Monthly Archive

Here is the second post from The Ombudsman:

The return trip was just as varied musically as it was visually.  I awoke at 1:50am and left Sydney at 2am.  I was immediately frustrated by my sore throat and cold-like symptoms (I hadn’t been able to shake the cold that I had since the start of the holidays).  It meant that singing and whistling would be of limited application during the journey home (or is that, away from home?).

As per the request of the St Ives Correspondent, I jotted down a list of the CDs that I played during the return trip.  I proudly used my ‘Australian Government Summer Schools for Teachers’ official pen (which my father insists will be a collector’s item down the track).  Thanks for the pen, Julie!

In Samuel-esque style, I tuned into 2UE and John Kerr, realising that even though it was the midnight program, it would be my last taste of 2UE for quite some time (I had enjoyed listening to John Stanley throughout the holidays).  But after a few phone calls about hospitals from insomnia stricken seniors, I put on ‘The Kiss of the Spiderwoman’ (Vanessa Williams version – aka, Wilhelmina of ‘Ugly Betty’ fame).  This mirrored the ‘return to hell’ mood that often coincides with the end of school holidays.  As I was not in a position to change CDs when it finished, I switched to WSFM and then switched the music off altogether (very uncustomary).  I was however thankful for the lack of fog in the Blue Mountains.

In keeping with the preference for alternating between instrumental CDs and other albums, I then hunted around for a film score.  At the end of each holiday, I rotate my CDs around to ensure I get a different sample each term (I probably have close to 1000 CDs now).  ‘Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban’ made the cut.  After listening to it, I wish it hadn’t.  I didn’t find it as melodically interesting as the first Harry Potter film score and it tended to put me to sleep (not good when having to drive while half asleep in the dark).

I then decided on ‘Anastasia’ (the animated film, not the pop singer) which has songs by the team that wrote ‘Ragtime: The Musical’.  It also features Kelsey Grammar, which adds to its appeal (being a ‘Frasier’ fan).  The main song, ‘Journey to the Past’ made me contemplate whether Menindee represents my past or my future.  At this point, I got stuck behind a house that was being transported on the back of one of those ‘OVERSIZE’ trucks, meaning it was impossible to overtake.  This probably added about 30 minutes to the trip overall.  I then listened to ‘The Pirates of Penzance’ which confuses me but has witty songs.  ‘Cabaret’ was next on the agenda, which I tore out of the CD player when the second act started (it was never one of my favourites).  I then listened to ‘42nd Street’, which lifted my spirits as it conjured images of my impending USA trip.  This was followed by ‘Hook’, the score from the Robin Williams film, which is a lot better than I remembered it.  I then stupidly went to the toilet in one of those park areas – make sure you take Dettol in with you if you ever have to go!

I decided that seeing the Darling River with smoke rising from it at Wilcannia necessitated an Andrew Lloyd Webber album to match the spectacle.  I chose ‘Aspects of Love’, which I always think is a good selection at the time, but it tends to go on forever.  After enduring the first act, I was over the whole journey and needed something to sing to.  ‘Xanadu’ served this purpose well (has anyone ever listened to the lyrics? they are complete nonsense!).  I then sampled parts of ‘The Return of the Jedi’ and the first act of ‘The Who’s Tommy’.  As the music played, dark thunder clouds started to circle and rain almost as hard as hail started to fall.  I wondered whether Menindee would survive the storm.  For the final part of the journey, from Broken Hill to Menindee, I listened to ‘The Mikado’ which reminded me of a ‘Frasier’ episode where Frasier sings ‘Three Little Maids’.

On reflection, while I enjoyed the music that I had selected, it wasn’t as thrilling or exciting as the trip ‘home’ (that is, to Sydney two weeks before).  Perhaps it isn’t the musical journey that is important, but the destination.

Ombudsman.

Somehow I suspect that he (Harbhajan Singh) will blame an Australian for this hissey fit. Like hell he didn’t say anything when he was over here.

Thomas.

If presidents of the United States were decided on speaking style alone, Barack Obama wouldn’t just be moving into the White House tomorrow, he’d be there for a long time. His speaking style is perfect, and it’s been demonstrated. You see, Obama is one of those rare people who comes along and has that rare gift to be able to blow your socks off with just words. You’ll see that quite a few U.S. presidents through history are described that was (Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy), which is precisely why they were voted in - because they had the ‘good gift of the gab’.

I say ‘good’ because, as we all know, there are two ways that someone can be verbally gifted. There’s the person who can sell ice to eskimos - the man who can get you to believe anything by the way they speak. The way this is used is bad. A couple of good examples of this are Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. Great speakers, bad motives. Then there are the Obama’s in the word who have the ‘gift’ but use it to inspire, to change, and to lead everyone to a better place.

Unfortunately (as evidenced by current President Bush) speaking isn’t what gets you voted in all the time. But Barack Obama has forged his path to his party’s nomination through his impressive rhetoric and speaking style. A look at any number of speeches that he made pre-primary race voting showed that he was clearly a gifted speak. His 2004 Democratic National Convention keynote address was the single thing that not only propelled him into party spotlight, but put his name in the minds of voters to get him to run in the 2008 primaries. If he had delivered a mediocre speech, or hadn’t been as impressive as he was, then you wouldn’t see him in the race now. In 4 or 8 more years, yes you would. But in a short 4 years, by the delivery of one speech, he was able to get in on the act and become the Democratic nominee.

Don’t forget, either, that the D.N.C. that Obama spoke at was Senator John Kerry’s - who went on to lose the election, and had accusations leveled at him that he stood for nothing. You could be forgiven for thinking that anyone associated with that convention and Kerry’s nomination is now tainted - in fact, it’s true for everyone except Obama. Kerry isn’t a ‘big name’ in the Democratic party anymore, John Edwards bombed out in the 2008 primaries, Jim Jordan was Kerry’s campaign adviser through the primaries, and now can hardly get a serious candidate to work for. But Obama, who came out strong for Kerry, and became the face of the ‘04 D.N.C. remain unscathed.

Why is Obama such a successful speaker though? One reason is that he isn’t talking on lines of depression, depth, and despair - Obama speaks about hope. It’s no coincidence that Obama has always spoken in such a style that his campaign slogans says “Hope is on the way”. Obama speaks and gives his listener hope. He’s uplifting, he inspires, he motivates. Like J.F.K., and like Martin Luther King Jr. and Ronald Reagan, he is always talking to rally people. Take a look at his ‘concession’ speech after New Hampshire. Obama was meant to win, and win big. He didn’t, and he lost to Clinton. But his speeches afterwards made him sound like the winner. If you had just watched him, you could be convinced that he was playing a joke and he romped the state home.

In a time of fear, which is what the United States is in now, the person who will become leader is the one who can speak to reassure, to calm, and to speak about the positives. The leader will be someone who gives hope to the masses. Obama gives hope on civil issues - look at his ‘A more perfect union’ speech. He gives hope to the political process - why polling consistently rates him the most trusted candidate. He even gives hope to people for himself - why he has tended to dominate national polling against both Clinton and John McCain.

It’s not just delivery with Obama either - it’s presentation. When he speaks, he looks like he believes what he is saying, so why shouldn’t you? And that’s because he does believe in what he is speaking about. Watch, and you’ll see that he brings in civil rights, ‘honest politics’, hope, and change into all of his speeches. You look at him, you can associate those things to him. He looks like he believes in all of this, and he does. He stands tall (and tall he is), he doesn’t squirm or move around. He is still and calm when being attacked, as if he is listening so as to take on the criticism and better himself. You see that specifically and you think “Here is someone who cares about what people have to say”. Even in debates, Obama stands there, and when you watch him, he doesn’t get lost or confused, or give wandering answers, or get pressured or rushed. He is calm, cool, and collected. And that’s something that translate into being the sort of leader a country wants.

