| 31.05.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Remember Ricky Martin? Yep, the crooner who is responsible for the tune Livin La Vida Loca, which we all had to listen to for what felt like an eternity after the hit was released in 1999. Well, Martin, a Puerto Rican, now has officially endorsed Hillary Clinton ahead of the Democratic primary in Puerto Rico on Sunday. "These elections will have historic repercussions both in the United States and the world. Senator Clinton has always been consistent in her commitment with the needs of the Latino community," Martin said in a statement released by the Clinton campaign. The former First Lady stated in a press release she feels "honored to have Ricky Martin's support. He is a very important voice in the Latino community and together we will work to improve the lives of families and children across the country." In the 2001 presidential campaign, Martin had supported then Governor George W. Bush. The duo apparently hit it off so well that Martin performed at a pre-inaugural celebration for Bush. A later falling out was triggered apparently by the Iraq war, which Martin opposed. Now Martin is backing Hillary Clinton, who, by the way, in 2001 also backed the Iraq war. So maybe the war isn't the only reason Martin is supporting Clinton instead of Barack Obama, who opposed the war from the get-go. What are Ricky Martin's reasons then beyond Hillary Clinton's "committment" to Latinos? Hard to say, and also not that important. Clinton was already projected to win big in Puerto Rico prior to Ricky Martin's endorsement. So what does all this signify? Nothing really. Just another piece of Negligible News. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 30.05.2008 |
|
||||||||
| There are days when it's good enough to just kick back. Today is one of those days. Forget about Iran, Iraq, kooky pastors and controversial foreign leaders. Forget about Hillary Clinton's remarks, Barack Obama's gaffes and John McCain's bladder stones. Just for now. Relax and read. Actress Susan Sarandon might relocate to Italy, Canada or somewhere else should John McCain become president. "If McCain gets in, it's going to be very, very dangerous," Saradon, who supports Barack Obama, told the Irish Independent. "It's a critical time, but I have faith in the American people. If they prove me wrong, I'll be checking out a move to Italy. Maybe Canada, I don't know. We're at an abyss." No word if husband Tim Robbins would also leave the U.S. By the way, Sarandon's new movie Speed Racer is now playing in theaters. Canadian Rocker Bryan Adams didn't mention any moving plans should McCain win, but he also hopes for an Obama election victory. "I hope Obama will win," Adams said in Berlin, where his photo exhibition, Hear the world, is being shown. "Everything is better than what we have now", he added according to German news agency dpa. What does all this signify? Nothing really. Just a piece of Negligible News. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 29.05.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Nothing has changed. Europeans continue to be enamored with Barack Obama. According to a new poll conducted for the Internet portal of Britain's Daily Telegraph, Obama would score a blow-out victory against John McCain if voters in Britain, Germany, France, Italy and Russia could elect the next American president. The presumptive Democratic candiate received 52 percent of the vote across those five countries. McCain, his Republican rival in waiting, fetched only 15 percent. Obama is most popular in Italy with 70 percent and Germany with 67 percent of the vote, respectively. Only in Russia is the race even remotely close. Here, Obama registers the least amount of support with just 31 percent of the vote compared with 24 for McCain. In Germany (six percent) and in France (eight percent), McCain doesn't even make it out of the single digits. When asked who they think is better prepared to lead the global economy out of the current crisis, the winner is also Obama. Only in Russia do more people believe McCain (36 percent) would handle the current economic turmoil better than Obama (28 percent). Among the five European nations polled, Italians are the most pro-American. Almost half of the Italians (49 percent) consider the U.S. a force for good in the world. In all other countries, the majority of those asked perceive the U.S. as a force for evil. In Russia, a whopping 56 percent of those polled feel that way. So what do we glean from this poll? First, that the Obama swoon in Europe may be over with some in the media and policy wonks, but definitely not with the general public. Secondly, that anti-American sentiment is alive and well. And thirdly, that Hillary Clinton has been counted out of the campaign by Europeans. Clinton's name wasn't even mentioned in the poll. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 28.05.2008 |
|
||||||||
