oh the things i never thought i'd do
Well it's Super Tuesday II, so this means round 2 of staying up till 4am - frantically refreshing pages and reading who won what.
Till now I am quite amazed by how the Democrat presidential nominations have captivated me. I am truly and seriously interested in policies that will not have a direct impact on me. perhaps it's the final coming of age, when I realise that I can now vote. Of course whether or not I get to is an entirely different issue, but I have the potential, slight as it is, to make a difference.
Reading these reports have really given me an insight as to media bias. Clearly there are pro-Obama and pro-Clinton papers. Some herald a (I am still hurting) big win for Clinton in Ohio. Well, considering the fact that Ohio was hers to lose, and I would go as far as to call it Clinton county, I am not sure if her win is that unexpected, though I certainly grant that it breaks Obama's winning streak thus far. I don't know. I don't like the re-jigging of goal posts. Not too long back Bill Clinton said that she needed to win both Texas and Ohio for her nomination to be credible. Right now she seems happy with Ohio alone. Of course if she wins both she will herald her victory, and perhaps call it a change of momentum. I wonder.
In any case, ZK and I were talking about this today, and in particular in reference to Israel, or the lack of clarity with regards to the intentions of both candidates. I find the following link here very interesting. In particular, I am surprised to see a 1.5 and not 1 for issues regarding Obama's Muslim father, as well as the links to Muslims. For a panel of 8, this means that someone, well at least one person must have agreed to the statement that the fact that his father is Muslim is problematic. Which I honestly and sincerely think to be entirely irrelevant to his candidacy, ans speaks of a very narrow, extremely myopic view. To be fair though, this ranks the least of all their concerns, but I would have thought it would not have been a concern at all. What matters most, it seems, is Obama's lack of experience in the Middle East, which is fair enough.
I think the fact that he is willing to open negotiations is a step forward - even with Iran. I'd say, if not negotiations, then what else? The current impasse that dogs the Middle East? If the mere fact of opening up negotiations alone is seen as backing down, or a loss of face, then I think the prospects of some sort of compromise, or peace if you like, is extremely dim. As I hope the war in Iraq and Vietnam has amply shown, war may not always be the right solution, especially since it is not the only one.
Well, here's hoping Obama polls well in Texas and makes a comeback in Ohio. The latter is not impossible, even given Hillary's comfortable lead (about 16% I think), given that the densely populated cities have not returned their vote counts, and that their demographics favour Obama. We will see, eh?
Till now I am quite amazed by how the Democrat presidential nominations have captivated me. I am truly and seriously interested in policies that will not have a direct impact on me. perhaps it's the final coming of age, when I realise that I can now vote. Of course whether or not I get to is an entirely different issue, but I have the potential, slight as it is, to make a difference.
Reading these reports have really given me an insight as to media bias. Clearly there are pro-Obama and pro-Clinton papers. Some herald a (I am still hurting) big win for Clinton in Ohio. Well, considering the fact that Ohio was hers to lose, and I would go as far as to call it Clinton county, I am not sure if her win is that unexpected, though I certainly grant that it breaks Obama's winning streak thus far. I don't know. I don't like the re-jigging of goal posts. Not too long back Bill Clinton said that she needed to win both Texas and Ohio for her nomination to be credible. Right now she seems happy with Ohio alone. Of course if she wins both she will herald her victory, and perhaps call it a change of momentum. I wonder.
In any case, ZK and I were talking about this today, and in particular in reference to Israel, or the lack of clarity with regards to the intentions of both candidates. I find the following link here very interesting. In particular, I am surprised to see a 1.5 and not 1 for issues regarding Obama's Muslim father, as well as the links to Muslims. For a panel of 8, this means that someone, well at least one person must have agreed to the statement that the fact that his father is Muslim is problematic. Which I honestly and sincerely think to be entirely irrelevant to his candidacy, ans speaks of a very narrow, extremely myopic view. To be fair though, this ranks the least of all their concerns, but I would have thought it would not have been a concern at all. What matters most, it seems, is Obama's lack of experience in the Middle East, which is fair enough.
I think the fact that he is willing to open negotiations is a step forward - even with Iran. I'd say, if not negotiations, then what else? The current impasse that dogs the Middle East? If the mere fact of opening up negotiations alone is seen as backing down, or a loss of face, then I think the prospects of some sort of compromise, or peace if you like, is extremely dim. As I hope the war in Iraq and Vietnam has amply shown, war may not always be the right solution, especially since it is not the only one.
Well, here's hoping Obama polls well in Texas and makes a comeback in Ohio. The latter is not impossible, even given Hillary's comfortable lead (about 16% I think), given that the densely populated cities have not returned their vote counts, and that their demographics favour Obama. We will see, eh?
posted by colours at
12:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home