Obama is more successful than other candidates because he connects with his audience. Granted, people who are listening to him are generally already fans, or interested in what he will say. But for the most part, he is able to form a strong connection with these people from the podium. He’s very smart in the way he actually builds this connection up though. All the above gets you listening and believing in him, but he makes you his ‘friends’ by throwing in anecdotes and jokes and ‘fun’ things. Every time Obama is up and speaking, watch and wait - invariably he will tell a story that is uplifting, or a joke that makes you laugh, or do something personal that will get ‘familiarity’ resonating in the audience. This is a very successful technique - President Bush managed to beat Gore in mid-Western and Southern swing states because, as polling data showed, people said they people like they could sit down with Bush and “have a beer with him.” Bush had become a ‘friend’ of the voters. Obama is well on the way to doing that too.

And in finishing a speech, Obama is, again, different to his competitors. He ends on a tone of hope, just like he carries it through. He doesn’t end on a note of fear (like McCain often does) or threat (like Clinton does - saying to vote for her or you’ll suffer). He ends on an uplifting statement. An example:

I also ask you to remember that in this country, our history of overcoming the seemingly impossible always comes about because individuals who care really can make a difference. America is great because Americans are good.

And if this is what’s ringing in your ears as you leave, you’ll be more likely to go out and do something. Volunteer, drum up support, vote. If Obama ends with you inspired to do something - and that something is to help him - you’re more likely to do it than if you’re afraid to do anything at all.

On a basic language use level, his speeches have some classic trademarks. Anaphora - repeating same words and expressions at the beginning of successive sentences. Martin Luther King Jr. did it with “I have a dream”. Epistrophe, and the repeating of a word or phrase at the end of a sentence, also comes into play; most commonly with “Yes we can!” It’s another of his campaign slogans, and it’s something that the audience has come to yell out on their own. It brings a new level of participation to his speeches - a level that his opponents don’t have. A great example is in his concession speech from New Hampshire:

It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation: Yes, we can. It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail towards freedom through the darkest of nights: Yes, we can. It was sung by immigrants as they struck out for distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness: Yes, we can.

By the end of that speech, as I mentioned, everyone forgot that he was the loser. The crowds there, and the audiences around the world watching were so motivated and revved up and inspired by the speech, and by just this close, that his polling numbers blew through the roof.

His pacing, and pauses, are perfect every time he has something to say. After rallying everyone to a cheer, he will wait long enough to let it die down, then a little longer to let everyone calm down, and then a little longer so that you know what he has to say now is serious. That’s when he brings out a story of the battle for hope, a story he heard ‘on the trail’, and how this person, or that story, is driving him further. He’ll tell the story slower, and more spaced out, than if he were on policy, and a different speed again he speaks of hope and change. And after this, after his personal tale, he will work the crowd up again to a cheer by adjusting his own volume. He gets louder so that the audience gets louder. And then he gets louder again, and the cheering follows in volume.

So I made the claim in the opening of this post that Obama’s speaking style is perfect. I hope I made a good case for it. When I see him, I’m inspired, as are millions of others. His policies have no immediate effect on me, and I have no part in the U.S. political system. So what about him appeals to me? The way he speaks.

Thomas.

I think I’ll run with a draft that I’ve had on the burner for a post, before I move onto Barack Obama’s oratory style tomorrow (as suggested by Ottayan). This post is all about Pennsylvania. It’s not the first time I’ve written about the next primary state. First was a post where I outlined what Obama needed to do to sure up his numbers in Pennsylvania, and listed 4 things to do with the delegate narrative that he needed to have everyone thinking about. Second there was a post concerned with what sort of campaigning you could expect to see from Obama in PA. I was pretty on the button with those two posts, so here’s hoping the third on the state is too.

Also, I used Pennsylvania as an example in my explanation of what ‘delegates’ are. While an interesting post for the explanatory purpose, it also details the margins of victory that Hillary Clinton needs to win by, and what progressively different margins will nett her in terms of Obama’s delegate lead. Suffice to say, 10% and 20% wins for Clinton don’t quite cut it.

So we have Pennsylvania, a state that is diverse and interesting. It favours Clinton on paper - being rural and working class, hitting an economic downturn, and full of white Democrats. It’s quite similar, as I have been saying for some time now, to Ohio - a state that Clinton won with ease. The past few days have been rather rough for Obama in the media. While it probably won’t have any major, lasting effect (until we come to the general election), it will probably hurt Obama’s numbers in PA. Why? Well, I have diagrams to explain that!

But before we get to the pictures, we have to look at a few statistics. Clinton has been ruling in rural areas, while Obama has been unbeatable in urban areas. Clinton has been winning the farming/less-populated/’wide open plains’ when it comes to most states. Of course, Obama has been winning the mid-West, but they are traditionally Republican states, and caucuses, of which Obama has better control over. He has better ground teams, he isn’t a Clinton, and he has been better prepared in these states for longer than Clinton has remembered she is in a primary race. But, in states where there is a contrast between the big city-centres and the rural areas (which we don’t really find in the mid-West states), Clinton has won the rural vote, Obama the urban vote.

That’s why Clinton is favoured to win Pennsylvania - there are large patches of rural counties. For the first picture (all of which you can click on for a bigger and clearer version), I bring you a population density map of PA:

As is obvious, red is the more populated areas, dark green the less. The bulk of the population is in the South-East counties, in Philadelphia and its surrounding suburbs, and in the West, in Pittsburgh and its surrounds. At the end of the day, these are the areas that Obama is going to hope to stay competitive or win the state with:

We have a length of red to the North of Philadelphia, which is Scranton; to the East of Philadelphia, which is Lancaster nearer and Harrisburg further away, and the city of York between and below them; directly North of Philadelphia is Allentown and Bethleham; in the middle of the state we have State College; and right up in the North-West corner is Erie, all of which have higher areas of population, and thus a place for Obama to look for votes.

Obama’s main hope, as I outlined in my first post about Pennsylvania and what he should do in campaigning across the state, was to get victory through winning these areas convincingly, and then try and get some of the surrounding counties as well. Of course, to win the state he had to win these circled areas convincingly, as I said. With his latest comments about “bitter”, I think Obama should hope to win these circles areas and little more. The comments he mad most directly affected people in the rural areas, and begins to speak to the people in the outlying counties to these high-density areas. If the “bitter” remarks aren’t taken care of soon, I think that they will cost Obama the state. Not in as much as he won’t get a “win” (he will keep Clinton to a sub-10% lead - a “win”), but he won’t be able to to actually win the state himself.

So what congressional districts are these areas in, and how many delegates do they have? I’ve jimmied another map (dodgey though it may be) to show you. First, here are the congressional districts that are up for grabs:

Here’s a link to the Wiki page that gives you a closer view of them. Remember, for PA, there are 19 congressional districts up for grabs, with 103 delegates tied to them combined. For those districts that have a higher density of people, there are more delegates up for grabs. And here is the population density (with circles!) thrown on top of that:

So, for the areas that Obama is going to perform well in (and hopefully keep this race close), we are going to be looking at results coming in from all districts other 9. You can see from the map that the circles don’t even encompass and significant part of congressional district 9. Similarly, other than the State College, district 5 isn’t even touched by a circle.

Districts 1 and 2 on the Eastern side are ripe for Obama to win. The same goes for district 14 on the Western side.

While I’ve circled most of districts 6, 7, 8, 13, and 15, and while they do have high population areas, are suburbanite districts, not city-dominated districts. The same can be said for district 18. While it is in the circle on the West, it is composed of suburbs and rural voters, which hurts Obama’s chances even with the flow-on from votes that are going to have been cut off from district 14 (Pittsburgh).

Erie only makes up a small part of district 3, and there are no other population centres there, which will make that district difficult. The same goes for district 12 - I haven’t circles Johnstown, but it’s a populated city, but with little else in the district to help Obama.

Districts 10 and 11are divided down the Scranton column that’s circle up in the North-East, which hurts Obama because the votes will be spread across to 2 congressional districts, instead of pooling in one - sort of a diluting effect with the rural vote.

District 16 has Lancaster and is small, which helps Obama. The same goes for 17, though substitute Harrisburg for Lancaster (though it is a bit bigger than district 16, so this might turn into a worse district that it could be). And once again, the same goes for district 19, though with York as its high-population area.