| John McCain appears to be convinced that he can win the election against Barack Obama largely based on his foreign policy experience. It seems as though McCain thinks he owns the issue. I wrote about his sharp attack and his offer to tutor Obama on Iraq yesterday. But it's not just Iraq, McCain and the Republicans claim that Barack Obama simply lacks the experience to deal with international relations in general or with Iran, Russia, or North Korea in particular. Obama, to be honest, doesn't possess a foreign policy or military background. Neither did George W. Bush and Bill Clinton prior to taking office. But because of his lack of international experience, Obama has to be especially careful on this topic. With his engagement-not-isolation proposal, he has laid out a vision to deal with unsavory regimes, which despite being criticized by McCain and the Republicans, promised a clear break with the past and could be perceived as cogent and sensible by the average voter. Now a couple of botched remarks by Obama could be interpreted as a confirmation of McCain's claim of inexperience on the part the presumed Democratic candidate. First, Obama misspoke about his uncle's role in World War II. The Illinois Senator said in a Memorial Day speech that his uncle had participated in the liberation of Auschwitz. After a quick intervention by the Republican Party, the Obama campaign corrected the statement by saying that he had meant Buchenwald and not Auschwitz. While it probably was merely a mix-up, it is problematic for Obama. Since he has no military background, he was trying to become part of a one by familial extension. It backfired. Instead of his family's service in the war, his verbal blunder made the news. Even more dangerous for Obama and his goal to be viable against John McCain was his remark about negotiating with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. So far, Obama's position was that he was willing to meet with Ahmadinejad. That changed yesterday: "There's no reason why we would necessarily meet with Ahmadinejad before we know that he was actually in power. He's not the most powerful person in Iran", Obama said. Haaretz' Shmuel Rosner calls this a 180 degree change and offers an excellent exploration of the issue. However, I don't share Rosner's final analysis that this episode is merely a case of lesson learned for Obama and the voters. In my opinion, that would be underestimating the potential Obama's reversal presents for Republicans on an important election topic. Already Senator John Ensign of Nevada accused Barack Obama of a "John Kerry-type" of flip-flop. Republicans will monitor closely media reactions to Obama's changed stance and be on look out for further opportunities to stick the flip-flop label on Obama. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 27.05.2008 |
|
||||||||
| It looks like John McCain has chosen to pursue an interesting Iraq strategy in his campaign. He is not only distancing himself from President George W. Bush and his presumed Democratic opponent Barack Obama at the same time. McCain also believes that with his foreign policy credentials, he can actually score points on the Iraq issue against Obama. Clearly separating himself from President Bush, McCain said yesterday in a speech to veterans marking Memorial day, "I, too, have been made sick at heart by the many mistakes made by civilian and military commanders and the terrible price we have paid for them." He added that "we all know, the American people have grown sick and tired of the war in Iraq." (Dispite McCain's statement President Bush will appear at fundraiser with him today.) On the same day, McCain also took a hefty swipe at Obama: "He really has no experience or knowledge or judgment about the issue of Iraq and he has wanted to surrender for a long time," McCain told the AP. "If there was any other issue before the American people, and you hadn't had anything to do with it in a couple of years, I think the American people would judge that very harshly." McCain went on to attack Obama for not having visited Iraq enough. Asked whether he would take a trip to Iraq with his Democratic rival McCain said yes and offered to "to educate Senator Obama along the way." McCain's Iraq strategy is bold - and risky. He is correct in his assessment that President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq is very unpopular. But to assume that it's primarily the bungled management of the war and not the war itself that irks people is dicey. Most recent polls indicate that a majority of those questioned think that it was wrong to start the war in the first place and are in favor of bringing it to an end as soon as possible. Among Republicans however, McCain's assumption holds more water. Many criticize the handling but not the war itself and oppose a quick withdrawal. If McCain hopes to reach out to this voter group, his strategy might work. But it comes at the risk of alienating independent voters which he also needs for a chance to win in the general election against Obama. And whether non-Republican voters appreciate McCain's paternalistic offer to "educate" Obama is also questionable. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 26.05.2008 |
|
||||||||
| This story isn't going away fast. On Friday Hillary Clinton - mentioning the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy - made a controversial argument why she believes a long Democratic campaign won't hurt party unity. Today, three days later, what Clinton said or meant, or could have said or meant, and whether her remark had anything to do with Barack Obama or not is still a dominant media topic. You can find my take on Clinton's comment here. But now the American media as well as the Clinton and Obama campaigns have moved to the next stage of the news cycle. Having discussed the issue at length, it's time for the blame game. Who's fault is it that the story is still alive? At this phase of the news cycle, the surrogates take over. (While Hillary Clinton in a piece in the New York Daily News tries to explain what she really meant, she doesn't point a finger.) That's Howard Wolfson's and Terry McAuliffe's