Monthly Archive

That last post was the 50th post I’ve written for this blog this month. I’m taking a moment to bask in this momentous and astounding feat.

*Moment*

Ok, I’m done. You would think that I’m the only blogger to blog on a regular basis, such is my reaction. To be honest with you, I never thought I’d hit 50 any time soon. I blogged, like, 6 times in September, 2007. Who would have thought 50 would be possible? And I would definitely not have expected it in a February. It’s the shortest month in the year!

To be honest, knowing that Super Tuesday and a whole plethora of primaries were on in the month, I might have expected a high turnover of posts. But it’s here that I’d like to remind everyone that I couldn’t post for a whole week there when I was on holiday. I wonder if anyone would be more impressed with my efforts now?

Seeings as the month ends tomorrow, I’ll blog about the numbers then. Expect it later in the day, in the afternoon. There will be some impressive numbers for this humble blog (not that the blogger is in any way humble).

Thomas.

Something to applaud the Republican party for.

Something to applaud John McCain for.

It’s rather unexpected, to be honest, for both the candidate and the party to speak out against using Obama’s middle name, or any mis-construed photos, as an exploit for attacking him. I might have expected it a little from McCain, but not at all for the Republican National Committee. McCain has been calling for a fair and balanced (not the Fox News kind) campaign between the two. Which means to racist attacks, no mud-slinging (well, really bad mud-slinging), and no flat-out lies by the candidates and their campaign teams. If they both agree to that, then I guess the party behind each of them will agree to it as well.

With all that said, I totally expect the 527’s (click to find out what a 527 is) to make the most of Obama’s name and that photo. If they don’t, then I will be extremely surprised.

The R.N.C. spoke out against it, I suspect, because it turn back on them. It could create a sympathy vote for Obama. It could become a null-and-void issue with the voters if they use it so much that they get desensitised to it. It could turn people off the Republican party in an election that is all about independent and swing voters. But worst of all, it makes John McCain and the Republican party look petty - it looks like they can’t debate him or point out faults in terms of policy, and they look really weak. A candidate who is attacking a guy’s name, or a single photo of him, obviously has no platform to run and challenge with.

That’s why the 527’s come in handy - they can attack, and McCain and the Republicans can say “We have no control over them”, maybe even decry what the 527’s are saying. But the message will be out there, and unfortunately, it might even be heard. We’ll see how clean this campaign is come the end of voting day.

Thomas.

Today was the bonus 24 hours everyone gets once every 4 years. For some reason, to me, it feels almost special. Of course, it’s rather silly to think that. But for some reason, the idea of having a whole extra day is great.

I, of course, worked for part of it. A short shift of 5 hours, though it was smack-bang in the middle of the day, so I couldn’t really do anything else. Never-the-less, I did need to go into work to give them a copy of my convoluted timetable, and to discuss my future plans with them.

On the way in, I heard a rather good advertisement for Vodafone. They were capitalising on the whole 29th thing and had ads running telling people to do something out of the ordinary, as the chance only comes around once every 4 years. I rather liked it. I generally enjoy those kind of ads that are out-of-the-ordinary. They are also much more effective on me. I wouldn’t have been able to remember the company that the ad was for unless I liked it. And you wouldn’t have known the ad was even for Vodafone until the very end.

Anyway, I got in and had a good day, all things considered. It was busy with a function. I knew the company that was having their ‘do’, as they were customers of my father’s company. I say were because they are relocating their factory to Melbourne, and a once sizable account for my father’s firm is no more. He’s pretty annoyed about that, as is the whole company. I suspect a few of the employees are worried too, such is the position of his industry in this country. Everything is going to China.

I had the discussion with my boss about certain things, and then ventured the topic of when I could possibly go on holiday, and for how long. Being a casual employee, I’m not exactly tied there. Nor are they ‘obliged’ to roster me on for hours. So the last thing I want to do is do something stupid that will see someone else get my hours. And I think a month-long holiday is one of those stupid things. I had hoped that 3 weeks would be something they could handle.

Anyway, my boss (who I’ve always had much respect for) proved to be an even better guy than I even imagined and said I could conceivably take as long as I wanted off and still expect my job to be going when I returned. So I settled (in my mind) that I’d go to the U.S. in July - fly out the 30th of June, come back the 25th. Without attempting to brag (who am I kidding - of course I’m going to brag!) it’s likely that I do a bang-up job. I really do put a lot of effort in, and certainly more than other people on the roster. I think that my boss would want me at work even if I took more than a month off. It’s good that, I guess.

I put the cricket on the televisions on the walls to watched. I hardly watched it though - it was so boring to begin with that I just gave up and occasionally glanced at it to find out the score. I don’t understand why ‘dead’ matches are ever played - and especially in this series. I would be happy to have moved the finals forward, just to get the Indian cricket team out of here a few days early. Seriously, I’m sick and tired of them whining and complaining about every match they lose.

My shift came to an end at 5pm, and I was off. The traffic wasn’t too bad surprisingly. Usually I have quite a wait to get onto Henry Lawson Drive at that time of the day, but today I did not. When I got home, my mother was feeding a cockatoo some bread. I don’t know why, but she was. We went inside, and then half an hour later, eight of them were in my neighbour’s tree pulling off lemons and eating them. The sight was very funny. Some of them perched on our fence with one foot and in the other, they held their lemon. They were digging away into it with their beak and loving it. I wondered whether they’d eat the lemons if they tasted the same as they tasted for us.

It was a funny thing to watch as well because our neighbour loves his lemon tree. But laying all around it on the ground is dozens of rotting lemons with beak-marks in them. It’s a funny sight. In fact …

*5 minutes later*

… this is the sight. And this. I suppose it might not be so funny to, you know, a normal person. But it’s funny to me.

Anyway, that was a few hours ago. The cricket seems to be turning around a bit. Adam Gilchrist and James Hopes, Michael Clarke, and Ricky Ponting are all out. Ponting, I see from his score, is back to his series form. James Hopes was having a good run as our opener after Mathew Hayden was suspended (I assume suspended from that ‘weed’ comment). I hope he goes rather well, the Catfish. And a nice knock from Gilchrist as a farewell to the M.C.G. He has been in some good form this series. Even when he doesn’t get a good score, his keeping work has been outstanding. We will miss him probably as much as Shane Warne. Certainly more than the other bunch of retirees from the past year and some.

And Andrew Symonds just got out for zip too. Psh.

Anyway, that’s how I spent most of my bonus day. Tonight I will cruise around on the Web for a while, maybe write some politics posts (though material has been a little lacking for the past days), maybe some more drafts in preparation for university, and then watch some DVDs. I’m trying to get through the entire series of … Gilmore Girls. There’s not a single strange look or smart-assed quip I haven’t heard after saying I watched that show, so it’s not worth trying anything here readers.

Thomas.

What do you do when you’re worth $11.4 billion, are the 34th richest man in the U.S., and 142nd in the World? You run for Mayor of New York, of course. But what do you do when your term is about to expire? Well, one man is still asking himself that after ruling himself out of the presidential election come November.

Mike Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, who was formerly a Republican, former a Democrat (in that order), who is now an independent, had been rumoured to run on a third-party ticket in the U.S. general election in November. It was expected that he would be an independent (rather than a Green, a Constitutionalist, or a Libertarian) on the ticket, and would campaign on the basis of bipartisanship, a centrist platform, and ‘unite the country’ would be his slogan. I’d say he is about 8 to 4 years too late on that one, considering the candidates who are most likely to represent the ‘big’ parties in the general election right now.

The rumours were quite well founded too. In as much as could be done without actually starting a campaign, all the groundwork was looked into, undertaken, and carried out. Bloomberg dispatched a huge polling and statistics team to find out how he rates across the country, what sort of money would be needed to campaign as an independent, and when action needed to be taken. Yesterday, I saw a report that claimed a ‘leak’ said that Bloomberg would have to start the process March 5, and that we should expect to see a decision any time soon.

Now, I think a lot of people were a bit unimpressed by this after Ralph Nader announced he is running in the November election as an independent. I didn’t blog about it when it was news because I didn’t want to draw attention to the guy, nor did I even want to acknowledge his existence. Him being in the race can only hurt the Democrats, as Nader runs on a very left platform.