That’s the situation each congressional district (CD for this paragraph) finds itself in, in my opinion. Now, what about delegates? CD1 has 7 delegates up for grabs, and is Obama favourable: Obama 5, Clinton 2. CD2 has 9 delegates, and is very good for Obama, a tight, packed, inner city district: Obama 7, Clinton 2. CD3, with 5 delegates, only has Erie to help Obama, and a lot of rural votes, so expect to lose the district: Obama 2, Clinton 3. CD4 and 5 delegates, is, again, mainly made up of suburbs and voters that don’t trend Obama, so another loss: Obama 2, Clinton 3. CD5, and while huge and full of rural votes, we know how Obama spurs on the youth vote, and they turn out in droves for him, thus managing him a tie for the 4 delegates here: Obama 2, Clinton 2. CD6 with 6 delegates will be a tie because of the suburban and rural votes going against Obama and the outer-city votes for him: Obama 3, Clinton 3. CD7 is made up of the Philly suburbs again, like CD6, and should be another tie, though with 7 delegates, it can’t be: Obama 3, Clinton 4. CD8 have 7 delegates, and will go exactly the same way as CD7 (should be a tie, but can’t): Obama 3, Clinton 4. CD9 is a Clinton cake-walk, though only has 3 delegates, and thanks to the 15% threshold, Obama is assured 1 delegate at least: Clinton 2, Obama 1. CD10 will be a tie for the 4 delegates there because the urban votes are split between two districts: Obama 2, Clinton 2. CD11 is the district that also has split votes and suburbs, and has 5 delegates: Obama 2, Clinton 3. CD12 is one that Obama won’t be as competitive in for the 5 delegates: Obama 2, Clinton 3. CD13 is in close to Philly, and should be good for Obama, but I suspect that the suburbs will help Clinton get over the line for the 7 delegates here: Obama 3, Clinton 4. CD14 is an Obama favourite for most of the 7 delegates, though with an aging population on the western-side of PA, Clinton will figure in here: Obama 4, Clinton 3. CD15 is the ‘burbs again, and that which will get Clinton the majority of the 5 delegates here: Obama 2, Clinton 3. CD16 will be a tie for the 4 delegates because of the smaller size, Lancaster being more populated, and less suburbs: Obama 2, Clinton 2. CD17 will turn out the same as CD16 thanks to Harrisburg being significantly bigger than Lancaster, making up for the bigger size of this district with 4 delegates: Obama 2, Clinton 2. CD18 is a mix of suburbs and a touch of rural for Clinton, while just the run-off of Pittsburgh’s voters from CD14 for Obama, and with the aging population there too, Clinton’s strengths will show among the 5 delegates: Obama 2, Clinton 3. CD19 with 4 delegates will go the same way as CD16 and 17, a tie for the 4 delegates: Obama 2, Clinton 2.

This brings totals to 51 delegates for Obama, 52 delegates for Clinton. You’ll note that for most of the districts, I erred on Clinton’s side when it came close. That’s because I worked on the basis that she would win by sub-10% at 52% to 48%, and wanted the districts to end up reflecting that. I went slightly in Obama’s favour on CD2 which threw the 52%/48% formula out a little. If it was a uniform 52% anyway, Clinton would get 53 delegates, Obama just 50.

If the 52%/48% is true, then she gets 11 PLEOs and 19 at-large delegates, Obama just 9 and 16, bring their respective totals to 82 and 76. Clinton then netts less than 10 (6 to be accurate) on Obama’s current delegate lead. Considering he will likely win more than 6 more delegates than Clinton in North Carolina, it won’t be surprising to see all the media outlets and Obama campaigners call this a loss.

You can see that my explanation on delegates and distribution from my previous post is true - you can win states just on the highly populated areas alone. Obama has done it before, and while he probably won’t win this state, he makes it a much more tighter race by concentrating on those areas. Of course, if the “bitter” fiasco hadn’t come up, then congressional districts 6, 7, 8, 13, and 15 would all come into play for Obama, and some would have swung to him, and given him a district-level delegate lead (which would have probably translated into a state-wide delegate lead).

And that’s my prediction on Pennsylvania 82 delegates for Clinton, 76 for Obama, at a split of 52% to 48%. I get to these through the explanation in this post on the assumption that Obama will be able to move everyone on from the “bitter” remark. If he can’t, then it will probably move to 55% to 45%, Clinton’s way. But I have faith in Obama that he can do that. Here’s hoping he can!

Thomas.

So I said when I put the new banner up that I’d upload pictures of the Wieliczka Salt Mine that I took whil I was in Krakow last year. As promised, here’s a post all about them. I didn’t put the pictures up on the blog directly because it will invariably lag users - especially those on slow connections - until this post is buried among the masses (which could take a while at my rate of late). So, as I describe each of the pictures, you’re free to follow the link to see it or not. The links are set to open in a new window, so you could conceivably click the link and continue to read as it load. I have higher resolution photos on my computer, if you wanted to see any of them in more detail (perhaps The Last Supper - you’ll see it soon). Just comment or email me or whatever.

One thing to keep in mind while you look at there is that it was all done - the statues, the reliefs on the wall, the rooms, the alter, everything - by miners. Not professional craftsmen or statue-makers stone workers, but amateurs who are used to digging and mining. It makes it all the more impressive.

The mine has a long and interesting history (and while I’ll direct you to the Wiki page, it is not nearly as detailed or length as what a tour of the mine gives you), with celebrities (Pope John Paul II, Bill Clinton), major historical events (World War II), and an economic history of Poland all intertwined. With all that said, onto the pictures. It’s well worth a visit if you’re ever ‘in town’.

Down in the mine, there are quite a few things to marvel at. One of the first things you have to do, though, is go down a long set of stairs (400 steps). Daring to hang over the railing and take a photo, this was the result. Once below the surface, you find a chandelier made from salt lighting the first few tunnels you’re in. This is the sort of tunnel you’re walking through, by the way.

This is salt growing on the walls. Looks pretty neat. And there are a heap of statues down there that look cool. Here are two: one and two. And one that slipped me by ages ago when I did a post about the photos that had The 18 Cup in it: 18 Cup with mine statue.

There is a whole level devoted to the mythology of the mine. The tour moves pretty fast, and while I have a lot of photos of this stuff, they become a bit repetitive. And sort of have no meaning without the myth behind it. And, as it happened over a year ago, I can’t remember it too well. It had to do with a queen, and dwarves (or maybe short Poles?), and finding salt, and Poland being a place of wealth from then on.

When you go to Poland, you find that it’s a rather religious place. Not, like, fanatical or ‘convert or die!’ style, rather they just take their religion seriously. There are little pictures of religious figures in cabs, in windows, in gift shops, and a lot of motifs around. With that said, the salt mine is no different. You might be surprised at that, but it’s true. There is a church down there and everything (excuse the quality of the picture, it’s dark, but you can make it out … sort of). Here is the alter (and another salt chandelier above it), and a statue carved in the wall beside it. They have sermons in there, though I’m not sure of the regularity. Along the walls are reliefs of Christian (I don’t know if that’s the correct label) ‘moments in time’ and ‘celebrities’. All carved from salt and stone. Here are a couple from the side: King(?) and woman. Note the rose colour that the rocks are - the guide said it was natural colouring. There is also an impressive statute in the corner, but the area with the alter, of Jesus’ crucifixion. And probably the most impressive statue is down there too - Pope John Paul II. Yes, you read it right. And it’s a dead ringer for him too.

Next relief carved into the wall: The birth of Jesus, in his manger, complete with animals and all. This is followed by one of Jesus carrying the cross. Another one that I have no clue what’s going on - Jesus is there (or so it seems) and a bunch of dudes are filling up pots with water (I think). Someone with more religious knowledge help me out? Anyway, everyone knows the next one - Leonardo da Vinci’s The Last Supper. In stone. I was so impressed with how this simple stone carving could convey as much depth (visual, not meaning) as it did. The higher resolution photo is better to look at. Anyway, it might look deep, but here’s a side-on photo. A couple centimetres deep maybe? Oh, it’s ’sparkling’ because of my flash and the salt in the rocks.

