Some spin about the Presidential candidates - 6.17.2007.2
Here is an interesting bit in defense of Senator Clinton and denouncing the Republican Party. It seems quite interesting that this piece focuses on the election in France, cable news and a newspaper in London. Obviously the election of the next President of the United States affects the entire world, but the way this one blogger puts it you would think the world is hoping for a Democrat in the position.
To say that a Democratic President in 2008 would be a bad thing is a bit early to call. We don’t even know who will be the candidate of that party. The same must be said of the Republican candidates. But there are a few things we can definitely say.
The election of the President of France did have a large voter turnout. They do have a different style of politics, but one of the factors in their election was a pro-America (and that means President Bush) candidate. The anti-American candidate lost by an overwhelming number.
Add to this the fact that the candidates debate issues and you get a very different kind of race than what we have here. Liquor ads are banned on American TV, and we do discuss the past of our candidates. That’s not necessarily a bad thing.
“Conservative groups and political figures are planning a film, books and a concerted media campaign to demonise Clinton, who is already one of the most polarising figures in American politics.”
I don’t know if demonize is the correct word here. There have been several books discussing Senator Clinton. They are bringing up her actions in Whitewater and motivations for getting elected in NY State. These are real concerns, and as a long-time political figure she knew they would be raised. There is even added interest as one of her former aides, Mr. Dick Morris, has raised concerns about her. I for one have to wonder why would someone who was instrumental to helping her husband get elected is one of those leading the charge to prevent her from getting elected President. That’s not negative.
As for the internet, to say that Republicans are using it against any Democratic candidate implies that the Democrats are not doing the same thing. I can point to at least a dozen unsolicited emails from Mr. John Edwards to prove that. [I mentioned previously that rather than answering a letter with question, Mr. Edwards has added me to his mass mailing list and has not made any other response.] Many of his mass mailings directly attack the position of the President and the Republican Party. I’m sure other candidates have done the same thing, including Senator Clinton. That sounds like a similar and equal use of the Internet to me.
One of the most interesting media campaigns against Senator Clinton was made by a fellow Democrat. While Senator Obama’s campaign denied involvement, it was found that they were responsible for the very popular remake of the old television commercial that spread on YouTube. They implied that Senator Clinton was the Orwellian equivalent of Big Brother. Republicans can’t be blamed for that.
Continued in Part 2...
Labels: Dick Morris, John Edwards, presidential candidate, Senator Barak Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton
posted by M. Vass @ Sunday, June 17, 2007
4 Comments
4 Comments:
I am the writer of the piece you mentioned. As an American voter who's lived in Europe for seven years - and as a journalist who has traveled around the world - I have seen America is not perceived in the rest of the world the way the Bush administration would prefer. In fact, our country's reputation has lost all its luster and goodwill, thanks to the Bush administration's misguided actions.
Further, France did not elect Sarkozy because he was pro-American. If anything, this would have lost him votes, as Bush is widely despised in Western Europe. During the French elections, "les Etats Unis" was rarely mentioned. Sarkozy was elected because the French perceived he had the best chance of turning the economy around and Royale's ideas about same seemed vague and unworkable. La France is not concerned about the US; it's concerned about making necessary changes to help itself, as it has serious problems needing remedy.
In the article I wrote, I advocated that American television networks and cable television reject paid political advertising, as these ads are typically mean-spirited and distort the issues. Sadly, too many Americans do not read newspapers or pay attention to the news, so this negative advertising may be all they hear about a candidate and they may not bother to investigate further.
As for the upcoming presidential election, I am not anti-Republican. But at the moment there are no Republican candidates in whom I have any confidence. And there are several Democratic candidates that I think would do a good job: Barack, Richardson, Biden, Edwards and yes, Clinton - although I do not support her at this point; my preferred candidate would be Al Gore (who has said he has no plans to run). But (other than Gore) are any of these candidates electable in Middle America? Probably not. At one time I thought McCain might do a good job, then he aligned himself w/ Bush and kept changing his tune. So much for the "independence," he used to claim.
And yes, I quoted a newspaper in London - what's wrong with that? Maybe if more Americans read news reported from somewhere other than the US - where the media is often too afraid to ask the hard questions - Americans would have a clearer picture of the world and its role in it. We are no longer admired and looked up to; we are the object of pity and/or hatred. It will take decades of hard work to overcome the mistakes of the Bush administration.