Anyway, after Nader announced, people didn’t want to hear about ‘rumours’ from the Bloomberg camp. I listened to a few for one main reason. For a while, and my friends will testify to this, I’ve been saying that the election would be turned on its head if Bloomberg announced and entered the race. No one took me seriously because they didn’t taken him seriously. That’s why I listened to Bloomberg rumours - because I took the guy seriously, and I wanted to prove to my friends that Bloomberg was pretty serious too. Anyway, the rest of this post will be about that - proving the Bloomberg threat came very close to being an actual thing.

The Bloomberg campaign’s framework is actually established right now. He could change his mind tomorrow and be ready to race. There is, in every state, teams ready to go to start the bid. There was a draft pulled together stating how to get on each state’s ballot, and when the process had to be started by. It said that the start date for any Bloomberg campaign had to begin by March 5 to get on the Texas ballot. That state has one of the earliest deadlines for the third-party candidates.

Nation-wide polling had been conducted by hire polling companies just for Bloomberg. Every now and then, on the Internet, you would see polls that had Obama, McCain, and Bloomberg, or Clinton, McCain, and Bloomberg. I never reported on them because I don’t put much weight behind national polling this early in the game. But I was always intrigued why some polling companies had Bloomberg in their results, and why some did not.

And a detailed budget was handed to Bloomberg in recent days with a final minimum figure of what his campaign would cost. It said the price would probably be at $1 billion, but could creep as high as $1.5 billion. Because he would be a third-party candidate, he would need to invest a whole lot more in ads, staff, and rallies to get his name out there. That figure, for any party or person, would have been a scary one.

But none of that was what put Bloomberg off. It was that the two frontrunners for the parties, Barack Obama and John McCain, are both running on a centre/(left/right) platform. They are both espousing messages of unity and bipartisanship and bringing the country back together. There are some significant differences, but any sort of edge that Bloomberg might have had by campaigning for a centrist leader has been blunted.

Now, as much as I really want to see Barack Obama elected (and I really do), in an alternate universe where he won’t get the Democratic nomination, I would love to have seen John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Mike Bloomberg going at it in the election. Heck, throw in Ralph Nader for a laugh too. The first time, since Ross Perot stood, in an election that an independent stood a chance. Actually, Mike Bloomberg, from what some of the stats were saying, stood a better chance at getting more votes that Perot did in 1992 - 18.9%. That would have really made things interesting for the election. And a hypothetical that I could write a whole post about. Which I may do another time.

But for now, sleep tight. Mike Bloomberg is not going to be in the presidential race.

Thomas.

Back on February 18, I blogged this:

Looking at superdelegate news of late, Congressman John Lewis, from Georgia, has swung over, publicly, to Obama’s campaign from Hillary Clinton’s. This is rather important news, in that Lewis was Clinton’s most prominent African-American supporter. He was a name in the civil rights movement during the 1960s, and is seen as one of the top African-American politicians.

Lewis is the second African-American politician to change their support from Clinton to Obama. David Scott, another Representative from Georgia, also has moved into the Obama camp. Obama won his district by 80% of the vote, something Scott has acknowledged helped win him over.

These two movements are interesting to note, because it shows the power of Obama’s February momentum, as well as the eroding support of Clinton by superdelegates. This is what the momentum does - it wins over the undecided. And considering that more and more people are becoming undecided about a Clinton victory, there are a lot of voters that Obama has the potential to win over.

Apparently, John Lewis has only just now supported Obama. He says that he was ‘thinking about it’ for the past week-and-some, and has only just now decided to endorse Obama. All of what I blogged is still relevant, just change the time stamp. Lewis is an important person to swing over to your campaign. It just shows more eroding of the Clinton campaign.

Thomas.

So today I had to trek into the city. Into university no less. I had to attend Orientation Day. It’s my 4th year of orientations. My thought is that I’ve attended enough Orientation Days in 3 years that I didn’t need to go to any more. But the University doesn’t share my thought (which is often the case) and they made it compulsory. I guess it was something to do for the day - not that I was looking mind you.

Anyway, I had to catch the train. I hate CityRail. I loathe it. I wish it had been buried in a shoe-box like the rotting animal carcass it truly is. There aren’t enough metaphors in any language for me to adequately describe my contempt and pure hatred for CityRail. But seeings as how that’s the only sane way to get into Sydney University, I was forced to take the train.

Not being a criminal, I needed a ticket. I went to the ticket machine, knowing full well that this DOS-related, incompetent, rusty bucket of crud could do an infinitely better job that anyone at the ticket counter. I fed it my money (a $5 note that was crisp and flat) and the machine didn’t want a lick of it. It spat it out. Not wanting to stuff around and waste any more time (I had to line up to use the machine), I went to the counter where the first place position was intercepted by an man with a suitcase on wheels. He fumbled around for his wallet, then his money in his wallet, and then finally finished his ordeal of ordering a ticket.

Thinking that I’d finally be able to get my ticket, the man in front of me turn back to the counter and asked if he could change up some of his coins. I know that the guy behind the glass said ‘no’, but so did I. But I’m not sure how loud I actually said it. I have a feeling that I said it loud enough for him to hear, because he looked at me, then turned away, not having changed up his coins.

I eventually got my ticket, and headed to the platform. I was in a steady jog, knowing that I would be cutting it fine to get the train. Then that same guy with the suitcase lost control of his bags, and managed to block my path to the platform. I’m a seasoned traveler, and an expert with these wheelie bags, so I feel qualified when I say this:

You are a MORON if you can’t keep your suitcase under control. You are a FOOL if you keep me from getting past you. AND YOU ARE A DELINQUENT IF YOU MAKE ME MISS MY TRAIN!!!

That’s what happened. I arrived at the station with exactly 8 minutes to spare (I was late by 2 minutes by my own standards), and I missed my dang train because of customers who are certainly suited for the haphazard and hopeless CityRail service. I sat down in the shade (as it was still a little sunny over our way in the morning), and listened to my MP3 player. A man walked by me with the strangest smell I’d smelt in a while. I certainly don’t want to smell it again. It was a combination of smoking, mothballs and cheap deodorant, maybe with a hint of burning electrics as well. The guy was certainly over 80, and he had taken the stairs, so that burning electrics smell could very well have been his pacemaker.

I jumped on the next train that came - an all stations to Central. The last part didn’t matter, as I get off at Wolli Creek to get a train to Redfern. Why do I do that? Because CityRail don’t have enough freaking trains, and to fulfill their daily quota of trains to go through the freaking airport tunnel, they don’t send any trains, on the East Hills line, via Redfern until peak hour. Idiots.

Regardless, it was all stations to, so it would be a long trip. I was already ticked off at missing my train that the ominous weather (dark clouds) in the direction I was headed was of no comfort. I swore that if it was going to rain, it sure as heck had better happen when I wasn’t walking outside. I sat down in the bottom half of the carriage, hoping to avoid, well, anyone else who would be stupid enough to catch a train.

Out of nowhere, ticket inspectors were surrounding me. I was the only one on the carriage, so I guess that all had to check me. A woman among them asked for my ticket. I got out my wallet, then my ticket and student I.D. card and handed it over, almost automated. The lady remarked that I knew the procedure and laughed. I also knew that if I didn’t have a ticket, the procedure was that I’d get rough-housed out the train and be physically detained, get written up, and hate CityRail even more. I’d seen it done, and that convinced me to always buy a ticket during the hours you are likely to be checked. There was no problem with the ticket, and the woman wished me a good day as she left. I smiled and wished her the same, with sincerity in my voice to boot. I really am a good liar.

Unfortunately the train then started to fill up. A pair of real geniuses got on, you know the kind. High school dropouts who think they are from some ‘rough’ part of town, who think they are cool because they wear their hats to the side of their heads (in my days, that was the sign you were a retard), and wear clothes that look they they were picked out of the Salvation Army dumpster. You know, where they throw the clothes they know no one would buy. Everyone’s seen these kinds of punks around the streets before.

Anyway, a pair of them got on, one with a push-bike. And in his infinite and astounding wisdom, he sat on the elderly seat, propped his bike up beside him, and took up four seats in doing so. I shook my head and imagined what I’d do should some sort of fight started that involved them and another disgruntled passenger that might be ticked off by their stupidity.

Wouldn’t you know it, but an elderly Asian couple got on at the next station. The other elderly seats were being taken up by a older-than-middle-age Asian woman with some bags. When it became clear that the doofus opposite her wasn’t about to move, she willingly gave up her seat and came and sat in the lower half. All the while, that idiot sitting down’s friend was dancing worse than a fish out of water to crap music blaring out his mobile phone.