Anyway, that’s all of the best photos. As I usually do, I took many, many more. But I wouldn’t subject you to them. I know how the last time I wanted to show them all to people, it was rejected. Sporadicly posting them seems to be the only option I have. It does make for a good post when I can’t think of one otherwise.

Thomas.

From Thomas: In what is the third guest post this blog has had, I have an entry from The Ombudsman, recently returned for the school holidays. It would seem that he has a lot of free time on his hands, but at least he still had a creative mind during these times off from work, and in ‘the big smoke’. Whatever the case might be, I am very much appreciative for this post. So, without further ado, I give you …

Menindee to Milperra: A Musical Dilemma

By The Ombudsman

Young Thomas has often invited me to contribute to his blog in my official capacity as Ombudsman. I now seek leave to take advantage of his generous offer.

At the end of each school term, I drive from Menindee to Sydney at the conclusion of the school day. Picking the music for this adventure is crucial. As the journey takes approximately 14 hours, it is important to pick music that will stimulate your mind in order to help keep you awake. In this sense, the selection of music can be a life and death issue. The journey is littered with perils. These dangers include capricious kangaroos, wandering ‘shoats’ (a Menindee colloquialism for the crossbreed sheep-goat), trying to change CDs at 110 kph, Wilcannia (generally), sleep deprivation, talking on the mobile phone, having to flick the car’s high-beam on and off so as to not enrage truckies and keeping track of speed limits in the Blue Mountains (is it 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 or 90 – who would know?) all after having driven for hours on end.

So as you see, it is a matter of life and death that the musical smorgasbord stimulates the brain. As most people know, my musical tastes fall into three distinct categories – musical theatre, film scores and 80s/disco music. As I left the dust of Menindee, I went for ‘Crazy for You’, the Broadway musical of 1992 featuring Gershwin songs. The explosive overture seemed to propel me out of the town and suddenly I had made it to Broken Hill.

Considering the lack of anything visually exciting from Broken Hill to Dubbo, I knew that I needed some stimulating film scores that I knew back to front so that my whistling could keep my mind active (and alive). For this mind-numbing part of the journey, I chose ‘Independence Day’, the score from the 1996 film. The score is very much John Williams-esque (Star Wars, E.T., Superman, Indiana Jones, Harry Potter, etc for the uninitiated). It served its purpose and I enjoyed listening to it (as I always do). I then continued the trip with ‘Batman’, the score from the 1989 film. No, this was not a collection of Prince songs, but the film score by Danny Elfman. The dark themes in the music created an ominous mood as the sun began to set and the shoats came out to stare at me.

Feeling that I needed a bit of a lift after two instrumental albums, I selected ‘A Chorus Line’ (the 1975 musical). My wife has previously derided this show. In her critical analysis of this piece of theatre, she opined “all they did was stand in a line and go blah, blah, blah”. Not to question Mrs Ombudsman’s taste, but ‘A Chorus Line’ is a fine show. It also gave me the chance to sing rather than whistle, thus stimulating my mind in a different way. I then followed this up with a Susan Egan album which featured songs from a variety of musicals. Who is Susan Egan? She was the actress who played the original ‘Belle’ in ‘Beauty and the Beast’ on Broadway. So now you know…(I thought everyone knew!).

I wished I had my musical theatre version of ‘The Witches of Eastwick’ but settled for the film score (which is totally different in style). This led on to ‘Follies’ which I had never really listened to all the way through before and ‘Jekyll and Hyde: Resurrection’. The most famous song from the show, ‘This is the Moment’, inspired me to increase my speed to 130 kph. Wow! What a song!

Around 3am, I encountered a problem. I found myself falling asleep. Determined not to lose time with a useless thing like a rest break (stop-revive-survive every two hours? you’ve got to be kidding – who has the time?), I needed an immediate injection of quality melody (the M&Ms and PepsiMax wasn’t doing the job). I found solace in the movie soundtrack of ‘Hairspray’, which had me singing and whistling (and car-dancing) almost all the way home. I was totally surprised at the extent to which this album gave me the energy to break through the sleep deprivation barrier. However, that CD ended in the middle of the Blue Mountains, meaning I had one final selection to make. As I drive down the Blue Mountains towards Sydney at the end of each school term, I feel a little majestic and privileged to have returned once again. To reinforce this mood, I selected my John Williams CD which contains themes from a good variety of his films. Nothing beats the ‘Imperial March’ when coming home. This was only interrupted to call young Thomas at 4:10am, which I had promised to do a few days earlier.

What is the moral to the story? Music selection for long trips is not something to be considered lightly, especially when driving on your own. It can mean the difference between falling asleep at the wheel and arriving home with all your limbs still connected. I was lucky to have had ‘Hairspray’ with me…

Ombudsman.

I, for the life of me, haven’t been able to think of a blog post for the past two days. I’ve certainly had the time to blog, but have some sort of blogger’s block. It sucks. It doesn’t help that there is no political news that I can comment on either. I really do want to blog though. I may end up resorting to writing about one of the books I’m reading - Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire by Niall Ferguson. There’s a post in there, not just about that book, but how it contrasts to my imperialism course two years ago as well. But that will require time and research to do - and with my current state of mind-block, that might prove difficult.

Anyway, this was just a quick update to say that I haven’t forgotten about my blog.

Thomas.

Readers here know that ever since the Republican primary race ‘finished up’ (in that John McCain became the presumptive nominee), I focused on the Democratic side of things. Not only because it would prove to be more interesting, but because I genuinely want to see Barack Obama win the primary race, and go on to win the presidential election.

Anyway, when irregularly I’ll rope in some Republican news, but today, this post is all concerned with Republicans. In as much as the same way Al Gore’s name was brought up to create buzz around the impending presidential election, and who would be the running mate of who, another name has been mentioned as to a possible running mate of John McCain. While I still think it’s safe to assume Mike Huckabee is in the first position, and Mitt Romney the 2nd (though this doesn’t mean either are guaranteed the position yet), a new name might have jumped up to the top 5 considerations. The person?  Condoleeza Rice.

For a long time, Rice has been dogged by the question of will she run, especially after she got her promotion to Secretary of State, and when Hillary Clinton became front runner in 2005 for the primary race. The idea of woman vs. woman was such a compelling thought that a few books came out, saying that that would be the November race: Rice vs. Clinton. I thought the idea was ludicrous on two levels - first, that the Republicans would nominate a woman; second (and the biggest of the two), that Republicans would nominate a black person.

That idea floated in the pool for a while, until eventually it drowned. Rice regularly said that she had no intention of running. Over and over again, until the idea just died. Then it was given a breath of life when the primary campaigning kicked to life in November/December of 2007, which just prior to, Rice was rated the most powerful person in Washington (by political polling) due to her position, influence, and ability. And, again, she had to keep denying the idea of her running for office. It died down again, but would pop up every now and then. Like in February:

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice … made a rare appearance at the State Department’s press briefing room Friday and talked politics. She told the packed room of reporters that she has no interest in running for Vice President on the 2008 Republican ticket. Instead, she says, her next stop will be California.

“I have always said that the one thing that I have not seen myself doing is running for elected office in the United States,” Rice said. “I didn’t even run for high-school President, Rice joked, “It’s not in my genes.”

Rice added that there are “very good people running for the American people to make their choices. I will be making my choice as a voter and that’s going to be fun after a campaign in 2000 in which I was extremely involved.” Rice says she is not involved at all in this campaign.

It was the same sort of answer, though “It’s not in my genes” was a new line. Anyway, I never got caught up in the idea that it could happen as much as others (though I would actually be very interested in the race if it did happen).

