Realism we can believe in

Let's sum up the savior's week for a second here:

- Additional pictures of the torture inflicted upon prisoners of the American military will not be published. (NY Times)
- Prisoners will not be judged in the normal court system but instead through Bush's military tribunals, depriving these people of their rights. (NY Times)
- Funny how the differences between him and Bush that Obama emphasized so much during his campaign fade away. (NY Times)

Where is the uproar against this development? Where are all those college youngster that wanted change, that wanted believe? Your hero is backtracking on promises all over the place and y'all can't be heard.

Change we can believe in

I guess I should be a classy winner and cynic and just let it go. But I still have some hope left to convert some of my younger and more naive American friends to a more realistic view of their new President. NY Times

Obama's challenges

Afghanistan seems to be ignored to some extent when compared to the financial crisis, the recession, Guantanamo or the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. But, now that Iraq seems to be more or less established as a semi-democracy (good-bye model for the greater Middle East, good-bye all you idealistic neo-cons), it represents the biggest challenge of Western (aka American) credibility and it's not looking good. This is one place where political symbolism (closing Guantanamo, Geithner commenting on China, increased governmental transparency) doesn't even do the slightest good. It's a question of putting your money (troops, actual money, but also ideas, nation-building not war-making) where your mouth is.

The election and stuff

• Thanks to all you Floridians and North Carolinians (and everyone else) for restoring my faith in the American people that had been fundamentally destroyed in 2004.


• The super majority didn't work out, shame. I guess that was being overtly optimistic though.


• Ted Stevens seems to have gotten reelected to the Senate? That guy was sentenced to prison only a few days ago and these morons put him back into office?


• Talking about a trouncing by the way. Obama winning two maybe three slave states, plus Florida, plus Ohio.


• Funny how all these states I like for a variety of cultural reasons all voted for McCain. Tennesse (Memphis (the Sun Studios!), Nashville (Hank, Waylon, Willie), Mississippi (Faulkner, the Delta, the Hill Country), Louisiana (New Orleans (Fats, Toussaint, Prof Longhair, Bobby Marchan...), Jerry Lee), West Virginia (Hasil Adkins, Copperhead Road).


• Benton, Will, Trav...I am disappointed :)


• Be interesting how Mr 'Yes-we-can' will perform now that he actually has to do something.


• I've said this before, I'll say it again, sometimes I wish that I were less cynic. Don't think I can help it though.

It's over

So, it looks like it's over. Obama will win the question just seems to be by how much and - more importantly - whether the Democrats will have a majority large enough to pass cloture in case of a filibuster. Because of that I decided to donate money for the first time ever in my life (and outside my fatherland or the country in which I currently reside). I really liked the argument made in the article linked to above though and decided to contribute to Jim Martin's race in Georgia. I think after eight years of President Bush, eight years of economic (look at any newspaper) and geo-strategic (Iran, China, Afghanistan, North Korea, Venezuela, Pakistan) mismanagement, the world finally needs some decent leadership again. Europe is not ready for this (and might never be for institutional reasons), neither is China (for different reasons), I believe it is überimportant that an American government (and that includes Congress, forget the President for a second, he is about half as important as usually considered) presides over the decline of American hegemony (the twilight of the unipolar world as Coral Bell put it so beautifully) that actually takes into consideration the rest of the world, that acts more humble and puts more thought into its policies. The Bush administration's mentality of talking loudly while carrying a small stick needs to be reverted into talking quietly (while carrying an even smaller stick).

For these reasons I am (illegally, and through a friend) contributing to the race of a Senator in the South that I don't know anything about. I am not a fervent believer in Democratic policies, but I believe that in relative terms a Democratic super majority would do the world (and the US) good. Why did I donate in the South? I don't know, I like the South and didn't want to donate money to an ex-comedian or to someone from a state where I have never been (Oregon). Why am I telling you all this? Because you should help one of these three guys too. All you democratic people out there that donated money to a symbol who is running for President now, this is where you can actually make a difference. Obama will not change the world, he might not even make a good President and I have my doubts about some of his attitudes and opinions (health care and Pakistan for one), but a filibuster safe majority in the Senate for the next two years at least could really change something.

PS: Benton, I am glad to owe you a six-pack. The Bradley-effect is dead, I was wrong. A black guy can win election in the US. Maybe cynicism is wrong sometimes.

