any sense? A sense of duty to an earlier commitment? Or were (at least some of) the Democrats strategically opting for a lengthy primary campaign, calculating that prolonged exposure would outweight any internecine negativity?

Backing the unbackable for President

I can't see Obama getting the Democrat nomination.



All sorts of tripe is put in the mainstream media (and even more into the Blogosphere, I'd say). I read one opinion piece that said Clinton would be withdrawing pretty soon. But that's forgetting a) her determination (good on her); and b) her substantial campaign funds - she outguns the lot by a handsome margin.



Since this isn't the mainstream media, I'm happy to get hung for a sheep. I expect McCain to win Super Tuesday by a good margin, with only Romney left hanging out until the convention. I'm sure this would have surprised most people a month ago.



And I expect Super Tuesday to be rather inconclusive for the Democrats, with only Clinton and Obama remaining. I still can't see a black getting the nomination, although if anyone could, it's conceivably him.



So I would expect it to be McCain against Clinton. Both candidates being far more to the middle of the road is, I feel, happenstance. But at the very least, it would mean an unceremonious dumping of those neoconservative troglodytes currently bunkered in the Whitehouse. And it would mean no exit plan for the Iraq war, although on that score we can be grateful for new ideas - any.



I could be wrong about Obama. He's a candidate I'd like to back, but he'd quite a dark horse as far as his executive ability goes. His achievements so far, both inside the senate and out, have been very commendable, but that's not the same as running a presidency. Oh, what the heck. I'll go for him. Although I have much admiration for Clinton's commitment to reforms such as health care, she's relatively conservative. Edwards would be second, but oops I see he's already "suspended" his campaign.

Obama's sounding like a junior Kennedy. Could the Democrats go with him? Could he avoid the fate of the previous Kennedys? And would enough Americans be able to swallow their past and vote for him? Passing those hurdles, could he make the grade? So much in the way of true vision, but one can always hope...

I find it hard to place money on which of those three will get up. So, with the rider of slim margins between them, I'd guess McCain as most likely, with Clinton second and Obama third.

I don't worry about Clinton or Obama really. And McCain is not the worst the Republicans could throw up. At least that anti-science irrationalist Huckabee's not going to make a dent.

I'm not optimistic about action on climate change. Again, chucking Bush and his cronies will in itself achieve as much as it did in Australia when John Howard was dumped. On climate change alone, the only US politician I've heard in which I can have full confidence would be... Schwartzenegger. He's ineligible, being born outside the US. If Gore ever came back, you'd know the USA was starting to treat the issue seriously.

As far as watching horse races go, I'm less concerned about really bad outcomes than I have been in a long time. A really good outcome would be too much to ask for.

Update 04-Feb-08: I've been ignoring Mitt Romney by and large. Expect those Republicans who don't want McCain to coalesce behind Romney - especially all groupings to the right. So it's not really over yet.

Obama, ahead of his time?

It’s no surprise to hear Barack Obama has put his hat into the ring for the US presidency race – nearly two years early.

If you said Who? then you’ve already missed the boat. Time magazine picked him for its cover – for this reason – some time back.

Neither should it be a surprise that there was such a flurry of hats shooting into the ring in the wake of the mid-term elections. The Democrats can smell blood – that of Bush, his cronies, and anyone who comes within an ideological whiff of being tainted by the neo-conservative agenda, the oil agenda, or even the very mention of Iraq.

Ah, Iraq. Yet another chance for America to get confused, without even knowing why. Hey, we’re meant to be the good guys, remember? So why’s everyone being mean to us?

Why indeed? You didn’t, after all, create the war on terrorism. ...did you? Well, You certainly made it more of a, well, war, and less of a dialogue. And there’s that little matter of that bastard child of yours, that you keep giving pocket money to, so it can, well, play the bully.

Ahh, I digress. But why not? These people need a bit of a kick in the reality.

No, I was talking about Democrat presidential candidates. At this point in the cycle, the race has never been so NOT wide open.

Obama may have captured some people’s imagination. Partly because he’s the first black (yes, I know his mother’s white) to get a realistic lookin as a major party candidate. Partly because he has a young, dynamic turn of phrase, and seems to say the right things, if sometimes too generalistically. And partly because some relish the Great American video Game turning into Obama versus Osama (although, the sophistication of American politics being what it is, some will think he is Osama).

Yes yes, that’s a bit glib. Harsh, even. His achievements as Senator suggest there is substance behind him. But capturing imagination is one thing. It’s another thing (or two) to:

• As a relative novice, avoid stumbling under the intense media blowtorch that turns to ash most candidates;
• Capture the warchest that Hilary has.

Ah Hilary. Synonymous with “polarizing”. That’s another post, another day. And we’ve barely even started on Obama. Good luck to him on that blowtorch thing – I’m quite curious to see how he weathers it. Maybe in a few races time, Barack. Oops, I almost forgot you were black. And America just couldn’t vote for a black. Even harder than voting for a... woman.