Eventually, Wolli Creek was approaching. I gathered my things together and walked up stairs with the same posture that I always have on a train - that of a very disgruntled and ticked off passenger. As I came up the stairs, the gronk who was dancing stopped right in front of me. He look at me, and I stared right back, and whatever look I had on my face was enough to get him to move aside.

The train came to a stop, I got off and rushed for the next station. There I didn’t have to wait 1 minute before the train got there. Nor did any of the hundred other students that were waiting as well. The train was reasonably crowded before the lot of us got on. It was really packed when we did. I secured a seat by getting in the same door I always do but going through the left one. You see, passengers (90% of them) go through the door and look for a seat, from the middle, in the upstairs or downstairs part, thus blocking traffic and missing out on seats that might be in the middle area. Because I was getting on at the end of the carriage, the middle area was to the left of the door. I went in through the left door and snagged the very end seat. The other three seats filled up as soon as people realised that there were no ‘good seats’ in the up or downstairs area, and then it was a fight for the remainder. Idiots, I thought to myself.

Anyway, we made Redfern, and there were no further issues. This train had come from The Shire, so you know that the quality of service was going to be better than the service afforded to us ‘burb folks. I wasn’t late to my oh-so important orientation as I made time up with the speed that I walked there at.

And that’s the start of what will probably be a long semester of CityRail experiences.

Thomas.

Three visitors ago (at the time of writing), this blog had its 4,000th visitor for the month. They came from Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and undertook the labour that is reading The Ohio Debate. When I looked at the statistic on Sitemeter, they had been reading for a tick under 17 minutes. I’m guessing this person has an actual interest in the primary race.

Anyway, I just wanted to post to show off this milestone. I don’t expect to be breaking it any time soon, and I don’t really expect to break 5,000 as there are only 2-ish days left for February.

Thomas.

A prelude note: There is a lot of quoting in this post. For the most part, I’ve cut the quotes down to the bits that are relevant. But there is still a lot. So, for the readers who are short on time, or don’t want to read the entire quotes, the bits that are in bold are the most relevant parts to the argument being made. Also, the transcript of the debate can be found here.

Well, another debate (possibly the last), and with all the theatrics that led up to it, absoluetly none of it resulted in any blood or guts or headlocks. Disappointing, really. Though to be expected. Hillary Clinton has had a different voice and a different message for each of the past, like, three days.

First there was joy and concession:

The Austin, Texas debate (22/02/0

‘You know, no matter what happens in this contest — and I am honored, I am honored to be here with Barack Obama. I am absolutely honored.’

Then there was unbridled anger:

Press conference in Ohio (23/02/0

‘So shame on you, Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That’s what I expect from you. Meet me in Ohio. Let’s have a debate about your tactics and your campaign.’

Then the lowest form of wit, sarcasm (it really was, watch the video):

Providence, Rhode Island, Press Conference (25/02/0

‘I could just stand up here and say ‘Let’s just get everybody together, let’s get unified’. The sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect. Maybe I’ve just lived a little long, but I have no illusions at how hard this is going to be. You are not going to wave a magic wand and have the special interests disappear.’

Everyone thought with that sort of lead up, that Clinton would have to walk the very fine line at the Ohio debate of attacking the favoured frontrunner, but still come off as personable and friendly: She needed to be the person you could and wanted to vote for. It was that or jump off the deep end in some last ditch effort to certify her insanity.

But no. For the umpteenth time, Clinton disappointed and let down all. The debate, for the most part, was civil and policy-grounded. Extremely policy grounded. Health care, N.A.F.T.A., and foreign policy were the main topics, and they were for a reason. Clinton’s crazy rant in Ohio came from flyers that had been sent out (weeks and months ago) by the Obama campaign that were concerned with Clinton’s positions on N.A.F.T.A. and health care. And Clinton’s even more bizarre sarcastic rant in Providence was about Obama’s foreign policy positions. So these three topics coming up was to be expected.

The first question of the night though was an interesting one. The moderators (Williams and Russert - who did a great job I might add) confronted Clinton about her changing rhetoric and performances on the campaign since the last debate. I’ve probably never seen anyone back-peddle or dodge a question quite like this:

Williams: Senator Clinton, we’re here in Ohio. Senator Obama is here. This is the debate. You would agree the difference in tone over just those 48 hours was striking.

Clinton: Well, this is a contested campaign. And as I have said many times, I have a great deal of respect for Senator Obama, but we have differences. And in the last several days, some of those differences in tactics and the choices that Senator Obama’s campaign has made regarding flyers and mailers and other information that has been put out about my health care plan and my position on N.A.F.T.A. have been very disturbing to me. And therefore, I think it’s important that you stand up for yourself and you point out these differences so that voters can have the information they need to make a decision.

Ok, but you do concede that your different tones have made you appear to be, say, a raving loony? Perhaps that’s the only thing your campaign hasn’t tried to beat Obama. Anyway, the runaway frontrunner Obama had this to say about the past few days:

Obama:I have endured over the course of this campaign repeatedly negative mailing from Senator Clinton … suggesting that I want to leave 15 million people out [of my health care plan]. According to Senator Clinton, that is accurate. I dispute it, and I think it is inaccurate. On the other hand, I don’t fault Senator Clinton for wanting to point out what she thinks is an advantage to her plan. The mailing that we put out accurately indicates that the main difference between Senator Clinton’s plan and mine is the fact that she would force in some fashion individuals to purchase health care.

He managed to take the effective high-road, and well done to him. But, giving to temptation, he followed up with a little jab to the face:

Obama: But I think it’s very important to understand the context of this, and that is that Senator Clinton has … constantly sent out negative attacks on us, e-mail, robocalls, flyers, television ads, radio calls. And, you know, we haven’t whined about it because I understand that’s the nature of these campaigns, but to suggest somehow that our mailing is somehow different from the kinds of approaches that Senator Clinton has taken throughout this campaign I think is simply not accurate.

Nice retort there from the future candidate. Then came the first policy discussion of the night - health care. And the universal coverage debate that we heard last week started up all over again, thanks to Clinton. Does she really have no new material? Did she use all her ‘good stuff’ up before Super Tuesday? Apparently so, because for 16 minutes, she didn’t answer a single question, didn’t allow the topic to be changed, and talked over candidate and moderator alike:

Clinton: Well, there’s hardly anything be [sic.] more important? I think it would be good to talk about health care and how we’re we going get to universal health care.

Why? Because it’s the only thing that you can talk about without there being precedence to call you a flip-flopper! Eventually her antics (the talking over people, the stubbornness to not change the topic, the knit-picking) became so bad that Obama quipped with:

Obama: I’m going to get filibustered — I’m getting filibustered a little bit here.

Wikipedia has a good definition for what a filibuster is. In this sense, Clinton was running down the clock in an effort to make herself look better, make Obama look bad, and not give any room. Of course, it didn’t work, because the topic changed, everyone knew what she was up to, and those who didn’t had fallen asleep by that point. Seriously, anyone whose vote would be swayed by the differences in their universal health care policies has already decided, and no one wants to hear another pointless debate about it.

Which is why I was extremely glad to see that topic change to N.A.F.T.A. I knew that this had the potential to create an egg-on-face moment for Clinton. And she knew it too, which is why she said this:

Clinton: Well, can I just point out that in the last several debates, I seem to get the first question all the time. And I don’t mind … I do find it curious, and if anybody saw “Saturday Night Live,” you know, maybe we should ask Barack if he’s comfortable and needs another pillow.

That silly reference is to the show Saturday Night Live who had a sketch that portrayed Obama as getting preferential treatment from the media over Clinton. That the media outlets go out of their way to ensure that Obama gets treated better than Clinton. It was a sketch on a comedy show that is occasionally funny. The reference by Clinton got her booed by the crowd. An appropriate response.

Anyway, the real debate started up, with a short and concise answer from Clinton as to whether she supported N.A.F.T.A. or not:

Clinton: You know, I have been a critic of N.A.F.T.A. from the very beginning. I didn’t have a public position* on it, because I was part of the administration, but when I started running for the Senate, I have been a critic.

