Monday, April 28, 2008

Debate this! (Oh wait, you won't)

Another day, another bizarre position by the Obama campaign. The Obama campaign has been calling for more issues and less distractions for some time now. From CNN, to CBS News, to Fox News, Obama and his supporters have been decrying "distractions" like Rev. Wright and insisting that they want a campaign that focuses on the issues that matter to voters and where the candidates stand on them.
It's funny then, when asked to debate his lone competitor, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama brushes it off: "We’re not going to have debates between now and Indiana," he told Fox News. I don't know about anyone else, but what better way is there to see candidates in action than in a debate? It would be great to go to town hall meetings, go to speeches, meet them in person, but that's impossible unless you live in North Carolina or Indiana, and even then, very few of those people will actually get a chance to hear the candidates speak in person.
If it's issues we want, debates are a great way to air differences on policy positions. It's too bad the 9 remaining states/territories still waiting to vote won't get this chance.

Friday, April 25, 2008

Give me a break!

Yet again people in the media and the Obama campaign are whining about Hillary Clinton's new ad:



Did you see what's so offensive? Did you figure out how that is "fear-mongering" and low? It's because for one second (literally) there was a clip of Osama Bin Laden. I can't believe the audacity of some people to rip on Hillary for this ad. What is wrong with it? It's a legitimate and effective commercial. Yes, bin Laden is in it, but so is JFK and FDR, and clips of old warehouses and gas pumps. Is it too underhanded to show pictures of gas pumps too, Mr. Obama?
I especially find it absurd that the Obama campaign would decry the bin Laden reference when their own candidate has taken such a firm stance on bin Laden. Obama says troops from Iraq should be moved to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and he's said that he would call for military attacks in Pakistan to fight bin Laden even if Pakistan did not authorize it.
My goodness, what is there left to campaign on for Hillary? She can't question Obama's experience, because it's an "attack." She can't run ads because its "fear-mongering.". And she can't debate policies and issues because Obama refuses to do any more debates. I guess since Obama couldn't stop the primaries early, he's going to stop the campaign. Now THAT'S change we can believe in, alright.

Friday, April 18, 2008

Get the ball rolling, Howard!

Today Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean insisted that the remaining 300 or so superdelegates who have yet to announce who they support should do so "starting now." Well, Howard, you are a superdelegate too. Why don't you get the ball rolling? Why not, instead of moaning about getting the nomination process over with ASAP, you let all the states vote, let all the people have their say. There's no need for superdelegates to start choosing now, before Pennsylvania, Indiana, Oregon, Guam, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Montana, South Dakota and Puerto Rico have their say. Mr. Dean, if you're not willing to say who you are supporting, how about we let the people in those 10 upcoming primaries have a chance to first?

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

The Democratic Debate

Watching the debate tonight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, I am struck by how amazingly qualified, how absolutely qualified Hillary Clinton is to be President. She knows her stuff inside and out, she knows policy and platforms, and she knows the system and how it works. No, she's not as interesting as Barack Obama. No she's not nearly as inspirational as Barack Obama. But by god, she's the right one for the job. Barack Obama would be exciting as President, it would be an amazing achievement to watch his inauguration. But Hillary Clinton would be the better President, of this I am positive.

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Canada & the Chinese Olympics

On CKNW radio this morning there was a guest who insisted that Canada should not boycott the Olympics in China. - Ok.
He said boycotts do not work and aren't effective. - Ok.
He insisted that we'd be better to engage China like neighbours rather than isolate and provoke them. - Ok.
He also maintained that we should be careful what action we take in regards to China because of the high numbers of Chinese immigrants in Canada. - What?

Am I the only one who thinks that sets a dangerous precedent? Should Canada really be beholden to the loyalties of our immigrant communities? Canada must be able to make foreign policy decisions in the best interests of Canada and Canadians. And these decisions have to be made independent of attachments, loyalties and allegiances that immigrant communities may have to their home countries. Of course, immigrants must have their voices heard like every Canadian, but they should be voicing concern for Canada and Canada's interests.
It would be alarming if we determined which human rights abuses are ok based on how large that ethnic population is in Canada. Is genocide, or torture or oppression acceptable if there's a lot of those nationals living in Canada?
I hope not.

Why Obama's Explanation Doesn't Fly

In light of the uproar over his "bitter" comment, Barack Obama has tried to explain what he really meant when he called people in rural America "bitter" and claimed "they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Obama's explanation seems to work at first glance, as he explains that what he really meant was that people are angry that they have been ignored by government. And as for the "clinging to religion" part, Obama said "when you’re bitter, you turn to what you can count on...they take comfort from their faith, and their family, and their community." So, that explains it! I'd agree that if times are tough you may turn to--or cling to--your religious faith. However, that's a positive assertion that religion gets rural Americans through the rough patches. But Obama used the same word, "cling", to also describe opinions about guns, free trade and immigration. If we accept that "cling to religion" was meant wholly positively, as meaning they use religion to lift their spirits, then what in the world does clinging to guns, anti-immigrant and anti-trade sentiment mean? If "clinging" to religion means using it to lift you up and help your through the bad times, does it logically follow that when he said they cling to guns, anti-free trade beliefs and anti-immigrant sentiment that he meant those thing also help people through the bad times?
Sorry Barack, but that explanation doesn't fit well with me. I don't find the word "bitter" as offensive as everyone else seems to, but I do find it intolerable to claim that people "cling" to their religious faith out of bitterness and frustration. I do not believe that people's views on guns, trade and immigration are so unfounded as to be based solely on disgruntled attitudes about their own economic woes. I believe someone can be anti-trade or be pro-gun rights without it meaning they are backwards, bitter and wrong. And no number of eloquent speeches will change my opinion on this one.