Finally, come April, Dan Senor, a Fox News contributor and of various political associations (all Republican), said that Rice has been, in recent weeks, maybe months, positioning herself to be the pick for vice president on McCain’s ticket. Transcript of Senor’s interview here. Basically, here are the arguments in his theory (edited by me for brevity) from Hannity and Colmes:

SENOR: And I think it’s a very difficult job to campaign for or ask for. I think if she were asked to do it, she would do it. I think the challenge for her, which she recognizes, is that there are some concerns among some conservatives about her being on a ticket. So she’s actually been pretty good recently about reassuring conservatives that she would be there for them and her message and narrative are compelling as far as they’re concerned, and she — and I heard from a number of conservative political leaders in the last couple of weeks, who have met with her, who have seen her speak, and that she felt very reassured by her and want her to run.

HANNITY: Well, you’ve got the Americans for Tax Reform, Grover Norquist, that … meet and they are conservatives and she went there.

SENOR: Right. So there’s about 100 or 150 of these conservative political leaders that aren’t — it’s not necessarily foreign policy issues. They deal with economic issues.

HANNITY: Mostly taxes.

SENOR: Mostly taxes, right. Socially political issues, and he organizes meetings every Wednesday. It’s sort of a “who’s who” among some of the political leadership within Washington and they typically have political types come briefed on various policy issues and political issues. She came.

HANNITY: She came. On her own?

SENOR: Well, I.

HANNITY: Was she invited?

SENOR: I presumed they negotiated something. But it’s rare for a secretary of state. You can’t imagine Secretary Baker or Secretary George Schultz or one of these former Republican.

And:

SENOR: There have been a couple of people close to her who have made the case to me in the past that she would be a good vice president. But this is coming — keep on, this is reporting that is coming from conservative political leaders that have met with Secretary Rice, who incidentally think she would be great if she’s on the ticket.

COLMES: Has she told them she wants the job?

SENOR: You would have to ask them.

Also:

SENOR: The McCain campaign as some point is going to have to consider, what is the right profile for the ticket? Right? You can go one route, which is the sort of unknown, fresh face, outsider, someone to balance out McCain, balance out his Washington experience, or someone to reinforce all of his years of experience and security.

Anyone who has watched Hannity and Colmes knows that it’s a left-wing host and a right-wing host, talking about political news, and they have guests on through the show. Colmes is the lefty, Hannity is the righty. Colmes was quick to point out that Rice’s office had said Senor has no connection with Rice, and doesn’t know anything about her future plans, that she had repeatedly denied wanting the job, has said she wants to go back to lecturing, and that (most glaringly obvious) it would be McCain hooking up with a President Bush-confidant. Already Democrats are saying that a vote for McCain is another vote for Bush, but with someone from his administration as responsible for his foreign policy mess-ups as Bush himself, then it will be impossible to create distance between a McCain administration, and the Bush administration.

I, for the record, have believed for some time in what Colmes has to say about picking Rice. It would be a gutsy, but quite possibly suicidal decision.

The fallout from this interview began early. Rice coped it first, and she said:

I very much look forward to watching this campaign and voting as a voter. I have a lot of work to do and then I’ll happily go back to Stanford.

Then McCain got the questions. He said, of the rumours that she was maneuvering for the position, that he must have ‘missed those signals’, and:

I think she’s a great American. I think there’s very little that I can say that isn’t anything but the utmost praise for a great American citizen, who served as a role model to so many millions of people in this country and around the world.

Political pundits weighed in on the decision too. I won’t quote them all, just Gloria Borger, CNN political analyst, as a segway:

Obviously, as an instantly recognizable national figure, Condi Rice would have to appear on any vice-presidential list.

And she certainly would add star power to a ticket. The next day, polling data came out that indicated the McCain/Rice ticket would beat a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket by 3% or 5% respectively in the state of New York! I know it would be presumptive to say this would be the finite outcome, but for any poll to not lean towards the Democrats in New York is quite a shock, especially with Clinton leading the ticket. Witha  +/- 4% error rate, and a sampling size of 576 registered New York voters, it was quite a surprise to read this. Any ideas of the Democrats winning the White House back includes the assumption that New York and California don’t even have to be defended, much less brought into question. If any Republican ticket could challenge one of the bluest of blue states, I think the party and the candidate would have second thoughts about saying no to that prospect straight off the bat. CNN carried the story, and it topped the most read article section for quite a few days. It seemed like a popular hypothetical, much like Al Gore getting in on the race too.

Anyway, Rice was then trotted up to the Hill to give evidence on the use of torture by U.S. officials on detainees and prisoners. The documents of discussions tabled by Rice (discussions and meetings that she herself chaired) indicated that the use of torture by Americans has been so thought out as discussed that there is no way to remove Rice, Bush, or the current administration from the pro-torture argument. The specific methods and amount of times CIA agents could use torture as a method of interrogation was approved by Rice, Vice President Dick Cheney, former National Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, former CIA Director George Tenet, and former Attorney General John Ashcroft. These documents pretty much sealed the fate of Rice not getting the V.P. slot with McCain - McCain is one of the few Republican politicians that genuinely oppose and speak-out against torture. Maybe it’s because he was tortured at the hands of the Vietnamese as a P.O.W.?

Anyway, as much as a great hypothetical race as could be thought up when Rice’s name was in the mix, it seems out of reach now. I know that you should never say never in politics, but this is a very, very, very remote possibility. I don’t expect it or think it will happen. I still think Mike Huckabee is heading McCain’s “list of 20″, with Romney coming in next. The problem for McCain is that he doesn’t have as much free-reign in picking his running mate if he wants to win. He is struggling with his party base still, so he needs someone secure with them. If he himself was sound in getting the hard-right’s vote, he could probably run with a woman or a more moderate. But he really has that ‘outsider’ position saved for himself, so he needs to pick an insider. Tim Pawlenty (Governor of Minnesota), and Charlie Crist (Governor of Florida), both from swing states, are probably up the list too. Pawlenty is currently serving as co-chairman of John McCain’s campaign - so he is positioned well for the slot. So too Crist - he endorsed McCain early, and regularly receives praise from McCain. Rounding out the five would be Governor of Texas Rick Perry. He should be very sound with the party base. Just check out his policy positions. While Texas isn’t a swing state by any shot, this is a candidate who is a sure-fire favourite among conservatives and the sort of person to be set-up for in 4/8 years time, should the Republicans stage the impossible and win. A long shot (though maybe not as long as some might think) is Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin. She’s not as conservative as some of the previous names mentioned, but probably more than McCain. Again, not from a swing state, but a woman, a conservative, a record of cutting government spending, good positions (for her party, and for winning independent voters) on some policies, and young and ‘attractive’ all helps her in getting a mention on the list I would think.

Oh the possibilities. I could go on for some time, but I think my list of 6 (Huckabee, Romney, Pawlenty, Crist, Perry, Palin) is something I’m happy to settle on. If it isn’t one of them, then it’s a wildcard.

Thomas.

The 13th of February, 2008, has already been marked as a big and important day in Australia’s social history, and in the future of this society. It was when Kevin Rudd apologised to Indigenous Australians, fulfilling one of his campaign promises. A lot of people marked the day with celebrations, with gathering, with appropriate, you know, events. While Andrew and I weren’t inappropriate in our ‘marking’ of the day, we certainly would have been some of the most oblivious two individuals about it.

After a night of drinking, eating, relaxing, and staying up to wee-hours of the morning watching The Office, as well as having nothing planned for the Wednesday, we both slept in. Andrew woke up before me, and when I stumbled out my room, we sat down to the television and went around the dial. Finally, we came to the news channel - Sky News - which I had only ever turned on now-and-then to try and get U.S. primary election updates. If Barack, Hillary, John, or Mike wasn’t on the T.V. then I wasn’t interested. That might be one explanation as to why we didn’t know that the apology was going to happen. Actually, it’s the sole reason. We hadn’t kept any serious connection with the world since we left Sydney, other than the odd phone call back home. No news, no papers, no serious magazines. No serious what-so-ever.

So you can imagine our surprise when we saw that the apology had already happened, and we were now waiting for a ceremony involving various indigenous people to start. We sat around and waited … and waited … and laughed when we heard the only former Prime Minister who weren’t there were either dead or John Howard … and waited. And then we gave up. I put my MP3 player on the speakers that I had bought with me, and we resumed our game of Jin Rummy (that was started as we waited for our food delivery the night before).