* Note that she didn’t say ‘political office’

… ok. I can sort of see an answer in there if I squint a little, and turn my head to the side. Anyway, saying that she’s been a critic off it since the beginning, that should end the debate, right? That’s what she was probably hoping for at least. But Obama had to ruin her party:

Obama: Well, I think that it is inaccurate for Senator Clinton to say that she’s always opposed N.A.F.T.A. In her campaign for Senate, she said that N.A.F.T.A., on balance, had been good for New York and good for America. I disagree with that. I think that it did not have the labor standards and environmental standards that were required. Now, I think that Senator Clinton has shifted positions on this and believes that we should have strong environmental standards and labor standards, and I think that’s a good thing.

And if that wasn’t enough, the moderators wanted to get in on the act, right after Clinton said that Obama wasn’t taking her full record into account. I don’t know if it was payback for all the droning about health care, but those moderators wanted to get a few kicks in there:

Russert: You did say in 2004 that on balance N.A.F.T.A. has been good for New York and America. You did say that. When President Clinton signed this bill — and this was after he negotiated two new side agreements, for labor and environment — President Clinton said it would be a force for economic growth and social progress. You said in ‘96 it was proving its worth as free and fair trade. You said that — in 2000 — it was a good idea that took political courage. So your record is pretty clear.

Russert: … because this was something that you wrote about as a real success for your husband. You said it was good on balance for New York and America in 2004, and now you’re in Ohio and your words are much different, Senator. The record is very clear.

And once again, we saw the raw example of how Clinton has picked and chosed her way thus far. She likes to claim that her record includes the record of President Clinton’s. Of course, she doesn’t ever take under her wing the negative aspects, like this. But why should she? She did, after all, hold the prestigious political office of First Lady. Did I say prestigious? And political?

Moving on to the issue of jobs. This was a rather interesting bit of research by the team:

Russert: Senator Clinton, on the issue of jobs, I watched you the other day with your economic blueprint in Wisconsin saying, this is my plan; hold me accountable. And I’ve had a chance to read it very carefully. It does say that you pledge to create 5 million new jobs over 10 years.

And I was reminded of your campaign in 2000 … where you pledged 200,000 new jobs for upstate New York. There’s been a net loss of 30,000 jobs. And when asked … you told The Buffalo News, “I might have been a little exuberant.” Tonight will you say that the pledge of 5 million jobs might be a little exuberant?

Something that voters might want to keep in mind. The topic moved onto foreign policy, where Obama said that Clinton “equates experience with longevity in Washington” - an idea that he, nor many other people, believes to be true. Of course, Clinton hates it when foreign policy comes up in any way, shape, or form, because Obama just needs to say this:

Obama: On the most important foreign policy decision that we face in a generation — whether or not to go into Iraq — I was very clear as to why we should not — that it would fan the flames of anti-American sentiment — that it would distract us from Afghanistan — that it would cost us billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and would not make us more safe, and I do not believe it has made us more safe.

But for the first time ever in the campaigning, Clinton had formulated a defense that looked pretty good on the surface. It was that Obama wasn’t in the same position as her when the voting happened, so they shouldn’t be compared until they were both Senators on the same level:

Clinton: So the fair comparison was when we both had responsibility, when it wasn’t just a speech but it was actually action, where is the difference? Where is the comparison that would in some way give a real credibility to the speech that he gave against the war?

But showing how great a thinker, how smart a man, and how ill-deceived he is, Obama instantly had a retort to the claim that it was just one speech that didn’t count for anything:

Obama: My objections to the war in Iraq were simply — not simply a speech. I was in the midst of a U.S. Senate campaign. It was a high-stakes campaign. I was one of the most vocal opponents of the war, and I was very specific as to why. And so when I bring this up, it is not simply to say “I told you so,” but it is to give you an insight in terms of how I would make decisions.

And we were shown just how much foresight Obama has. And, similarly, in one swift move, he was able to show that while he might not have the “longevity” that others have, he has a mind for the job he is running for. And after making that point, he was charged with having said ‘bomb Pakistan’. Obviously it was a mistake on Clinton’s part, because she was regretting it from the get-go of Obama’s answer:

Obama: With respect to Pakistan, I never said I would bomb Pakistan. What I said was that if we have actionable intelligence against bin Laden or other key al Qaeda officials, and Pakistan is unwilling or unable to strike against them, we should. And just several days ago, in fact, this administration did exactly that and took out the third-ranking al Qaeda official.

Don’t these people learn: Obama has a sound, constructed, and voter-winner answer to ever charge! Don’t buy into the ‘Obama has no policy’ rumours - he has policy, and he has it in boatloads. He is qualified to become President.

The topic turned to the sarcastic outburst that Clinton made in Providence. Of course, Clinton wanted to move on. Obama, had he been any any less of a morally superior person, would have exploited it for all it was worth. Instead, he took the highroad again:

Obama: Well, I thought Senator Clinton showed some good humor there. I would give her points for delivery.

Yes, he went on to defend himself, but it wasn’t a hypocritical attack about attacks, nor was it an ugly rhetorial work that we now remember Clinton for. It was to-the-point, and contrasted their two platforms. It was the third contrast of the night mind you - Clinton had distinguished herself from Obama on health care, Obama had done it on Iraq, and now on this issue. A fourth, you might argue, was Obama showing that he is above mud-slinging and ugly politics, while Clinton enjoys wallowing in and is the face of.

Clinton, for her part, said that that Providence rally was her:

Clinton: Having a little fun. You know, it’s hard to find time to have fun on the campaign trail, but occasionally you can sneak that in.

There was some more charges laid by Clinton, of Obama, before that topic was continued with a video of Obama saying:

Obama: [Clinton portrays] herself as co-president during the Clinton years. Every good thing that happened she says she was a part of. And so the notion that you can selectively pick what you take credit for and then run away from what isn’t politically convenient, that doesn’t make sense.

Finally! In a debate, where the two are facing one-another, the topic is brought up that has been infuriating this blogger, and millions of others. How Clinton manages to chop and choose at her own free will, and never takes responsibility, only credit. He then said, live at the debate:

Obama: What I’ve said, and what I would continue to maintain, is you can’t take credit for all the good things that happened but then, when it comes to issues like NAFTA, you say, well, I — behind the scenes, I was disagreeing. That doesn’t work. So you have to, I think, take both responsibility as well as credit.

Then Obama was free to defend himself against the charges that Clinton had made about him prior - which included health care (surprise surprise!), his voting record, and some other minor things. He had a good chunk of time allowed for this, and minimal interruptions from Clinton surprisingly. And eventually the topic turned to campaign finance.

This is an interesting point, as a while ago, before Obama became this maverick fundraiser and the frontrunner, and was clawing for column inches and publicity, he agreed to public financing only for the general election if he was elected the nominee. Now that things have changed, Obama has seemed to be erring on this pledge. It was brought up, and Obama had to do some maneuvering himself:

Obama: What I — what I have said is, at the point where I’m the nominee, at the point where it’s appropriate, I will sit down with John McCain and make sure that we have a system that works for everybody.

Fortunately for Obama, Clinton has no legs to stand on with this issue. If she were to jump on it, Obama can say he has only taken money from American citizens, no lobbyist groups at all. Clinton is bankrolled by lobbyist groups, so she has nothing.

Next we moved onto a phase of agreement. Antisemitism was the topic, where Obama and Clinton has identical policies on racism and the sovereignty of Israel. Then onto claims that Obama is the most liberal voting Senator currently serving (more than Ted Kennedy!). Obama performed quite well, pointing out that there were only 2 different votes between Clinton and himself, and of these, one wasn’t really a liberal issue. He went on to say that the days of what is ‘left and right’ are over, and that it’s time for new politics. Then the two discussed the happenings in Russia, and neither spoke highly of President Putins future successor. In fact, they both all but said he was a puppet and that the U.S.’s relationship with Russia had fallen into a bad place thanks to President Bush.

Finally, closing remarks, and each were allowed to take back one thing. Clinton wanted to take back her vote to authorize the war in Iraq, while Obama wanted to take back his inaction in trying to stop Congress’ interjection into the Terri Schiavo case.

But then came something interesting. It reminded me of when two friends are meeting at a funeral for the death of one of their other friends. And they are talking about all the good times they had, and the memories, and how the dead guy was a real ‘champ’. That’s what seemed to happen. Obama suddenly started singing Clinton’s campaigning praise in a way that made it look like he knew it was over. There were comments like ‘you ran a really good campaign’ said by both candidates, and a few moment where they were both taking sympathy on Clinton.