PPS: I know, don't count your chickens before they hatch, don't jinx it, zerteile das Fell des Bären nicht bevor Du ihn erlegt hast, whatever it may be in French. But, I mean, come on. If someone makes a second Bobby Kennedy out of Obama, or if some Islamic terrorist decides he prefers a Republican President and acts on it things could change. If not, it's over.

notes on the first debate

• McCain wants to counter the financial crisis by lessening dependence on foreign oil
  
• McCain wants to be bipartisan (doing a reference to Kennedy being in hospital)
  
• Obama's solution sounds super simplistic ('oversight over the whole thing')
  
• McCain is going to end American capitalism as we know it, no word on how that is feasible
  
• Obama seems to be proud to know the difference between Main and Wall Street considering how often he mentions them
  
• McCain: "Main St is paying the price for the greed in Washington and Wall St"; so populistic this campaign business
  
• McCain: US is still the biggest exporter in the world (no, Germany is)
  
• Mccain attacks the appropriations committee again
  
• McCain will change the American political system, increasing presidential power over Congress through vetoeing earmarked bills
  
• McCain just admitted Republicans failed to reign in spending
  
• Obama apparently earmarked a lot (he didn't even counter attack McCain on that)
  
• Obama attacks well on the relative unimportance of earmarks (in absolute financial terms)
  
• McCain: pork barrel, earmarks, appropriations...god...nothing else to talk about?
  
• good attack on McCain on health care, on his belief in market solutions only, lack of regulation
  
• McCain shoots back with tax cuts, simple tax rules and pork barrel spending, weak...I hope people will see this
  
• McCain: We let spending get out of hand (Bush adminstration and mainly Republican Congress, how dare you attack Obama on that?)
  
• McCain is so exemplary in his issues; I guess that is good politically, but it is so unsatisfactory in the sense that any policy content is missing
  
• I do not believe Mccain has a chance in hell to cut down on defense spending; he is perfectly right on the issue of course
  
• McCain: response to financial crisis: spending freeze on everything but defense spending and veteran entitlements (I know, reading my note just above I am a little confused as well)
  
• we are back to appropriations, gawd, John, come on...
  
• McCain: Lesson of Iraq: We cannot have a failed strategy (great in-depth analysis)
  
• McCain: We will win with honour, so 19th century.
  
• McCain: Iran would have won influence if US had lost Iraq. Iran already has obviously, because of the invasion alone.
  
• Obama: Al Qaieda is stronger than anytime since 2001. No, they are not. Not because of Iraq, but they are definitely not as strong. They are just a buzzword nowadays.
  
• Good point McCain, the next President will not have to decide whether the US should have gone to Iraq but when and how to leave.
  
• Hardball on Iraq by Obama, harsh attacks on the 2003 beginning. Good job.
  
• This whole troop support thing is so lame. The upper class discussing who has more solidarity with the working class actually fighting and dying.
  
• McCain wants to have Paetrus run Afghanistan with the same strategy as Iraq (keyword: Awakening Councils). That is such a dumb suggestion. Completely different countries, completely different circumstances.
  
• Obama wants to reinforce troops in Afghanistan, two bataillons in addition. Bad news for Europe, bad news for Germany. They'll have a hard time saying no to a request for military aid of his.
  
• McCain: You don't say out loud you attack Pakistan (like Obama did), you just do it.
  
• The Pakistanis don't want to go into Waziristan, McCain trying to convince them to do so won't change much. Their government is not strong enough.
  
• McCain doesn't believe in Jesus, he believes in General Paetrus.
  
• Why does Obama say John, but McCain Senator Obama? Racial issue of white people having called blacks by their first name only for decades in order to keep them in their place? Afraid of being conceived of doing that?
  
• Obama: Good job on describing the mess in Pakistan and the failed US efforts there.
  
• McCain: So paternalistic towards Obama (doesn't understand this, that (Pakistan, Musharaff, strategy, tactic)
  
• Now we are becoming really corny, McCain is wearing some dead's soldiers name on his wrist. God, guys, please, politics, issues, policy. Anyone trying to pull this off in Germany would be laughed off the stage. So 19th/20th century, come into the 21st century. Pretty, pretty please. Now Obama is wearing a bracelet too. Honour, blood, national pride and so on. So lucky we (Europeans, Germans in particular) got rid of this shit after 1945.
  
• Even an Iran with nuclear weapons would not mean a second Holocaust.
  
• A league of democracies is bullshit, no China, no Russia? This league would be relevant for another 10 years at most.
  
• Funny how Israel is treated like the 51st state or something in these debates.
  
• Not having negotiations worked real well against Cuba John. Nixon went to China, Roosevelt met Stalin, Kissinger negotiated with the Vietnamese. To refuse to talk to people is not a policy, it is arrogance that doesn't really serve any use.
  
• McCain wouldn't want to meet Zapatero? That is ridicolous. Only one of the best prime ministers in Europe.
  
• It is dangerous to meet and talk to Ahmadinejad? Less or more dangerous than bombing the place? Wish McCain would actually expound on that. Don't believe he has a point.
  