Eventually that ceremony started (we could see the T.V. from the table we were playing at). It looked good and all, but out card game had spread over 50 hands, and we were keeping a running tally of points, so it was pretty important. Anyway, the music in the background kept playing, and in a moment of rare cosmic alignment ‘I Don’t Feel Like Dancing’ by the Scissor Sisters started up. I muted the television, and I swear to you it was all in sync. All the dancing and movement by those doing it down in Canberra mirrored the beat, rhythm and the tune of the song. That lasted for 4-minutes, and was a bit of fun.

I wanted an early lunch at some point, and was pleased with myself for planning ahead. You might remember towards the end of the last entry that I had ordered roast chicken and extra chips, with gravy, all in anticipation of a snack to tide me over to tea the next day. When I got up to get my chips, chips I had paid extra for, I couldn’t find them. I looked around. “Andrew, have you seen those chips I was saving for today?” I found out he had thrown them out. Man I was pretty ticked off.

Eventually, we decided that sitting around the room, playing cards, might be a waste of time. I wanted to go to the beach - so I did. I up’d and went down. Andrew followed, and we walked nearly the entire length of the beach Southwards - to the point where you have to stop because they are moving the sand around with heavy-duty machinery. I went in the water for some stints, and then we walked back. From there, we decided to test out the pools that this hotel had. There was the indoor heated first, and then the outdoor one second. I don’t particularly like pools anymore. It might be the thought of having had hundreds of people of all different ages floating in exactly the same water as each other. At least with the ocean, there’s a vast amount of water that gets rotated (of sorts).

After doing that, we returned to our apartment and decided that it was pleasant enough to go out to get tea from Woolworths still. You see, we wanted to actually say that we had cooked something on our holiday, so we ventured down to the Woolies to get some supplies.

I should have mentioned that the weather was lovely that day - sunny for the most part, though the clouds began to come over eventually. It would have made for a good day to go to SeaWorld. I thought to myself “Of course, we picked the worst day between two great days to go.” But I didn’t mind as much as I probably could have.

Anyway, we went to Woolies, and we were walking around, looking for sausages and supplies to make dinner out of, when Andrew commented “Was that Patrick West?” as we passed someone. I turned around, and sure as heck, it was.

Now let me tell you who Patrick West is. I’ve known him since I was 5 years old. We were in Kindergarten together, and were friends from then to year 10 in high school. So 11 years. He left my high school (East Hills Boys Technology High) at the end of year 10 to go to Picnic Point High. I saw him twice after that - both times in year 11. That summed up our friendship towards the end though - I was a pretty lousy friend to him by the end of year 10, and when he changed school, instead of trying to figure out why, or even stay in contact with him, I hated him for having changed. It might have to do with how I found out - a teacher at school told me that he was leaving. I had, for a long time, said that he didn’t even have the guts to tell me (his friend for 11 years) that he was leaving our school, and if that was the case I didn’t need that sort of friend. Turns out, though, that he had a legitimate reason to change school. And, like the bum friend I was, I didn’t particularly care.

And we never met up since. Something like 4 years went by and we never caught up. Funnily enough, I had been wondering what he was up to prior to going on holidays. I was genuinely interested as to what had happened to him. Anyway, there he freaking was! In the middle of Woolies, in Queensland! I was astounded, amazed, and just shocked. The randomness of the whole situation was absurd. Queensland. Woolies. Day. Time. Insane.

We stood there and caught up for about an hour. He was with his girlfriend, who is quite pretty. We ended up parting ways, and Andrew and I were amazed that we had met him. We got our stuff and left.

We cooked the sausages. Let that be the end of it.

The night ended with watch yet more of The Office, a return to festivity and a lively apartment. In between episodes, we would look out our windows and into other apartments, looking for something worthing looking out. I noted that this has been the start of a few horror and suspense movies in the past, but I thought it would be worth the risk. Eventually, the end came to a slow and (intentionally) non-eventful. Andrew had made arrangements to get the bus to MovieWorld the next day. We had to do it Thursday or Friday, and Friday seemed like a worse day to do it. We needed our sleep and rest for the theme park that we were most looking forward to, so we turned in for the night.

Thomas.

If you ever go to Poland, you must visit Krakow. And if you do that, you should try and visit the Wieliczka Salt Mine. I did, when I was there. With me was my grandfather, my grandfather’s brother and his daughter. Whenever we tried to book a tour of Auschwitz, they all came with a “bonus” trip to the Salt Mine. We tried to avoid it, but couldn’t.

Anyway, we went, and it was amazing. The Wiki page has a few things to say about it. I also have photos of various bits and pieces inside the mine that I’ll upload to Photobucket, and then link to on this blog some time Thursday I suspect (as I’ll be getting dinner with St. Ives and Mr. Rabbit tomorrow evening). What you find down there are some really great things. Wall reliefs, a chapel, and a winding set of stairs. 400 steps - and my grandfather went down all of them. You should note that he was scheduled to get a knee replacement a month after we landed, so imagine how uncomfortable all the walking (3.5km and 400 stairs) would have been.

Anyway, that staircase is  the new banner. I daringly hung my camera over the rail and snapped a great shot of the tunnel down. The photo there has been resized. When I upload my Krakow pictures, I’ll upload the original of the staircase photo. It’s one of my most interesting, and not the sort of photo that everyone has.

That’s the new banner. A show of good faith on my part to show I’m back.

Thomas.

So people probably have(n’t) been wondering ‘Where had Thomas gone?’ I haven’t stopped my blogging efforts, nor have I joined Jimmy Hoffa in disappearing. University finally bit into my free time - I had 2 assignments due in this week for the only two subjects that I’m doing for the first 6 weeks of semester. I thought I was being smart by choosing to write an essay on the tutorial topic last week (which meant handing it in this week) - you know, doing the early topic and getting it out the way? I probably should have checked the due dates for my other subject’s assessments - that the first one was due on Monday. That meant I ended up having one due Monday, one due Wednesday.

It wasn’t that bad. One was only 500 words, the other was 1,500 words. But that bad week of holidays, my attempts to get ahead of readings, and an increased workload over the past fortnight meant that come Thursday last week, I had written an introduction of my 1,500 word essay and handwritten scribbles on the notepad beside the computer (not totaling more than 20 words) for my 500 word assignment. I got them both done - the 500 worder was finished at 1am Monday morning, while I surprised myself and finished the 1,500 worder at approximately 10:00pm this evening. Early (by my standards)!

I’d like to say that, in all this rush, I missed out on a chance to blog about some big news in any field that I’m interested in (U.S. politics, Australian politics, movies, television, etc.) but my assignments seemed to have come at a quiet point in the news cycles. There has been some news, but stuff that I normally wouldn’t have blogged about anyway, and would have seen me write some rambling post like this about what’s happening in my life (as if it is somehow important enough news to spread around the world.

Anyway, that’s the latest from me. Now that I’ve finished that 1,500 word assignment, I don’t have to worry about that subject (HSTY2614 - Australian Social History 1919-1998) until June, when the exams are around. This could be a very easy exam in that I am allowed to answer the option in the exam on the tutorial paper that I’m handing in tomorrow (Australia responses to the Depression). Usually, if you answer an essay option, you are forbidden to answer any questions about that topic in the exam. But not this time. Which makes things a little easier. Anyway, I like exams. I prefer exams. I can write a lot faster than the average person when I get going (and in Winter, I really get going to keep my hands warm), plus the marking is easier. All this contributed to me not wanting to do an extra 2 tutorial papers (each 1,500 words) to not do the exam.

Now the most pressing issue on my mind is do I go down stairs and each the chicken drumstick and pieces of roast chicken now while I watch some more Gilmore Girls. I’m glad I can go from one important topic to another in my life without much fret.

Thomas.

Thank God the Pope got out of that school last year.

Thomas.

Not that you can see it, but WordPress has changed up its dashboard layout. I don’t quite know if I like it more than the last one to be honest. It looks fancy at the moment, but I’m yet to find out all the new features. As I was typing, I witness one: What the address to the post will look like. Not 100% new, but sort of. You have to see this, and know what it looked like before to really understand. Hopefully there are some new goodies to play with though. I read Neil’s blog, and he was writing about this on Saturday. My work commitments have kept me away from the computer until now, so I’m late with this.