Then, all of a sudden, it was as if Clinton remembered that there was still March 4 coming up, and reminded everyone about her service record, about how ‘great’ a president she would make, etc. It was the same old stump speech that we’ve heard, so I’m not about to repeat it here.

So at the end of the night, who won? Well, Obama out-performed Clinton on all the topics bar health care. But seeings that health care has been dragged through the mud over the past week, and in this debate, winning that (as Clinton did) really didn’t stand for much. It might not even stand as a win come to think of it. Obama out performed Clinton on foreign policy, on Iraq, on reputation, on record, on N.A.F.T.A., on nearly everything. That’s not to say Clinton was awful - she just wasn’t nearly as good as she has been in the past. This was probably Obama’s best debate in the entire series. He came off as presidential through the whole night - cool, calm, and collected.

Obama also won in terms of what will happen because of this debate. Clinton needed to knock Obama out of the park on every policy issue, then knock him off his perch with something special in order to break his momentum and to stop the polls from moving around in Texas and Ohio. And she didn’t do that at all. On the other hand, Obama rammed home N.A.F.T.A. - which will cost Clinton votes in Ohio - and didn’t make any mistakes that will cost him votes. By the fault, his polling numbers will improve in Ohio, and he is already ahead in Texas.

So another win for Obama!

Thomas.

And some might say that this one is big. Over night (for us) Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd announced at a press conference with Barack Obama, his endorsement of the candidate. This endorsement is seen as rather big because Chris Dodd has been taking part in high level discussions in the D.N.C. as a ‘party elder’. It’s also important because he was a former candidate for the 2008 nomination as well.

Having been a candidate himself, as I said in an earlier post, he must have had some form of support if he was keen to run against the high-profile candidates like Obama and Hillary Clinton. That sort of support, well before voting, usually means superdelegates. If Dodd was able to get the unofficial word from them that they’d support him should he turn out to be a serious contender, then I suspect he still has their ears. And if that’s the case, there’s a chance that they will go to Obama’s side as well.

Similarly, there are 2 superdelegates from Connecticut still to make their decision. They are both D.N.C. state members: the chair, Nancy DiNardo, and John Olsen. In my research, these are the final two from Connecticut yet to endorse, while only one superdelegate from the state has gone with Clinton. So I suspect that these two will go to Obama should push come to shove. Obama did win the state after all - 51% to 47%, and took 26 pledged delegates out of the vote.

Anyway, returning to Chris Dodd, he has been included in some high level talks about how the party is going to deal with this election. The party doesn’t want a floor fight. Similarly, the Republicans have their nominee, so he is starting the national campaign now. The Democratic party is allowing him a head start, and that’s the last thing that’s needed. So the discussions have been revolving around who should drop out first. It could be resolved on the Democratic National Convention floor, but it would be the worst scenario. So the question has been who is going to get the tap on the shoulder.

Some of the names that have been popping up as part of these discussions are interesting. But when Dodd’s name had been coming up frequently and then he endorses one of the candidates, you can only wonder if the party ‘elders’ have decided on a candidate. If they have, expect to see the likes of Joe Biden and John Edwards, and the much more powerful Al Gore and Howard Dean come out and endorse. Otherwise, it’s a bold move made by Dodd alone to try and get the party to rally around a candidate now, rather than later. It may help some party faithful swing to Obama’s side in the coming March 4 primaries. Not a silly move at all, and it might just be enough to convince Clinton to drop out come March 5.

Thomas.

So the big buzz going around political circles today is that there is a ‘bad’ photo being circulated of Barack Obama. It shows him dressed as … well … this; wearing a traditional Somali outfit. It’s not that the photo is bad or anything, it’s that the photo has popped up on a website that claims Obama is a Muslim. Of course, he isn’t, but it’s another malicious rumour that the Clinton campaign started up a while ago, and the feed the flames every now and then.

Now, it’s not as bad as claiming Obama is the Antichrist - something that Ninglun has blogged about previously. No, he didn’t make the claim, he merely pointed out the stupidity of (and scariness of) the claim. And he has found success with that post. There have been some real loonies commenting on that post. Check them out if you have a firm grip on reality. But it really goes to the heart of some of the stupid rumours and claims that get spread, born through fear and fueled by hate.

Anyway, this photo has been connected with the ‘Muslim rumour’, and the Obama campaign has gone up in arms about it. They say that it’s vilification, fear mongering, and bad politics. They even said that it was:

“The most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election.”

And that’s a big call, because it includes all the crud that the Republicans threw at one-another. But it’s true. The Clinton campaign (who, let’s face it, have done this) has carried out the worst and lowest trick to date with this.

But I was alarmed by something else. It wasn’t all this; it wasn’t that vicious and flagrant lies were being propagated by a campaign team. No, it was that in searching for a copy of that now infamous photo, I found actual disturbing and worrying photos. They were accompanied with facts. No lies, no attacks, no smears. Facts. And I was shocked at where they had come from. They hadn’t been leaked by some Clinton cronies, or by the Republican attack dogs. They had come straight out of the Obama campaign. Straight from Obama himself! It was worrying for me, a staunch supporter of Obama.

What photos am I talking about? I’m talking about really bad photos like this:

Obama had an afro!!! An afro! What was he thinking? It might have been the ‘it’ think back then, but didn’t he think that doing something like that would come back to haunt him one day!? But wait! You think that it’s just one photo? Check this out:

He had an afro guys!!! Did he had the comb stuck into it it like typical 70’s stereotypes? Platform shoes? A purple suit? Maybe he even walked around with one of those monster boom-boxes (a.k.a. ghetto-blasters) back in the day.

Now we know that yearbook photos are never good, and I guess that Barack Barry Obama wasn’t immune. But you would have though with age that he would have wisened up. But no. Even later on, his afro-tendencies were still lingering:

But of all the photos I found, none, including the Somali outfit one, would be as embarrassing as this:

Or any others that show you getting along with the most repugnant and disgusting of opposing candidates. I think Obama would rather have the afro pictures thrown instead of those that show him and Clinton smiling together. I know I’d rather it. Maybe I should skip that haircut tomorrow …

Thomas.

Look up and you’ll see the new banner. This time, a cricketing theme. After the Australian team won their 3rd, yes, their 3rd, World Cup, they came home to a very welcoming reception. The gathering would occur at Martin Place, and there was expected to be a throng of people. I went in with Andrew, who wasn’t working at the time. At the time, I blogged something quick about going in.

I took my camera in, expecting to get at least one good photo. We arrived at least an hour early to find the place, not stand there for so long. But when we got there, we saw that we’d be at least 4 deep if we started standing around then and there. So we stood around for a while. The rest of day’s adventures are blogged about here. A good read, if I do say so.

Anyway, I thought that seeings cricket is the flavour of the month, what with O.D.I. finals coming up, and the Indian cricket league taking up column inches, I’d jump on the bandwagon. I also liked the photo quite a bit. I have another one, with a whole heap of confetti, but when I cut it down to banner size, it wasn’t as good.

So that’s the new banner.

Thomas.

Monday comes to an end in the U.S., and the latest rounds of polls have been released concerning the major races that are likely to decide the future of the Democratic race. Texas and Ohio, with their large delegate counts, are the two states that will determine if the Democratic primaries will continue past March 4th or not. The theory goes that if Hillary Clinton doesn’t win both Texas and Ohio, and by significant margins of 10% or more, then she should drop out of the race because no one can foresee her catching Barack Obama on the delegate count. If she loses one, or both, everyone is saying she should (and will) pull out. That’s why the states will decide the future of the race.

There are two other states voting on the same day - Vermont and Rhode Island. Since South Carolina, when Obama became a main player in the race, Vermont was ruled his, and Rhode Island Clinton’s. Nothing’s changed from the looks of things in the latest polls. The latest polls for the state show big leads for their expected winners. Rasmussen has Rhode Island reporting in with a 15% lead for Clinton - 53% to Obama’s 38%. As for Vermont, Rasmussen has Obama up by a huge 24% - 57% to Clinton’s 33%. Expect both candidates to come out even when only these two states are added together. Vermont has 15 delegates tied to the vote, Rhode Island 21. Taking the numbers in the polls, Clinton wins Rhode Island with 12 delegates, leaving Obama 9, while Obama wins Vermont with 9, leaving Clinton 6. That’s 18 a piece.