job. Wolfson, Clinton's communications director, called the Obama camp's reaction to Clinton's statement an attack and inflammatory. McAuliffe, Clinton's campaign chairman, accused the Obama team of keeping the story going over the weekend. McAuliffe was probably alluding to an e-mail sent out by the Obama campaign on Saturday highlighting Keith Olbermann's blistering comment about Clinton's remark. When asked about it, Obama senior strategist David Axelrod dogded the question. So is the Obama campaign stoking the fire? Hardly. The campaign's rebuttal after Clinton's statement on Friday was in line and its wording didn't fan the flames. To send out the Olbermann transcript points more in that direction. But if one wanted to incite the issue, there sure are better ways than to send out the manuscript of Olbermann's televisual rage to reporters. Every journalist who has anything to do with campaign coverage has seen or read it before. So what's next? Well, Obama, Clinton, their surrogates and the media have dissected the remark itself, its historical and current context. Now that we also had a go at the blame game, I would think enough is enough. But who am I to say? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 25.05.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Wow. Just yesterday I lauded the U.S. media's coverage of McCain's health records. Today, in my estimation, many American outlets get the controversy over Hillary Clinton's remark about Robert F. Kennedy wrong. This is what Clinton said in an interview with a South Dakota paper when asked about whether the long race could hurt the Democratic party: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it." Sure, to bring up RFK's assassination at a time when the Kennedy family is dealing with a serious healh issue is insensitive and in bad taste. And true, any talk about assassination in conjunction with American presidential elections understandably is dangerous territory, especially when there have been concerns about the safety of her Democratic opponent, Barack Obama. But that still doesn't justify what many outlets made of her remarks, which by the way she had stated before. Let's look at the facts: First, Clinton' s answer was in response to a question whether the drawn out campaign could damage party unity and not – as was widely reported – a reponse to a question why she was staying in the race. Second, she didn't mention Barack Obama by name at all in her answer. Third, the RFK remark made up only half of her argument why party unity was not hurt by a long campaign in the past. The other half consisted of a reference to her husband's campaign in 1992. So in essence, Hillary Clinton said – in a stupid way - that Democratic primaries have gone into June before and it didn't damage the party. Of course everyone is free to interpret what Clinton really meant or insinuated like Bob Cesca of the Huffington Post or Keith Olbermann. But if a one really believes or fears that Hillary Clinton is somehow hoping for a climactic event - such as an assassination - that could win her the nomination after all, one should get her to say exactly that in an interview. And if one really considers her remark as part of a pernicious plan to steal the nomination and invoke fears about Obama's safety, there is an easy way to spoil those efforts: Don't write about it. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 24.05.2008 |
|
||||||||
| -Cholesterol Level: 192 -Resting Pulse Rate: 88 per minute -Weight: 163 pounds (6 pounds less than last year) -Blood Pressure: 122/78 -Four malignant melanomas removed since 1993 -Some basal cell and squamous cell cancers removed -Small kidney stones and benign cysts in both kidneys -Four bladder stones removed by laser in 2001 -Benign enlarged prostate tissue removed in 2001 This, of course, is John McCain's health status in a nutshell. To get more, a lot more, click here or here. There has been much media focus on the timing of the health facts release and of the limitations set by the campaign. But what strikes me the most is the sheer depth and detail of the candidates personal health that are made public. Probably most Americans now know a lot more about John McCain's medical status than about their own or their spouses. I know that health issues have always been an important aspect in American presidential races. And yet, as a German, I still find it fascinating how the release of very personal details of a candidate is simply part of what is required if one wants to get in the White House. What is also astonishing to me – in a positive way – is how the majority of media outlets deal with the issue. Most of the coverage is analytical, serious and fair. In Germany, this whole process is inconceivable. First, the right to privacy - even for top politicans - trumps the public's right to know. Second, an important part of the media, the tabloids, would sensationalize the issue and dig merely for juicy details. My guess is that this is true for most other countries as well. If you know of countries that are closer to the U.S. model, I'd be interested to find out about it. So which model is better? Hard to say. Probably most people wouldn't want the world to know their entire medical history. And is it really necessary and helpful to publicize how many bladder stones were removed at what time and by which method? On the other hand, most people also don't run for the highest office in the country. If you want the responsibilty to be president, chancellor or prime minister, I think it is fair that the people you want to govern know in advance whether you're fit for the office. If that requires listing every single bladder stone is another issue. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 23.05.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Let's hope that Barack Obama and John McCain have a better sense for selecting running mates and cabinet positions than for picking pastors they associate themselves with. Usually what one hopes to gain from religious leaders is spiritual or moral support and guidance on how to deal with life's difficult issues. For some reason, this doesn't seem to work out with Obama's and McCain's pastoral affiliations. Instead of providing support and guidance, they mainly cause trouble for their prominent followers. While Obama had one problem pastor, McCain bests him with two. One of them, John Hagee, has stated that God sent Adolph Hitler to help the Jews reach the promised land. He also characterized the Catholic Church as a "great whore," a remark for which he apologized later. The other pastor, Rod Parsley, according to ABC News, has called Islam "the mouthpiece of a conspiracy of spiritual evil," and an "anti-Christ religion that intends through violence to conquer the world." After the remarks received a lot of media attention, McCain distanced himself from Parsley and rejected Hagee's endorsement. To be sure, as McCain was quick to point out, Hagee and Parsley were not his pastors and he didn't belong to their churches. But McCain accepted Hagee's endorsement in February at a time when the teleevangelist's statements about Catholicism were already causing ripples. As for Parsley, McCain didn't seek his endorsement. But, as Tim pointed out earlier, applying McCain's own flawed logic of association ties him to Parsley even though he never officially supported his positions. It is understandable that McCain who has had difficulties with Christian Conservatives wants to bolster his credentials with this important voting block through the support of prominent preachers who represent that group. It was also understandable that Obama didn't want to cut his ties with a prominent preacher in the African-American community. However, this attitude is very shortsighted. Over the duration of a long campaign, every potentially controversial statement or affiliation will be vetted either by the opposite side or by the media. Obama and McCain would be prudent to do some serious vetting themselves. Better to fess up about a problem early on and steer the process than do damage control later. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 22.05.2008 |
|
||||||||
| It was that time again: The presidential candidates filed their monthly fundraising statements with the Federal Election Commission. And again, no surprise. In April, Barack Obama easily beat his two competitors in the money race raking in $31 million. So let's look at a more interesting aspect of that race. Foreigners are by law barred from donating money to federal, local, and state elections in the U.S. It is, however, possible for foreign companies to contribute to political causes through Political Action Committees (PAC) set up by their American subsidiaries. And some international corporations are doing just that. According to Opensecrets.org, one of the best political money tracking sites, foreign-connected PACs in the current election cycle so far have contributed roughly $7.3 million to Democrats and Republicans, with both parties basically splitting the money. With almost $6.7 million, the overwhelming majority of donations stem from companies headquartered in Europe. Of those, most are based in Britain ($2.4 million) and Germany ($871,000). Among those listed are well known firms such as Deutsche Bank, SAP, GlaxoSmithKline and Rolls-Royce, but also lesser known companies such as Lehigh Cement or Kennecott Holdings. According to Opensecrets.org, the largest contribution from a German headquartered corporation came from T-Mobile USA with $220,000, the largest contribution from a British headquartered company came from GlaxoSmithKline with $478,000. By the way, most of the money doesn't go towards presidential but to state and congressional candidates. What do foreign-connected PACs hope to gain from their donations? The same as domestic PACs: access and influence to candidates. So the big question is: Why aren't more foreign companies with business interests in the U.S. pouring money into the campaigns? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 21.05.2008 |
|
||||||||
| It looks like the question whether the U.S. should engage or isolate hostile states is here to stay. First it was Iran, now it's Cuba. John McCain attacked Barack Obama for stating that he would negotiate with the Cuban government if necessary. McCain vowed to keep the American trade embargo in place, if elected. Obama fired back that McCain was merely continuing President George W. Bush's failed policy. Who's right? Probably both candidates would say that their goal is to topple the Castro-led regime and to establish a democratic Cuba with free and fair elections. The U.S. trade embargo has been in effect now for almost 50 years. During that time no negotiations between a U.S. president and Fidel, or now Raul, Castro took place. In essence, John McCain's current stance toward Cuba has been carried out for almost five decades. The result? The Castro clan still rules the island, democracy is still absent, as are freedom of the press and other basic human rights. So Barack Obama is correct that the policy of