• How did Kissinger become the wise advisor that people feel proud to reference to? His German accent? His failure in Vietnam?
  
• Russia's attack on Georgia. What a failure by the Bush administration to not being capable of responding. Good job by Sarkozy, and good for strengthening the EU's foreign policy, but definitely a sign of things to come (increasingly fading American relevance).
  
• McCain attacks well on this foreign policy stuff. Always referencing his lack of understanding.
  
• The KGB doesn't exist anymore. It's called the FSB Senator McCain.
  
• McCain has spent significative amount of time everywhere in the world apparently, but especially Georgia. My personal estimate would be 3 days.
  
• Energy independence is a myth.
  
• McCain working with Joe Lieberman is not working across the aisle.
  
• Interesting that McCain admits the US used to torture. Not quite sure he is doing that on purpose ('have to make sure we never torture again')
  
• Why does everyone want simplistic solutions for complicated problems? So sad how this works. Both just keep hammering away at their strong points.
  
• Missile Defense is an expensive failure, mainly supported by ex-generals sitting on advisory boards of the military-industrial complex. I thought McCain wanted to reign in spending.
  
• McCain: Obama does not have 'enough experience'. At least he finally came out and said it directly, having referenced to it constantly.
  
• McCain loves the veterans. God damn homosexual.
  
• McCain just directly tried to distance himself from the Bush administration. Not very believable I think, but he tried.
  
• The American dream. You can make it if you try. Social mobility. Just another myth, that is not backed up by numbers.
  
• McCain was a POW. He can be President. No really, that is sufficient as a qualification. They always make it sound like Veterans are angels or something. Crazy.
  
• McCain was good on this, I agree more with Obama of course based on content alone (policy suggestions, the few that were actually mentioned), but McCain was good. But then this is his specialty (foreign policy that is).
  
• I cannot believe they did this in Oxford, Mississippi without ever adressing race.
  
• Are they like not allowed to kiss their wives on stage?
  
• How creepy is McCain's wife? I mean, how much younger is she? How fake does she look (her hair especially, barbie doll)? Scary stuff.
  
• Scary post too, in length especially. If you made it all the way down here I recommend you for it and thanks. Need to do some actual work now.
  

Obama moving right

Not to be a Besserwessi (great word, learn German or look it up if you don't know it), but Obama is moving to the political center (aka right, since he was further left before) in order to appeal to the broader masses. His many young disciples that I encoutered during my UNC days (been like what, two months? feels longer) hopefully will come to the realization that he is just another politician in the end, a good one, a relatively left-wing one, but not more than that (and not less than that either).

Case in point 1, Obama like the incumbent supports welfare programs run by churches continuing the dubious seperation between church and state in the United States. While at the same time undermining any kind of universal welfare approach that is needed (as far as I am concerned in any case) in the US in order to end socio-economic deprivation occuring here (and create a true meritocracy, I could get carried away here, but will control myself).

Case in point 2, Obama is supporting "legal protection to the telecommunication companies that worked with the National Security Agency’s domestic wiretapping program after the Sept. 11 attacks." Do I even need to add anything? Spying on Americans? I'd call it unpatriotic just to mess with the conservative crowd, but then most of them tend to not even realize that that is what their revolutionary ancestors fought against.

Case in point 3, Obama supports the death penalty for the crime of child rape. While I obiovusly agree that this crime is "heinous" I do not support the death penalty. Never. And in this case it means that Obama is more conservative than a Supreme Court dominated by conservatives.

Case in point 4, Obama supports the Supreme Court's strike down of Washington DC's ban on handguns.

I like him, I'd vote for him, but they honeymoon period with the liberals and young ones is over it seems.

UPDATE: The New York Times editorial of today argues pretty much the same point.

UPDATE 2: The Economist weighs in on this too now.

On Obama

The New York Times claims that: "Mr. Obama’s victory in this [Iowa for those of you living in holes] overwhelmingly white state was a powerful answer to the question of whether America was prepared to vote for a black person for president. What was remarkable was the extent to which race was not a factor in this contest."

I would love to believe that, cannot bring myself to do so though for two reasons. First, it seems evident that the willingness of white Democratic voters to elect black officials is higher than that of white Republican voters. A victory in this Democratic caucus is thus no indication of his chances in a general, national election. Second (from a paper I recently wrote ):

"The greater the district's racial composition tips in blacks' favor the more inclined whites are to project […] racial fears […] onto [the] […] officeseeker." In districts were blacks are a minuscule minority the chances of a black candidate to win the white vote rises because African Americans issues are less relevant, causing less anxiety in white voters."

Clearly, Iowa falls in the latter category, for other stats or the nation as a whole this is a completely different story.