So we return to Texas and Ohio to make the real and substantive difference for the day. Remembering that Clinton needs to win both by large margins, we turn to the polls. Ohio is up first. And it’s a confusing race going on there. A blue-collar worker state that favours Clinton more than Obama. From the 28th of January, 2007, to the 13th of February, 2008, Clinton had posted double-digit leads on Obama in every poll to be taken in the state. No if’s or but’s. Then it slowly started to get pegged in. 9%, 8%, then 7% leads were the trend. Now her average lead is at 8.3% - Clinton on 49.6%, Obama on 41%.

American Research Group conducted a rather in-depth poll on Ohio voters for the upcoming vote. They had Clinton up by 10% - 49% to 39%. This lead came off the back of women voters by their numbers, in which Clinton was leading 56% to 31% - a big lead in that demographic this late in the race. Obama was still leading among the men though - 49% to 37%. Contrast this to PPP’s latest poll in which that company puts the race at a much closer juncture - 50% for Clinton, 46% for Obama. That, in terms of delegates awarded, is a tie.

Quinnipiac has the race at an 11% Clinton lead in the state - 51% to 40%. But the rundown of their poll felt the need to stress that Obama has been making significant progress in Ohio. They pointed out that the numbers on February 14 were 55% to 34% (a 21% lead) Clinton’s way. Effectively, they say, Obama has cut his deficit in half, and if the current trend continues, then it could turn out a delegate tie. On the whole, they are preempting the poll PPP released - a 71 to 70 delegate split either way. If that’s what happens, then it might be redundant to take a look at Texas.

But I’m going to anyway. Why? Because in the latest rounds of polling has Obama winning! Winning in the biggest Southern state available. Winning in Texas, where he has only led in one other poll, that being back on the 14th of February. The first poll released was by Rasmussen again, and that had Clinton up by 1% - a statistical tie when the error rate is +/- 4%. The raw numbers for that were 46% to 45%. This follows up Rasmussen’s poll released over the weekend that had Clinton up by just 3%.

Then the polls started coming in that had Obama up. CNN had Obama up by 4% - 50% to 46%. CNN listed that main factor of change (a 6% difference from their last poll, where Obama trailed by 2%) as the Democratic debate in Austin last week. American Research Group then had Obama up by a huge 8% - 50% to 42%. Apparently, too, these numbers haven’t calculated in the early voting that Texas has. It’s hard to understand, but in essence, you can vote early on paper, and then turn up to the caucus meetings that are being held on March 4 and vote for Obama again. For this early voting, the numbers, so far, and rumoured to being going heavily Obama’s way. Some polls indicate as much as 30% of the prospective voters have already voted early, and that number can still grow. Obama has also romped home in: a) caucuses; b) red states, and; c) red states with caucuses. His chances, then, of turning Texas into a large delegate win without a vote percentage lead that reflects it is good.

The American Research Group poll, that has Obama up by 8%, says that his numbers come from demographics. While Clinton has a narrow lead among Democratic voters in Texas, Obama absolutely walks it in with Republican voters (who can vote in the Democratic primaries) and Independents - 71% to 25%. Also, Clinton’s lead has narrowed among the Hispanic voters - down to 40% from 50%. Number-crunchers say that she needs to get well past the 60% mark with the ‘Latino’ vote if she is to stand any chance in Texas. This is because Obama’s numbers among African-America voters stands at an unprecedented 83% to 9%. Seeings as how this is the first race of its kind, no one really knows how to predict the ‘Latino’ and ‘black’ votes. The size of the demographics can swing the polls, and thus the vote, should one come out and the other note. While the African-American population in Texas is put at 11%, the Hispanic or Latin-American figure is at 32%, with 54% reporting as ‘White’. The groundwork is there for Obama to win, but it will be contingent on a few things.

Because of these numbers, it will be easy to predict what Obama will be doing in terms of campaigning. Knowing that he currently has enough votes in Ohio to force a ‘tie’ (or at least not a substantial gain of delegates for Clinton), will lose Rhode Island, but win Vermont anyway, he may focus everything on Texas to turn that into a delegate win for him, and put the final nail in Clinton’s campaign. Similarly, if he doesn’t think he can turn Ohio into a win, but can enforce the tie, then he may just camp out in Texas until the 4th to ensure the final blow to Clinton. Splitting the day in terms of states won, but winning on the delegate count, will receive a lot of media coverage. And with speculation already running rampant that Clinton is close to conceding, this will put even more pressure on her to drop out the race.

And that’s nothing compared to the pressure the Democratic party ‘elders’ will put on her to drop out should she lose March 4. Because anything less than double-digit wins in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island is a loss for her.

Thomas.

When I was checking out Google News this morning (as I always do), I was intrigued to see the headlines ‘Cuba’s Ruling Communists Shore Up Power‘. With a headline like that, I expected something like this to be happening. I thought that maybe it was a ‘communist thing’. Of course, the article just listed business as usual in Cuba.

Another misleading headline was ‘Aust-India saga takes new turn‘. Here’s me thinking that maybe India had got over being a half-decent team and sucked it up. You know, acted a little tougher on the field and traded in their glass jaws. But the truth is that the ’saga’ hasn’t taken a new turn. The headline should read ‘Indian Cricket Team: Waa Waa Waa!”. What a joke that team has turned into here.

Thomas.

I got my timetable for the coming semester today, and after some fiddling and changing, I think I’ve got something I’m remotely happy with. Of course, it’s emblazoned with the emblem of Sydney University, so it is inherently evil and soulless (though, being a piece of paper, I suspect that last part goes without saying), but my schedule seems to be adequate for me.

For the first 6 weeks of semester, I will be attending university for 6 hours combined, spread over the first 3 days of the week. It’s around this point that people roll their eyes, laugh, and say “Hard life for a student”, or something to that effect. What is annoying is that I have to go in for a single hour on Tuesdays - travel time will exceed learning time!

Come the 7th week of semester, I start doing 14 hours a week, and Thursdays come into play. This continues to the 13th week, which is traditionally the end of semester. However, I somehow have a subject that has a 3-hour tutorial from weeks 7 to 14. I’ve never heard of a week 14, so it will be interesting to find out whether that’s the first week of holidays, or study break, or exam time. Either way, it’s a week that everyone else has devoted to something else other than ‘Teaching English 1′, which means Sydney University has put in as much though to their scheduling as they usually do.

My subjects for the semester are:

• Australian Social History, 1919-1998
• A House Divided: The American Civil War
• Teaching History 1
• Teaching English 1

When my Arts subjects come up, I’m now able to just do history courses because I’ve fulfilled the minimum requirements to teach English already. I’ve also done enough history subjects in the same regard, but I’m not about to start some new subjects, nor do more English subjects. So I’ll stick with history thank-you.

The timetable seems to be conducive for my now three-faceted life: Work, university, and blog. I’m still able to work the days and nights I’ve been working the most of (Friday through Sunday), and available for night shifts any other night as I don’t finish later than 4pm on any day. Of course, I don’t really want to fail my course, so I don’t want to be working every single hour I can - but that’s where this timetable is actually quite good. I don’t usually get night shifts Monday through Wednesday anyway, so the early finishes help in giving me time to get my work done early in the week, freeing up time to work more later in the week.

Of course, most of that last paragraph is rubbish as I only ever do assessments - no extra work or readings or any of that crud. I’m a slacker when it comes to work, and I suspect a slacker I will remain. Which is good news for the blog! It will give me something to do!

Thomas.

As you can see, there’s a new banner up for the blog. This time it’s a photo courtesy of Mr. Rabbit. That’s your’s truly chasing after an emu back when the two of us visited the Ombudsman in Menindee. The story surrounding this was that the Ombudsman had told us that he heard that if you chase the emus, they run away fast. I also think that the Ombudsman had told Mrs. Ombudsman this, and she chased one to the same result.

Knowing that chances like this are few and far between, I set off after the emu for a bit of fun. Thankfully, Mr. Rabbit had his camera handy, and snapped a photo at the perfect time. Trailing behind me, as it had blown off, is my Akurbra hat. You’ll see it poised perfectly in mid air over my shoulder.

Suffice to say, I never did catch that emu. In fact, we watched it, and the one it was was, run for quite some time, eventually making a hill that was a very long way away, and running up and over that.

Anyway, a new banner, as promised.

Thomas.