economic embargo and political isolation has failed to achieve its intended goal. What he conveniently left out is that it's not all George W. Bush's fault, but that this stance has been a pillar of American foreign policy for close to 50 years regardless whether a Democrat or Republican was in the White House. What's more, if Obama believes that this policy has failed, one would think he would reverse the course. But all that he has said on the issue until now is that he would allow Cuban-Americans to send money and visit relatives, and that he would be willing to meet with Cuba's leaders. Letting people wire money and visit Cuba is a far cry from lifting the economic embargo. Today, President Bush announced that he would allow Cuban-Americans to mail cell phones to relatives. It seems like Obama – despite his rhetoric – may be continuing Bush's Cuba policy after all. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 19.05.2008 |
|
||||||||
| What a shame: Venezulean President Hugo Chavez - always good for outrageous oratory - chose the high road in an interview with a group of American journalists by declining to take a position on the U.S. presidential election. He ventured only so far as to say that he has a preference. That leaves the world guessing. Does Chavez favor Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John McCain? But would that be Chavez-style? My hunch is that Hugo Chavez (click here for a collection of the best Chavez quotes) is a secret admirer of Ron Paul, who despite John McCain's insurmountable lead still hasn't officially ended his campaign. Paul's strict anti-interventionist/isolationist foreign policy agenda, his opposition to NAFTA as well as his tendency towards rhetorical outbursts could have won over Chavez' heart. Another outspoken orator of our time also hasn't publicly endorsed a candidate, at least not to my knowledge. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is keeping his cards close to his chest. He probably wants to make his preference known when it will have the biggest impact, which is close to the election. Or maybe he is just too busy. He hasn't gotten around to posting any new entries in his blog since December 2007. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 16.05.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Barack Obama is an inspiration – to the Bavarian Social Democratic Party (SPD). The Social Democrats want to apply Obama's successful method of online fundraising to the state election in Bavaria this fall, German news agency ddp reported. According to ddp, Parlamentarian Thomas Beyer said during a party delegation visit to Washington the SPD hopes to raise a large number of small donations through an internet campaign like Obama did in the primary campaign. The Alpine states' Social Democrats also hope to increase the identification of donors with the party. The Bavarian SPD needs all the help it can get. In all state elections since the founding of Bavaria as a German state in 1945, the SPD was the strongest party only once – in 1950. The last time an SPD governor (Ministerpräsident) ruled Bavaria was in 1957. In the last election in 2003, the Social Democrats received 20 percent of the vote, the Christian Social Party (CSU), which has been ruling non-stop since 1957, scored 61 percent of the vote. So there is room for improvement and copying Obama's internet fundraising success may just be applicable to Bavaria's SPD. However, looking at the Social Democrats dismal election record in this state, it seems to me the Bavarian Social Democrats may have missed the more important lesson from Obama's success: You need an inspiring candidate to have a chance of winning. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 15.05.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Should the U.S. negotiate with unsavory regimes, terrorist organizations or autocratic rulers? President George W. Bush used his visit to Jerusalem to mark Israel's 60th anniversary to talk about this politically charged topic. "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," he said. "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ""Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided."" We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history." Bush's remark was generally interpreted as a slap in the face for Democratic candidate Barack Obama who had stated that he would negotiate with Iran. As a German, I am sensitive to Nazi comparisons. Actually, I generally think that Nazi analogies are made far too often and far to easily which tends to minimize the holocaust. What's more, most comparisons between Hitler and other political figures are ahistorical and don't work. That goes for Bush's remark as well. It is so unspecific and vague that it defeats the intended purpose of warning the public about the perceived or real dangers of appeasement. What does President Bush mean when he warns of negotiating with terrorists and radicals? In the 1980's and 1990's, most people would have classified the PLO and Sinn Fein as radical organizations to say the least. That didn't prevent the U.S. from negotiating with them. Most people would have considered the Communist Party in the Soviet Union a radical entity. That didn't prevent the U.S. from negotiating with its leaders. Most people today would consider North Korea's dictatorial dynasty a radical regime. That doesn't prevent the U.S. from negotiating with it. If President Bush wanted to say that Obama's approach to directly negotiate with the Iranian regime is wrong and dangerous because of repeated statements by its president to wipe Israel off the map, he should do just that. To merely lump the words radicals, terrorists, Nazis, Poland, Hitler and appeasement together undermines a serious discussion of the issue. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 14.05.2008 |