Well, back to that university assignment that is due in … 15 hours or so. I’ve had something like 4 weeks to get it done, and I’ll be rushing it to the very last second. I guess predictable, deadline-pushing Thomas will rule this semester. Though, that’s how I’ve got this far anyway, so why buck the trend?

Thomas.

Again, there’s a bunch of small-ish news coming out of the primaries today, so I’ll put them all into the one post.

When you’re about to be endorsed by a former president of your party, there’s usually a whole lot of fanfare and chorus running around. Especially in the media. They love these sorts of big endorsements. Except for poor Jimmy Carter. He came out today and effectively said that he will be endorsing Barack Obama, and nearly no-one got excited. Here’s what he had to say:

Don’t forget that Obama won in my state of Georgia. My town, which is home to 625 people, is for Obama, my children and their spouses are pro-Obama. My grandchildren are also pro-Obama. As a superdelegate, I would not disclose who I am rooting for but I leave you to make that guess.

Doesn’t come much clearer than that without wearing an ‘Obama ‘08′ shirt. Now, as I said, usually an endorsement from a former president would make massive headlines. When John McCain was endorsed by George Bush, that circulated the headlines for some time, and even found its way into anti-Republican advertisements for the next month. But the problem is with Jimmy Carter is that everyone seemed to forget about him once he left office. Sure, he pops his head up every now-and-then, but it’s not for anything bad or controversial or even interesting.

I mean, Al Gore’s endorsement is not only a bigger thing in the party now, but a more spoken about (in terms of hypothesising where the race is going) thing. Interestingly enough, his name is still floating around the news. Barack Obama fueled the idea that Gore might just play a part in a future Democratic White House with these remarks:

Asked at a campaign event if he’d consider Gore for his cabinet, Obama immediately said he would.

“I will make a commitment that Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this [climate change] problem,” Obama said.

Obama also said he talks with the former vice president on a “regular basis,” and often consults with him on climate change issues.

Just by saying the name ‘Gore’, people’s ears are going to prick up. He is a buzz word at the moment in all politics, but especially the Democrat’s primary race. And by Obama throwing out crumbs to people that Gore will likely see some sort of action in the White House if you vote for him, then he’s courting yet more votes. Granted, Gore doesn’t swing enough votes to win over entire states, but he is well respected in the party base, and that’s where Hillary Clinton is getting a lot of her support from.

March fund raising figures were released today too. Clinton raised $20 million - Obama raised more than $40 million. We see another example of the failed campaign Clinton has run - prepare only to Super Tuesday. I’ll repeat that she has a lot of big donors on her side who have donated the absolute limit for this campaign. Obama has lots of small donors who are continuing to donate. Clinton thought she’d have the race wrapped by Super Tuesday, and didn’t worry. Obama knew it was going to be a long race, and adjusted his campaign accordingly. Now, Clinton a balking on bills and Obama is able to out-spend Clinton in every state.

Also, McCain released his fund raising figures. Well, no, he didn’t All the McCain campaign said was that they were above average, but not competitive with Obama’s numbers. Yes, they actually cited Obama’s campaign as having raised more money, not just slap on the generic ‘Democrats’. Which might mean he was on a comparable level to Clinton, and they don’t want to say that because it would give credence to an Obama supporter coming out to say that Obama should be the nominee because he is more popular than McCain.

Finally, John Edwards has resurfaced and said that he won’t accept any vice president position. I suspect that narrows down Clinton’s list of options, though I doubt very much that Obama was ever considering him. Attorney General is still on the cards, and (like others) expect that he will get that position under either Democrat’s administration.

Thomas.

A couple of polls were released today for the Democrats in Pennsylvania. There were some very remarkable results in them for Obama. SurveyUSA had Clinton up by 12% - 53% to 41%. Not so remarkable, until you take into account that, two weeks ago, SurveyUSA had Clinton up by a 19% margin. The momentum is with Obama in the state, if this poll is the only thing you go by.

But it’s the second poll that really shakes things up. Rasmussen has their latest numbers out and it has Clinton up by jut 5% - 47% to 42%. This is the closest the state has been in any poll, and a margin that would widely be viewed as a ‘win’ by the Obama campaign. As I said in my previous post, a 10% margin of victory only netts Clinton 10 delegates on Obama. And while a 20% doesn’t do a whole lot better, she needs something between 10% and 20% to even be considered a contender in the race.

Momentum really is on Obama’s side in the state. The Bosnia gaff by Clinton has done her more damage than the Wright issue has to Obama. I suspect it’s the ways they handled the fallout which determined the momentum. Obama gave his great speak. Clinton brushed it off with a line like ‘I guess I was mistaken’. If trends continue, the state will fall into a sub-10% difference, and Obama will be seen as the ‘winner’ of the state. No if’s or but’s. If Obama gets within single-figures of Clinton within Pennsylvania, he will be called the winner by media and voters alike.

There’s also a senate race that I’ll be keeping track of during the electioneering time of the year. Virginia is an important swing-state in the general election coming up, so watching how their state politics are unfolding might be a good indicator as to how the state will go come the presidential election. One of Virginia’s senate seats is hotly contested between Republican Jim Gilmore (former Attorney General and Governor of Virginia) and Democrat Mark Warner (the immediate former Governor of Virginia, former chairman of the Virginia Democratic Party, currently on the board of the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs).

Now Mark Warner was originally touted as being a possible Democratic primary contender because of his centrist positioning and his popularity in the swing-state of Virginia. This was around the time his governorship came to and end in early 2006, roughly a year and a half after Obama’s keynote address. Through 2006, while some speculated about Obama, others speculated about Warner. Warner eventually said that he didn’t want to interrupt his ‘family life’ and wasn’t going to run for president.

However, he did decide to run for the senate seat of his state that was opening up with the ‘retirement’ of the incumbent Republican John Warner. Congressman Tom Davis, who was Jim Gilmore’s only possible competition in the state, opted out of the race because the state was going to use a nominating convention rather than a primary process to get their Republican candidate for their seat. Davis suspected that this gave Gilmore the better chances, and decided not to run, leaving Gilmore a free pass to the senate election against Mark Warner. Gilmore, too, was thought of as being a possible Republican candidate in the primaries, but decided against.

Mark Warner began the race as favourite, being more popular and more well-known than Gilmore. I think that it will be an uphill battle for Gilmore to overtake Warner as the favourite, or to win the seat, given latest polls. In January, Rasmussen had Warner ahead by 16% - 55% to 38%, 4% undecided. In February, Warner was up by 20% -57% to 37%, 6% undecided. In March, Warner was up by 16% - 55% to 39%, 6% undecided.

What’s interesting to note is the Republican trends that exist in the state, despite Warner’s election as governor. The state has voted in A Republican senator on the past two occasions - and in 1996, Jim Warner, the Republican candidate defeated Mark Warner for the seat. In the past 3 presidential elections, the state has gone Republican - with Bob Dole (which is saying something!) and George Bush twice. But there was something that clicked with the state and Warner when he ran for governor, and he has remained one of the most popular politicians in the state since his retirement.

I’ll be keeping an eye because he was one of the 3 that I wanted to see run in the primary race - Obama, Gore, Warner. I could never chose between them, and I’m glad I never did, because then we wouldn’t be on the verge of an Obama presidency. I’ll be updating on this senate seat mainly for my own interests, but maybe some people out there will be interested in it too. Who knows.

Thomas.

With the added time before the Pennsylvania primary, it gives me a chance to write posts explaining things that I wouldn’t normally have a chance to. Things that need explaining for my audience as well, as a lot of what I write is usually diluted down for ease. With that said, here’s a post that explains the delegate selection process that goes on in a state like Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania is allocated 188 delegates in total. Generally, I’d say there are 2 types - delegates tied to the voting in the state, and the superdelegates. While this is true, it is only to a point. There are actually 4 types of delegates. The first are 103 pledged district-level delegates. The second is the 35 at-large pledged delegates. The third, 20 pledged PLEOs. And the fourth, 29 superdelegates. Let’s start with the 103 pledged district-level delegates.