This week saw a big turnout for the blog. 929 visits for the week. That beat last week’s 811, but only came in 2nd place in all time, as two weeks prior we had 1,603. This brought the month’s total to 3,663. I said that 3,000 visits for the month was easily going to happen. The question now is will the blog be able to surpass 4,000? I’ll do my part to get it up there, that’s for sure. With 4 days left though, I’ll need a tick under 100 visits a day. I have been getting that for the past few days (when I blog), so maybe it’s going to happen.

The biggest day for the week was 182 visits, and that was on the 20th.

For individual posts, for the 7 days we had 235 visits for Superdelegates and 147 for Obama news - Endorsements, money, debate, and the rest various numbers under 50. This brought all-time views to: 1,816 for Superdelegates; 419 for Obama news - Endorsements, money, debate; 370 for Amélie vs. Garden State; 268 for Super Tuesday I - Democrats, and 240 for Mike Huckabee is an idiot.

The main referrers for the week were people using search engines, looking for an explanation of the superdelegates. No surprise there. I expect that that will be the number 1 topic that brings people to my blog for some time. Not that I’m complaining. On a related note, the comment thread on that post is exceptionally long now, full of varied opinions and questions.

And on a final note, somewhere in that week, visits to the WordPress version of Deus Lo Vult passed 10,000. It’s now at 10,676. Thanks to everyone who comes along and reads stuff. An extended thanks to people who comment and contribute to the blog too.

Thomas.

Should Democratic voters feel obliged at this point to vote for Barack Obama? There are two candidates still in the race for the Democrats, and each seems to think that they can beat the Republican candidate. They both think that they have the same sort of chance against the Republican party regardless of who the candidate is. But we need to see what sort of evidence these arguments can be backed up. And, seeings that it’s a future scenario, we have to look at our favourite friends: Polls.

In polls that pit Barack Obama against presumed Republican nominee John McCain, we see quite a different story to that that have it Hillary Clinton against McCain. Since Super Tuesday, there has been a huge increase in polls that have it party nominee versus party nominee. I suppose it’s because the polling companies and the news agencies want to get a jump-start on the presidential election. Either way, they are telling quite a story.

For anyone who think Clinton is a sure-lock still, they just need to look at the long, long list of polls that have her losing to McCain. Way, way back in 2006, McCain was winning against Clinton. In fact, he won the first poll that had the two head-to-head, and followed that up with 6 consecutive wins in the polls against Clinton. These were within 1% and 8%, so some pointed to a tight-ish race. Then Hillary won 1 by 7% - only to lose the next 6 again, this time between 9% and 14%: Some very big margins. So, early on, we had a pretty convincing results: McCain would win against Clinton.

Along came 2007, and by February, Clinton was winning the majority of polls. But of her 11 wins through to June, she was only ever winning between 1% and 4% - nothing at all convincing, nor anything that couldn’t be turned around. Remembering now that McCain’s campaign started to splutter and die around June 2007, and continued for a few months, it’s no surprise that Clinton was able to string together 17 consecutive wins on the polls, heading into November. But while some had large percentage wins (9% and 10%), the majority of them were, again, relatively low (1% to 6%).

Going into 2008, John McCain won the majority of polls, stringing 6 more wins together through January of margins 1% to 8%. Clinton won a couple (literally 2) in early February, and hasn’t won 1 since. McCain has dominated the latest, and a couple with big leads - 8% and 12%. In terms of the average lead on the polls, this left McCain the leader, though as you can probably guess, it has been swapped and changed over the history that I outlined. McCain’s current average on  the polls is 47.5% against Clinton’s 43.2% - a 4.3% lead. There is an 8.5% undecided vote too.

For a candidate running as party of a party that, in simple party vs. party polls (not listing candidates) gets landslide results, I wouldn’t remain hopeful. That Clinton is losing against a 71 year old Republican who is a worse flip-flopper than her is nothing short of embarrassing. The Clinton campaign will have a tough, very tough, battle if she were to somehow win the nomination. John McCain ought to be starting on the back foot - he is a Republican! The party has run the U.S. into the ground with 8 years of a failed presidency. And McCain hasn’t exactly distanced himself from the current U.S. administration either. He was recently endorsed by President Bush, so how different can he be getting an endorsement from the guy already?

It reinforces the point that having Clinton as the Democratic nominee is the worst choice for the party. Furthermore, it goes with tradition that instead of getting voters to come out for her (like Obama does), she gets voters out for ‘the other guy’. A fear, for the Republicans, of having Hillary Clinton in the white house (a Clinton and a woman and a Democrat) spurs Republicans on to get to the booths and vote for their guy. This is the worst kind of candidate because McCain is struggling himself to get his party base to come out for him. Don’t give him help doing it!

Additionally, having Clinton as the candidate wastes the greatest opportunity the party has had in recent times. Barack Obama is that opportunity, and the polls show you why.

In 2006, it was a similar story when pitting Obama against McCain While Obama and McCain tied in the first poll between them (a massive feat for a Senator who had only been in office under two years). But then things went as expected - McCain won the next 8 polls, and went into January the clear favourite between the two as he racked up some convincing wins against the Junior Senator (8%, 12%, 12%, 19%). But there was a difference between Clinton and Obama. While Clinton had announced her candidacy in January 2007, and was still losing polls, Obama waited until February to announce. And while internal party numbers (Democrats versus Democrat) put Obama behind Clinton by some large margins, against McCain, something happened. Something remarkable and amazing.

He started winning. His first win was in January 2007 even. And look at this amazing feat: Out of the 67 polls since January 2007 that pit Obama against McCain, Obama has won 47, McCain 11, and there have been 9 ties. Here we have Barack Obama defeating the ‘mighty’ (per the Clinton vs. McCain polls) John McCain. The numbers by which he will win are varied, as you would expect with 47 wins. There are 17 at 3% or less, 15 at 4% to 6%, and 15 at 7% or more.When McCain’s campaign hit the rut that Clinton managed to get 17 wins on him, Obama managed 20, and extended his wins against him for a longer period of time than Clinton.

Mid December and January, Obama and McCain were trading poll win for poll win. But since McCain’s last win on the 31st of, 10 polls have been taken and Obama has won all 10. The immediate ones after McCain’s win was a 1% win, a 2%, and a 3%. All of these were taken and released on the same day. Since then, Obama hasn’t lead by anything less than 4%, and 6%, 7%, and 8% are all common numbers popping up. Good win margins there. And all this has fed into that averages. Obama leads with 47.3%, McCain on 42.5%, giving him a lead margin of 4.8%. There is still a 9.3% undecided.

So here we have three different stories. One is that Clinton is all but unelectable. Another is that Obama will beat McCain. And the last is that McCain isn’t this shoe-in for president. He will likely win if he races Clinton for the position, but likely won’t if he runs against Obama. And that shouldn’t be the case - any Republican candidate should be losing this next race. The party deserves it, and the U.S. needs it. So with all of these near-on facts (that Clinton loses to McCain, that Obama beat McCain), why isn’t it a clear-cut decision. Shouldn’t Democratic voters feel obliged to vote for Obama seeings that he is the best chance the party has come the general election? If a Democratic voter wants to see their party in power, they should be voting for the candidate that actually stands a chance in the general election. And that great chance is Barack Obama.

Thomas.

So, you might have heard that there was a Democratic candidates debate on today. In Austin Texas, at the University of Texas no less. Strangely enough, it even received some coverage over here. Sure, it was an important debate, but the first of the 19 never got covered here, nor did the final one before Super Tuesday either. And they were both as important. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad they are getting coverage, but it’s pretty lame stuff here. Nothing’s informed, no opinion, and the ‘facts’ aren’t even clear.

That’s why I was more than happy to travel down to the Pope’s today to have lunch with him and watch the debate. We watched it all, and I have to say, I was left a little disappointed. This is the first debate that Barack Obama has walked onto the stage and been the ‘frontrunner’. Every other time he has had to go out and be the 2nd place guy to Hillary Clinton and be the attacker, while she gets to present herself as presidential. This time, the roles were reversed, and for as much hype, for as much inflating, for as much boosting I’ve heard about Clinton being an attack machine when it comes to being the underdog in a debate, she showed nothing. She showed no teeth, no aggression, no flare, nothing. Sure, she came off looking alright a couple of times - but that was it. Literally, there were only two times she came off as good.