|
||||||||
| In an interesting editorial for the German business daily Financial Times Deutschland, Wolfgang Münchau argues that Europeans would fare better with Republican John McCain as President than with his Democratic rivals. Headlined "McCain for President", Münchau writes that, as usual with U.S. presidential elections, Germans and other Europeans are hoping for a Democratic victory. "We dream of a Kennedy and are disappointed when we end up with a Nixon, Reagan, or Bush…And we celebrate every time when the Americans elect a Clinton, Gore, or Obama because their politics most closely reflect our nebulous European sentiments." Münchau astutely points out that Germans and Europeans on a whole often underestimated the larger trends in American politics, such as the conservative revolution. And he says they are doing it again by underestimating the current trend of American protectionism. (which for an export-driven Germany spells bad news.) Of all the candidates, no one symbolizes the trend toward protectionsim more than Barack Obama, writes Münchau with reference to Obama's "Invest in America" policy. According to Münchau, the presumptive Democratic candidate's "Fair Trade" policy will lead to restrictions on global trade, but it will be cloaked under the banner social justice for his clientele. Adding to his list why Obama is bad for Europe, Münchau says that Obama is a mostly reactive politician and not a policy wonk. For those reasons, Münchau thinks Europeans would be crazy if they wished for a President Obama. He points out that - contrary to Obama - until now McCain has clearly supported free trade, even though he is generally not very interested in economic issues. For Münchau, Hillary Clinton is also preferable to Obama since her economic policies probably would be pretty much in line with her husband's, which he calls a big exception among Democrats. Is Münchau right? Should Europeans be afraid of a protectionist America under an Obama administration and thus wish for a President McCain? While it is true that both Obama and Clinton have struck a protectionist tone in their campaigns while McCain has not, we all know that campaign rhetoric doesn't always translate into political action. Secondly, can a single country - even a superpower such as the U.S. - in a globalized economy pull up the drawbridge on world trade without negative consequences for its own people? Not really. And thirdly, Münchau doesn't really sound all that convinced about McCain himself. In Münchau's entire editorial, McCain is mentioned but four times. Let's hope that there are more reasons to support a candidate than because he is the least worst alternative. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 13.05.2008 |
|
||||||||
| In a move that will be welcomed by Europeans and especially by environmentally conscious Germans, John McCain vowed to take action against global warming and distanced himself from President George Bush. In a speech at the Oregon plant of Danish wind turbine producer Vestas, he pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 60 percent by 2050 and to make the U.S. the leader in the fight against global warming. In a jab at the current administration's reluctance to take climate change serious and agree to the Kyoto protocol McCain said: "I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the United States bears. I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges. I will not accept the same dead-end of failed diplomacy that claimed Kyoto." He also vowed to push China and India to agree to international solutions to curb greenhouse gases. But he stressed - again distancing himself form President Bush -that the United States has an obligation to act even if efforts to include China and India in an international settlement fail. Reactions to his proposal from experts were mixed at best. Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly lauds McCain for facing the issue, but calls his cap-and-trade-solution "pretty weak tea." Bradford Plummer of the New Republic writes that Obama's stance on the issue is a lot stronger. The environmental organization Sierra Club went even further and in a press release called McCain's proposal bound to fail. Never mind the actual merits of his plan, which are hard for non-experts to analyse. On a psychological level, McCain's speech will have an impact. To Europeans, his proposal signals that the presumed Republican candidate is part of the political mainstream on this important global issue. Bush's long resistance to even acknowledge that there might be a problem convinced many European that his administration was on the fringe bordering on kooky where environmental issues are concerned. For the conservative wing of the Republican party, it will reinforce the conviction that McCain is too moderate. Larry Kudlow in the National Review probably speaks for many conservatives by calling the plan a "huge government command-and-control operation that taxes, spends, and regulates on a grand scale." So the key question is: Will McCain's environmental position win him enough independent and moderate votes to offset losses from conservative Republicans? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 12.05.