First I thank you for your reply.
Let me say that I too have lived overseas, though I lived in Moscow and only for a year and a half. But that was over a decade ago. Evenso I too am familiar with the many different views of America held by the rest of the world. Given this, I defer to your more recent and expansive knowledge of current attitudes.
Let me also say that I do not believe we differ that much in our core beliefs. I feel that you wish, as I do, to have the very best individual in the Presidency as possible. I think that you would agree that it is too soon to discount any of the front-running candidates at this time, and that all of these front-runners have issues to varying degrees. Personal preferences may cause us to lean one way or the other, but until serious questions get answered, whether they come from bloggers, international news agencies, or news media here at home, a final choice is far from certain at this time.
I am glad that you are involved on this issue. It is a recurring theme for me on this blog, and at my corporate site [my corporate website is absolutely neutral in its efforts to engender interest in the 2008 election]. I hope that the passions we and others like us have, will motivate other citizens to become more active and make choices for more substantive reasons than a 30 second soundbite.
With all that said I will mention that I am currently maintaining a mostly neutral stance in regard to the Presidential candidates. This seems to be a rarity, as I have found that the majority of blogs and a great deal of news coverage I have read is biased to a more liberal or democratic viewpoint. The more I have read, the more I see that most of this leaning is due to the actions of President Bush. While I do not agree with all of the decisions that our President has made, I feel that bias against all other Republican candidates because of their party is wrong.
The tone of the post you made, and the London paper you quoted, seemed to take that same bias. Perhaps my own bias was in play. But I addressed the imbalance as I saw it, and provided my readers with your post so they could come to their own conclusion. If they were not motivated to do so prior, perhaps this commentary will help further that.
I will also mention that I do not have any issue with any news media from anywhere in the world. I am an avid reader as I write for 6 blogs daily and find many items to be of interest or use. I strive to provide confirmation of views I hold, when possible and time permits. I have read reports, which I have not quoted and am stating from memory, that do mention that of the 2 French candidates the winner was more pro-America. If I have misstated that, or implied it having a greater influence than it did, I stand corrected.
Lastly, the image of America has long been anything but admired throughout the world. While recent years have emphasized the degree to which other nations may be upset with ours, it is not a new thing. I will paraphrase a statement made in the television show the West Wing that I think applies here, ‘This is the price you pay for being rich, powerful and free all at the same time.’ Over the last several decades much of Europe and the rest of the world have been angered by actions America took, sometimes all together and at other times separately. There is no question in my mind that as long as America is at the top of the proverbial hill, whether alone or with other nations, most of the rest of the world will look to ‘push’ us off the top.
I invite you to view my other posts and comments on politics and our nation, so that you may get a more full view of my stance. I suggest to my readers that they should do the same with your blog, as I will. I am sure you will agree, the more we discuss, the more varied the experiences and viewpoints we can draw upon, the better the decisions we will make.
Don’t let this woman’s attempt at objectivity fool you for a minute. She is a liberal through and through. She is or was a journalist. Journalist and liberal are practically synonyms. This is, in my opinion, the primary reason that the news is usually slanted to the left. Is it just a coincidence that she does not think that there is a republican among the current list of candidates who would do a good job but she then goes on to express confidence in every democrat party candidate? She is not “anti-Republican”. She just does not want a republican to be in any elected office of major importance. Odds are she never voted for a Republican presidential candidate in her life and chances are she never will. I do not even know her and I would lay odds that she supported the socialist Segolene Royale in the French elections.
Do not buy the nonsense that she is concerned with negative ads. If negative ads would have caused Bush to lose the last election or would cause a Republican to lose the general presidential election she would be perfectly fine with them.
As for her comments on America’s standing in Europe I do not think America was ever particularly popular in Europe except for a period of time after the world wars. The European press hated Bush even before he was elected in 2000, before any "misguided actions".
Dear Mr. Vass, Thank you for your comments in response to mine. I appreciate your remarks and agree with much of what you say. But I will not respond to the remarks of anyone who posts anonymously - as your commenter has here - other than to say he or she is clearly jumping to conclusions without any basis of fact.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home