The first time was when she started about health care. When the question came up, there was only meant to be 2 answers, and 2 retorts. But neither one could let it go, so it spread out for a while. It was a little petty, I thought, but then again, Clinton kept bringing it up. Anyway, she managed to draw a distinction between her plan for universal health care, and Obama’s plan. It was an interesting difference, and I much prefer Obama’s than Clinton’s, but it was good to see some substantive policy debate.

The second time was in her closing speech. It started out as if it were a concession speech (which I suspect she’s already written), but ended up as something that was quite impressive. She had managed to weave in some of the popular rhetoric, some of the idealist lines that have popped up so much these days, but in a way that sounded good. The question was what was the most testing point in the candidates’ lives. Obama’s answer was what he’s been saying since the beginning - working on the streets, nitty-gritty, a hard life that has turned into the best success story yet. Clinton started off, as I said, as if it were a concession speech. But quickly turned it into what is summed up in her words:

Well, I think everybody here knows I’ve lived through some crises and some challenging moments in my life. But people often ask me, ‘How do you do it?’ You know, ‘How do you keep going?’ And I just have to shake my head in wonderment, because with all of the challenges that I’ve had, they are nothing compared to what I see happening in the lives of Americans every single day.

It was rather impressive after that. No where near as inspiring as Obama’s was of speaking, but something to listen to nonetheless.

But two points of shining aren’t nearly enough to stop Obamamania. He has won 11 primaries/caucuses on the trot now, has the momentum to have pulled Texas into a dead-heat in the past few days, and be within single-digits of Clinton in Ohio, and is on a roll. Clinton needed a whole different approach to this debate than what she used.

She needed to have Obama slip up - not allow him to look presidential. She let him look presidential and then some. She only ever pushed him on health care, and while they did look like different candidates for a while, he wasn’t pressed so hard that he could debate his way out of any corner.

If she didn’t try that, she needed to draw more differences between the two of them on every policy that came up. Health care wasn’t the only policy that came up - foreign policy and immigration were two sticking points - but it was the only one where she took initiative and used it to her advantage. Contrast this to when Iraq came up, and with everyone knowing the difference between the two on this issue, and when Obama started ramming it home, going so far to say that because Clinton had voted for the war (and he had opposed it from the very beginning), her judgment is “flawed”.

But, with all this said, no one really won this debate. Obama, maybe, because Clinton didn’t win it by turning it on her own terms, won by the fault. But it wasn’t because of anything he did that was extraordinary. Sure, he was impressive - but he is always impressive. This was the first time the roles had been reversed too, so maybe they were both getting used to a change in arguments.

But with the famed Clinton attack machine, I was really surprised we didn’t see her, you know, back up any claims she’s made behind his back. She’s prepared to make accusations and spurious claims in advertisements and solo speeches, but when she is pushed to say it to his face, she has nothing. In fact, her best offense was booed, when she said that the change Obama brings with him is change “change you can Xerox”. It was a reference to Obama (not) plagiarising two lines of a speech. Of course, the guy he was supposed to be plagiarising from is a co-chair of his national campaign and has actively participated in Obama’s speech writing before. But that shouldn’t count, right? The Clinton machine really was lame on that front. And it deserved all the boos it got.

Obama’s counter to not bringing substance, only bringing words, was effective and final I feel. He said that that argument implies that his endorsers (superdelegates, newspapers, delegates, politicians, etc.), and the donors to his campaign, and the millions of supporters  he has around the country, are all being “duped”. And he said they aren’t, and put the issue to rest effectively and efficiently. I sincerely doubt that that argument will come up again. It looks like it’s been tested one too many times by the Clinton campaign, and Obama has finally nutted out a stock-standard and resolute response to it. And good on him - because arguing about speeches and ‘hope’ isn’t what the campaign should be about. It should be about, as he said, policy. He took the high ground there, and he won it hands down.

So the debate. Yeah, I’m glad I watched it. It’s made me more interested in the next one, if only because Clinton didn’t do what she needed to do here. Obama did, and maybe he won by the fault. But otherwise, no clear winners, and a lot of speeches. The next one might be different. But, then again, it might not. I’ll try and watch it and report back to see if it it.

Thomas.

As you can see, a new layout. And I can have my own banners up the top. Nifty! I’ll have some fun with that, that’s a certainty. I like the layout generally too. I almost went for a black background/white font option, but then I remembered that the more senior readers of this blog had difficulty last time I tried that.

Back to the banners though, I have many a photo to put up there. I’m thinking of putting up a new one every day (or whenever I have access really), so keep coming back to check them out! Also, that probably means that I’ll be sticking with this layout for a while - so get to like it.

And, to lessen confusion, I’ll even supply a short blurb about the photo. The current banner is a photo of The 18 Cup, resting on my Akubra hat, on the windowsill of my hotel room in Singapore, from the holiday I took in February of 2007. That was a very tight-fitting room, though very reasonable value for us two (my grandfather and I), and great for location. If I remember correctly, the bathroom was odd in that the shower had no ‘boundaries’ - no shelf or step to keep the shower curtain contained. I was ever afraid that the water would drain out to the bedrooms.

Also, I thought I’d point out to everyone that Eventus stultorum magister - Part II has been edited and expanded quite a bit. That one I threw up really was a progress one, and now it’s finished. I’ll get onto part 3 tomorrow afternoon I suspect.

And I believe that that is everything. Anything that needs to be said - comments, questions, complaints, requests (for banners perhaps?) - can just be commented to this. Maybe it would be a good way to familiarise yourself with where the new ‘Post A Comment’ link is? I don’t know where it is personally. Maybe at the bottom this time? Good luck finding it.

Thomas.

Postscript:

No, the comment link is located just below the title for the post.

This has come up before on this blog. The voting ‘group’ known as the Democrats Abroad held their primary elections from February 5th until the 12th, and gave U.S. voters overseas the chance to vote. I had originally thought that the results would be in when the Democrats Abroad group held their convention in April (12-13), however, it seems that the results were released early.

It’s another win for Barack Obama, winning 65% of the votes. This also makes his 11th straight win in the primary process. With this result, Obama has (so far) won 2.5 of the delegates that the Democrats Abroad send to the Democratic National Convention. He only gets 2.5 because he won 5 of the 9 delegates tied to the vote (out of the 14 total), and those 5 only count for half a vote on the D.N.C. floor. Hillary Clinton won 4 delegate through the vote, and this gives her two.

164 countries participated in the online vote, while 30 countries had polling booths that allowed people to turn out in person. There were roughly 20,000 votes registered. I would be interested to see some more numbers on the voting - where the most people voted, some demographic results, etc. But I doubt any news station will be covering this news in such depth.

The Democrats Abroad global convention will now be used to select the remaining 5 delegates for the D.N.C.. They are superdelegates, so their allegiance (or 2.5 votes) might not matter for much considering the global convention is being held in Vancouver, April 12 through 13.

This was just an update to the post, and the thread of comments that showed that someone was interested in the whole Democrats Abroad process. But it does put Obama a tiny bit closer to the nomination. At the moment, the race stands at this juncture:

Total Delegates:

• Barack Obama: 1365.5
• Hillary Clinton: 1273

Pledged Delegates:

• Barack Obama: 1192.5
• Hillary Clinton: 1035

Superdelegates:

• Barack Obama: 173
• Hillary Clinton: 238

The magic number required for nomination, for the Democrats, is 2025 delegates. Because probably neither candidate will reach this number, and the superdelegates will be left to decide the nominee, I suspect the winner will be the one with the more pledged delegates come the end of the race. Unless, of course, Clinton pulls out when she loses Texas and  Vermont, and splits Ohio and Rhode Island come the 4th of March.

And, maybe because readers might care, here is the count for the Republicans:

Total Delegates:

• John McCain: 975
• Mike Huckabee: 245
• Ron Paul: 14

Unpledged R.N.C.:

• John McCain: 81
• Mike Huckabee: 5
• Ron Paul: 0

It should be noted that, while out of the race, John Edwards still has 26 (all pledged delegates), and Mitt Romney still has 272 (1 unpledged R.N.C.).
Thomas.

Today, I got my Barack Obama shirt. Many will think it strange that I got a shirt for a politician I can’t even vote for. I think it a bit weird myself. But, regardless, I finally got my hands on it. When I can be bothered, I’ll take some photos of it, like the Kevin 07 shirt I brought.

Thomas.