It gets pretty complex, so I’ll try and keep it simple-ish. The delegate numbers are worked out well before the race. There is a base pool of 3,000 delegates for the entire Democratic primary race. Starting with that 3,000, the proportion allocated to each state is figured out with a 50/50 mix of two things. The first is the state’s proportion of the entire electoral vote. The second is the state’s proportion (as compared to the entire country) of the votes for the Democratic candidate for the previous election. The 50/50 average of the two numbers comes to 4.378%, and of the 3,000 pool of delegates, Pennsylvania gets 131 delegates.

Now, as a ‘reward’ for holding their primary late in the process, the state gets bonus delegates. This entitlement is saved for ten states that hold their voting late in the process. The total bonus delegates for all ten states adds to 54. Pennsylvania gets 5% of them, for a total of 7 ‘reward’ delegates. This brings the total delegates allotted to the state to 138.

Now this number is the one that is used to figure out how many of the 3 types of delegates are tied to the voting. This 138 needs to be divided into two different ‘levels’ of pools - a statewide pool and a district pool. The statewide pool is 25% of the 138 delegates, the district pool is 75%. With rounding, the statewide pool comes to 35 delegates, the district pool comes to 103. That’s where we get our first numbers - 103 district-level delegates and 35 at-large pledged delegates. One is representing the congressional districts, another is representing state-wide voting. Winning the state’s popular vote, thus, gives an added bonus. That is why you see Obama winning more delegates from a state while winning fewer counties than Clinton - he is winning the highly-populated areas with a high percentage, while Clinton is winning lowly-populated areas with various margins. This gives Obama an extra boost, as we will see when it comes to winning congressional districts.

Continuing with the 103 district-level delegates, they are distributed to the different congressional districts of the state using an approved mathematical formula. There are four formulas that can be approved, each that may or may not take into account the state’s population, the Democratic registration, Democratic vote for President, and Democratic vote for Governor. At the end of the maths though, the congressional districts
are allocated anywhere between 1 and 8 delegates.

Pennsylvania has 19 congressional districts as of 2000 (prior to which, it was 21, but changed due to reapportionment), and dividing the 103 between each district gives each one roughly 7 or 8. However, the distribution isn’t uniform, and generally the highly-populated congressional districts are worth more than the lowly-populated ones. So by winning the congressional district that has the state’s capital in it, the candidate will get more delegates. Obama has been doing this - winning the urban and city centres - which along with delivering him the most votes (and getting him the at-large delegates), gives him more delegates from the district-level delegates.

The third type of delegates, the PLEOs, form another pool of delegates available to the candidates. PLEOs are Pledged (Party) Leaders and Elected Officials. This poll needs to number 15% of the base delegates - that is, 15% of the 138 delegates previously assigned to the state. This gives us the figure of 20 pledged PLEOs. This brings the state of Pennsylvania’s total pledged delegates to 158 - the final number of delegates that are tied to the voting on April 22.

Now, you might be thinking that the name of these delegates, PLEOs, is quite similar to what superdelegates sound like. They are, actually, quite different. These delegates are selected by the Pennsylvania Democratic State Committee, and the slots that are put aside for them are filled by the statewide voting results and not congressional district results. Remember, in all the primaries, the people are voting for a delegate to go a vote at the Democratic National Convention for the candidate that they say they will vote for. They aren’t actually voting for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton - they are voting for someone who will vote for them. Thus, for the PLEO spots, if it was a 50/50 split between Obama and Clinton, ten of the spots would be filled with candidates selected by the D.S.C. that support Obama and ten for Clinton.

But in the case of PLEOs, the candidates that the people are voting to send to the D.N.C. are from the Democratic party leaders and elected officials, like county officials, constitutional officers, mayors, and the like. For the district and at-large delegates, the candidates are regular citizens.

Another difference between the PLEOs and the at-large delegates is that they are assigned via the statewide voting, but separately. It is not treated as 55 delegates, rather 20 PLEOs and 35 at-large delegates.

Now we come to the 15% threshold. If a candidate doesn’t receive 15% in either congressional district votes or in statewide votes, then they cannot get a single delegate. However, it they do get 15%, they are guaranteed at least one delegate. These threshold rules work on both the congressional districts and in the statewide voting that determines the PLEOs and the at-large delegates.

And finally, we come to the fourth group of delegates: The superdelegates. I’ve done a lengthy explanation of them before. For Pennsylvania, there are 29 superdelegates: 14 Democratic National Committee members, 12 members of congress, 1 distinguished party leader (Governor Ed Rendell), and 3 add-ons. The add-ons are superdelegates that are chosen after the primary process by either the delegates already chosen or a committee, depending on the state. Each state has to select a certain amount, and the total the amount of 70 add-on delegates.

And just to run a scenario to see if you’ve got it all into your head. Let’s say that Clinton wins Pennsylvania with the same figures as Ohio - 55% to 45%. If she wins each congressional district with 55%, she gets a nett of 13 delegates on Obama - Clinton wins 58 delegates from the 103 district level delegates, while Obama wins 45. If the numbers change to 60% to 40% Clinton’s way, it still only netts her 15 delegates. Thus, a landslide win of 20% only gets her 2 delegates more than a 10% win at the district level.

With the 35 at-large delegates, with a 55% statewide win for Clinton, she gets 19 delegates, Obama gets 13, and she only netts 3 there on Obama. If she managed to get the 60% to 40% win, she still only netts 7 delegates on Obama.

Moving to the PLEOs, assuming that Clinton gets 55% of the vote statewide, she gets 11 delegates, Obama gets 9. She has only netted 2 more over him here too.

Thus, if Clinton gets a 10% win on Obama, she will nett just 20 delegates on his lead by the close of the day. Considering his lead is 120-140, it won’t make a whole lot of difference, and especially considering he is expected to wipe out any deficit in delegates he gets with his win in North Carolina two weeks after Pennsylvania anyway.

So, all in all, there are 188 delegates, made up by the four different types. I hope this was a clear and accurate post about everything I’ve been talking about for the past three months. It might have been a bit late, but it generally applies to all those states that had primaries. If there are any more questions, drop me a line.

Thomas.

*Cue fanfare music*

Ok, the final count for the month is in. March set an all-time record for visits. 6,779 according to WordPress. The final week really brought in quite a few visitors - I remember it was hovering around the 5,000 at the start. In fact, on March 21, the Friday before the last 8 days of the month, I blogged that I had 4,569 visits for the month, and that was the new record. March 26 came, and I wrote that the blog was at 5,245. So the last week, and the last few days, of March were really quite successful.

As I mentioned earlier, the biggest week on record came in this month, 2,361, and that was 3 weeks ago. Two weeks after that, the 2nd place record was set with 1,638.

The biggest day came, as I said. It was 1,175 visits for the day, with the post Wyoming - results, Mississippi - polls getting 860 visits, and people finding the blog by search for ‘mississippi polls’ 598 times.

In the all time views for posts, 4 of the top 10 were written in March. This list is as follows:

• Superdelegates - 2,669
• Wyoming - results, Mississippi - polls - 1,031 - March 10
• Obama news - Endorsements, money, debate - 672
• Amélie vs. Garden State - 473
• Pennsylvania and North Carolina polls - 456 - March 27
• Barack Obama - What’s next? - 405 - March 6
• Polls and statistics - TX, OH, VT, RI - 286
• Super Tuesday I - Democrats - 270
• Mike Huckabee is an idiot - 255
• Gore/Obama? - 240 - March 26

The next10 posts are all over 100 views each, something I am pleased with. Of them, only 1 is from March - Barack Obama is the Democratic candidate. Then we get into the sub-100, and it’s not worth going into there.

The month had 52 posts - a record for this blog, breaking February’s by 1 extra post. I still think that February’s record ’stands’ in that I was away on a trip for 7 days, plus it’s a shorter month, and I still b