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Whoever said that politicians never learn their lessons? After Barack Obama's enduring trials and tribulations due to his reluctance to cut himself loose from pastor Jeremiah Wright, all candidates are now trying to sever ties swiftly with controversial aides and staff. As we wrote earlier, an Obama advsior who had met with Hamas has resigned. Now it was John McCain's turn. After Newsweek revealed that Doug Goodyear, the organizer of the Republican convention and a fellow Arizonan, had lobbied for Burma's military junta through his company, DCI, the McCain campaign wasted no time. Goodyear resigned shortly after the story broke. In a mail to Politico, Goodyear said it was his decision and the right thing to do. He is definitely correct on the latter point. His representation of the military regime not only clashed with McCain's stark rhetoric against Burma's authoritarian ruler General Than Shwe. The horrible failure and negligence of the junta to help its people would have ensured continuous negative media coverage of McCain's choice for convention manager. Whether the first point – Goodyear's statement that it was his decision to step down – is entirely true, or whether there was a hint from the McCain team, is water under the bridge. More important is the fact that there is a learning curve in the presidential campaign 2008. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 11.05.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Earlier I wrote about the US Election 2008 Web Monitor, a project that tracks the international coverage that presidential candidates receive. Another great tool for reviewing the trends of the current campaign is PoliticalTrends.info. It tracks political blogs according to various topics and candidates. Want to know the dominant foreign policy topic of the last two weeks? If you read this blog regularly, you probably already know what it is. If not, click here and find out. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 10.05.2008 |
|
||||||||
| If you are someone who just can't get enough news and information about the campaign, there is one site you shouldn't go without: Real Clear Politics is probably the best one-stop-shop for all the latest news about the presidential election. Whether it's polls, commentary, videos or analysis, if it's worth while, you probably find it at this great aggregator portal. And if you're looking for some distraction, hey they even have a Fantasy 08 Game available. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 09.05.2008 |
|
||||||||
| There are American experts on foreign policy and the U.S. who are probably more familiar to Germans than to Americans. Marcia Pally might be one of them. She teaches at New York University, is a regular contributor to German newspapers (see the English versions here) and has just published a new book. As far as I can discern, at the moment it is only available in German under the title "Warnung vor dem Freunde: Tradition und Zukunft amerikanischer Außenpolitik" which translates: "Beware of the friend: Tradition and future of American Foreign Policy". However, the translation offered on Pally's home page sounds quite different: "The Religion, Values, and Foreign Policy of the Country with the Biggest Guns". Why the pun on "Beware of the dog" for the German book title? Well, according to a recent BBC poll, Germans overwhelmingly have a negative view of U.S. influence in the world. The publishers surely are aware of this perception and hope to capitalize on it. They are probably right. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 08.05.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Hillary Clinton's campaign is over. At least that was the verdict of international and U.S. media right after the North Carolina and Indiana primaries on Tuesday. Of course the media is not always right. So it is perfectly fine that Senator Clinton vowed to press on with her campaign. However, the way she has chosen to justify it smacks of bitterness to many commentators. In an interview with USA Today she cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me." "This won't go over well at all" writes Kyle E. More in Comments from Left Field: "In the end, this is not what any of us needs. It's not what Clinton needs as, even if she is holding hope of winning the nomination, she can hardly be helped by a racially charged gaffe. It's not what Obama needs, as I've outlined in my post linked above. We know there are regional struggles with white voters he has ahead of him, but he needs a comment like this like he needs a baseball bat to the head. And it's not what the party needs, not at a time when the focus should be on repairing unity and gearing up for the fight against McCain." "How bad was Clinton's remark", asks Isaac Chotiner at The Plank. His answer is that she should be able to state her opinion. But, he adds, she is saying these things about the Democratic candidate and not in a vacuum. "And if she really cares about electing a Democrat in November, she probably should not be saying such things." The Roland Report points out that in order to win the election the candidates need to build a broad coalition instead of focusing on narrow constituencies. With her remarks about hard-working white Americans Hillary Clinton alienated many in the Democratic Party. Unnecessarily so. It won't bring her any closer to the nomination. In fact it will only increase the pressure on her to quit the campaign. Until that happens, John McCain and the Republicans can relax and enjoy. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 07.05.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Now we know. Hillary Clinton lost decisively in North Carolina and barely won in Indiana. For the international media the case is clear. Clinton is out, Obama will be the nominee. Whether its Germany's Die Welt headlining "Hillary Clinton's ultimate defeat", Austria's Tirol Online leading with "Hillary Clinton's defeat is definite" or Britan's Daily Telegraph writing "Barack Obama tightens his grip as Hillary Clinton falters": Most commentators agree that the Democratic race is all but decided. Up until the primaries Obama has been hammered by the press about his relationship with his controversial former pastor. The fact that he won North Carolina handily and lost Indiana by a slim margin shows political stamina and resilience. "Bittergate" and his dealings with Jeremiah Wright were the first serious threats for his candidacy. In the end, he came out pretty much unblemished. Hillary Clinton on the other hand didn't profit from Obama's recent political troubles. One wonders how she would have fared without them. Despite her poor showing, she vows to stay in the race. Why? A German paper wrote "Now Hillary needs a miracle". Perhaps that really is her only rationale for continuing with her campaign. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 06.05.2008 |
|
||||||||
| When foreign policy becomes a topic in the presidential campaign, candidates talk mainly about Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and sometimes China. One country is strangely absent in the debates and in media coverage: Russia. As the world's largest gas exporter and second largest oil exporter the country plays a leading role in the energy market. With energy prices soaring and a new Russian president taking office one would think that the candidates policies toward Russia would be an important topic in this election. They aren't. So far the candidates haven't really focused their attention on Russia, so it is no wonder that their stance toward it is defined largely by a few strong one- liners. John McCain famously quipped: "I looked into his eyes and saw three letters: a K, a G and a B", refering of course to President Bush's well known remark that he saw President Putin's soul. Hillary Clinton, refering to the same remark, proclaimed that Putin doesn't have a soul. Only Barack Obama so far hasn't come up with a memorable one-liner on the subject. But beyond bashing Bush and Putin and brief comments on issues such as the missile defense shield and the expansion of NATO the candidates have not laid out a Russia strategy. So it was up to the Moscow Times to try and paint a broader picture of how the candidates view Russia. To do that the paper interviewed the Russia policy advisers for John McCain and Barack Obama. And yes, they have more to say than one-liners. You can find the article here. For a brief summary of the candidates positions toward Russia you may also want to go to the Council on Foreign Relations website. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 04.05.2008 |
|
||||||||
| There wasn't really anything new to be learned from Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's appearance on different Sunday talk shows on U.S. televison. From a foreign policy perspective the most interesting aspect was a virtual exchange about Clinton's recent comments that as President she would obliterate Iran if that country launched a nuclear attack against Israel. When asked about it Obama critized his opponent for using the language of George Bush and engaging in saber rattling. When confronted with Obama's statement Clinton defended her remarks. Obama went on to say that his goal was to not let Iran acquire nuclear weapons. But that goal is not the issue. Everyone agrees that it's better to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons in the first place than to deal with the consequences later. The issue is how to achieve that goal. Unfortunately, on that most important aspect Obama remained rather vague, mentioning three points. He said he wants to engage the international community. He stated that he wants to apply a carrots and stick approach. And he again called for direct talks with the Iranians. The first and second points are not new. In fact, the international community has been engaged with Iran both through the IAEA, the group of the UN security council members and Germany and the EU. The sticks and carrots approach has been discussed for a long time as well and is actually making progress. The Europeans and especially the Germans have fulfilled their committment and increased the economic sanctions against Iran. (But China has to some extent stepped in and taken over the business the Europeans left behind.) So the only point really worth discussing is the suggestion of direct talks. But again, the Europeans have held and are still open to direct talks with Iran. The question is: What do you talk about with Iran that has not been adressed within the other frameworks mentioned above? What could the U.S. offer through direct talks that could make Iran rethink its strategy? Would lifting the sanctions and restoring diplomatic relations be enough to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions? Which brings us to the core question for the presidential candidates: What would you do if Iran has decided that it in fact wants to continue its nuclear program and when do we know that this is the case? |
||||||||
|
||||||||